# pedigree dogs exposed 2



## sianrees1979

to be aired monday 27th febuary 9pm bbc4

Dog World - 07 PDE2


----------



## Spellweaver

Dear me - hardly prime time and prime channel! :001_rolleyes: Hiding it away like this makes it look as if the BBC are regretting commissioning the _Carry on Jemima_ farce.


----------



## simplysardonic

Spellweaver said:


> Dear me - hardly prime time and prime channel! :001_rolleyes: Hiding it away like this makes it look as if the BBC are regretting commissioning the _Carry on Jemima_ farce.


hahaha, Carry On Jemima, love it


----------



## Spellweaver

simplysardonic said:


> hahaha, Carry On Jemima, love it


Heh heh - it describes it so well, doesn't it? :lol: I'd love to take credit for it, but a friend came up with it on the internet and I asked permission to steal it to use on here!


----------



## Snoringbear

Spellweaver said:


> Dear me - hardly prime time and prime channel! :001_rolleyes: Hiding it away like this makes it look as if the BBC are regretting commissioning the _Carry on Jemima_ farce.


Ironically, it's a lot like Crufts being relegated to More4.


----------



## Spellweaver

Snoringbear said:


> Ironically, it's a lot like Crufts being relegated to More4.


Not really - the KC were forced by the BBC's hypocrisy to look elsewhere, and have _chosen_ to go with More4 and live streaming for the last couple of years - and it has been much better coverage than the hour a day on BBC1. The BBC are committed to screening _Carry on Jemima_ - but hiding it away on an obscure channel and, what is even more incredible, scheduling it in direct conflict with such a well-established series as Whitechapel, makes you wonder why they don't just cancel it altogether.


----------



## shetlandlover

I am quite looking forward to sitting home and watching crufts on More4 this year, I can't really go this year. But I do get excited when I hear the music they used for Crufts last year.


----------



## sianrees1979

shetlandlover said:


> I am quite looking forward to sitting home and watching crufts on More4 this year, I can't really go this year. But I do get excited when I hear the music they used for Crufts last year.


im also looking forward to watching crufts, i will also watch pde2 just to see what crap they have on it


----------



## shetlandlover

sianrees1979 said:


> im also looking forward to watching crufts, i will also watch pde2 just to see what crap they have on it


I will only be watching to see if by magic it turns into a fair, truthful program.:tongue_smilie:

Crufts on the other hand, I will be watching purely for pleasure!


----------



## Blitz

thanks for that. I have just put it on record and the program before it is Ice Dogs for anyone interested.


----------



## L/C

Spellweaver said:


> Dear me - hardly prime time and prime channel! :001_rolleyes: Hiding it away like this makes it look as if the BBC are regretting commissioning the _Carry on Jemima_ farce.


I know this is going to look like I'm trying to pick a fight after the last thread and I'm really not, but Monday 9pm is about as primetime you can get - it's the spot where most channels will run their biggest shows. BBC4 is also the natural home for this sort of show - yes it's not as big as BBC2 but it really doesn't mean that the BBC don't have any confidence in it. If they wanted to bury it then it would have aired either late night (11pm onwards) or when the channel first starts broadcasting at 7pm.


----------



## vet-2-b

i cant wait till crufts i would love to go this year  i just think that to be an effective documentry they should show the people that are doing something and the good breeders that despite what the show portrays are out  also if you read dogs today its got a whole 3 pages on it and surprisingly is very pro PDE2 lol i do think it was good to show that just because a dog is KC reg or are from a KC breeder it does not mean the dog is healthy or that the breeder has the pups intrest at heart .


----------



## Happy Paws2

Snoringbear said:


> Ironically, it's a lot like Crufts being relegated to More4.


It's the only channel that will cover it at the moment.


----------



## Tapir

why judge it before you have even watched it? The write up sounds rather positive, like it will show what improvements have been made. I will be watching with interest and an open mind, as well as going to Crufts. No I'm not a moron who will be 'brainwashed' by PDE and PDE2 but have my own mind and will be interested to see the views expressed on it.


----------



## Spellweaver

Happy Paws said:


> It's the only channel that will cover it at the moment.


That's just not true though, is it? The BBC wanted to show Crufts the following year after _Carry on Jemima 1_, but didn't want to give coverage to certain breeds - and the KC told them where to get off in no uncertain terms!


----------



## Spellweaver

Tapir said:


> why judge it before you have even watched it? The write up sounds rather positive, like it will show what improvements have been made. I will be watching with interest and an open mind, as well as going to Crufts. No I'm not a moron who will be 'brainwashed' by PDE and PDE2 but have my own mind and will be interested to see the views expressed on it.


Oh, I'll be watching it, but as for judging it before I've seen it - well as I said on the other thread, I don't think anyone actually needs to watch it to know what the program will be like. You watch with all the open mind you want to, but after the program I bet you have seen the following:

It will consist of a resume of all the "wrongs" Jemima "exposed" in Carry On Jemima 1, plus a resume of all the good things the KC has done over the last few years with JH taking the credit for it all. There will be a piece about how she can't understand why she has been vilified by all of the dog world except for her few cronies for merely "telling the truth". Then there will be some footage of one or two pedigree dogs who are not as healthy as they could be - but it won't say that unhealthy pedigrees are few and far between. Instead, it will leave viewers with the impression that despite everything Jemima has "made" the KC do, ALL pedigree dogs are still this unhealthy. Oh, and somewhere in there it will infer that she asked the KC to take part in the program but they refused, and will try to twist it to seem as though they had something to hide.


----------



## Spellweaver

L/C said:


> I know this is going to look like I'm trying to pick a fight after the last thread and I'm really not, but Monday 9pm is about as primetime you can get - it's the spot where most channels will run their biggest shows. BBC4 is also the natural home for this sort of show - yes it's not as big as BBC2 but it really doesn't mean that the BBC don't have any confidence in it. If they wanted to bury it then it would have aired either late night (11pm onwards) or when the channel first starts broadcasting at 7pm.


Yeah, right - but which ever way you look at it, _Carry on Jemima_ being aired on a Monday night on BBC4, at the same time as an established series with huge viewing figures on ITV, is not quite the prime time spot on BBC1 that they gave the original, is it?


----------



## Malmum

I too am looking forward to PDE2 and I hope it will feature breeders and their views too - that's if they have more to say this time than f*ck off to the camera!!!


----------



## Happy Paws2

Spellweaver said:


> *That's just not true though, is it? * The BBC wanted to show Crufts the following year after _Carry on Jemima 1_, but didn't want to give coverage to certain breeds - and the KC told them where to get off in no uncertain terms!


*No need to be nasty is there.*

I thought the BBC weren't going to cover Crufts again until 2013, I'll bow to superior knowledge if I'm wrong.


----------



## 5rivers79

Why are some of you making fun of the reporter? The documentary hasnt even been on yet but its being judged?


----------



## Malmum

Exactly five  the same as the negative response from breeders on the original prog while it was being made. Even before it was aired they were acting aggressively - why was that? It's almost as if they had something to hide!


----------



## Spellweaver

Spellweaver said:


> That's just not true though, is it? The BBC wanted to show Crufts the following year after _Carry on Jemima 1_, but didn't want to give coverage to certain breeds - and the KC told them where to get off in no uncertain terms!





Happy Paws said:


> *No need to be nasty is there.*
> 
> I thought the BBC weren't going to cover Crufts again until 2013, I'll bow to superior knowledge if I'm wrong.


Sorry - you have totally confused me now. Perhaps you would care to point out just where I've been nasty to you in my above post?    I'm not the one doing the sarcastic roll eyes :crazy: You've disappointed me a bit here Happy Paws - I didn't have you down as one of the kinds of posters who start on a personal attack just because someone disagrees with you.

ETA - here is the link to support the facts:

_12th December 2008

Today the Kennel Club confirmed that it and the BBC will be unable to continue working together in 2009 for the broadcast of the world's greatest celebration of dogs, Crufts, which in previous years has attracted over 14 million viewers in the UK and additional audiences worldwide. This position was reached after the Kennel Club regrettably had to refuse to comply with the unreasonable demands insisted on by the BBC, to exclude certain breeds of dog from the group competition at the show.

Ronnie Irving, Kennel Club Chairman, said "I am very sorry that BBC audiences around the world will not be able to join us in celebrating all dogs in 2009 and to see the remarkable diversity of dogs and activities on show at Crufts; ranging from the show classes to agility displays, the Friends for Life competition and the unsung heroes who take part in breed rescue.

"However, we have been forced to reject the insupportable conditions imposed by the BBC, who have told us they will only televise the show in 2009 if certain breeds are excluded from participating. We are unable to agree to these demands, as it would compromise both contractual obligations and our general responsibility to dog exhibitors and our audience and we believe it would be inappropriate and counterproductive to exclude any recognised breed from Crufts.

"We are obviously disappointed and confused with this outcome as we hoped the broadcast would have supported our focus on health and welfare issues, given advice about caring for and training dogs and showcased the charitable work that we support. This TV exposure would have benefited all dogs and given viewers a well-rounded picture of what the new Crufts in 2009 is all about."
_

http://www.crufts.org.uk/news/crufts-2009-goes-without-bbc


----------



## Spellweaver

5rivers79 said:


> Why are some of you making fun of the reporter? The documentary hasnt even been on yet but its being judged?


Her name is mud throughout the dog world, except for her few cronies and the odd one or two people and organisations who are using her to further their own agendas against pedigree dogs and the KC.


----------



## Spellweaver

Malmum said:


> Exactly five  the same as the negative response from breeders on the original prog while it was being made. Even before it was aired they were acting aggressively - why was that? It's almost as if they had something to hide!


I think most posters on here have expressed their opinions about this woman and her farces many times. Put up a thread about it and you can almost guarantee which posters are going to be in the "pro JH" camp, and which posters are going to be in the "anti JH" camp. One thing I have noticed over the last couple of years though is that the "anti-JH" camp is growing, while the numbers who still think JH is all that is wonderful are shrinking fast. And, to get back to the original post - perhaps the shrinking number of followers is one reason that _Carry on Jemima_ no longer warrants prime time BBC1 coverage.


----------



## MrRustyRead

I think it's unfair of her to only have a few breeds on her hit list and then the others she knows nothing about. Shows biased already


----------



## Tapir

Spellweaver said:


> Her name is mud throughout the dog world, except for her few cronies and the odd one or two people and organisations who are using her to further their own agendas against pedigree dogs and the KC.


I fall into none of those catagories above but I still want to hear what she has to say. I am neither for or against JH, but think that she is passionate about what she does. The fact is, if PDE hadn't been done the KC wouldn't have made changes for the better. Don't just assume that anyone who listens to what JH has to say is a fool, or is anti KC. Has it not crossed your mind that she might have something good to say, or useful? Or that people may want to watch just to hear that side of the story?



> You've disappointed me a bit here Happy Paws - I didn't have you down as one of the kinds of posters who start on a personal attack just because someone disagrees with you.


I don't think it's right that you should attack people who differ to _your_ oppinion. You dislike JH and what she does, but it seems that it is okay for you to be rude to people who do support her by calling them her cronies and accusing them of using her to further their own agenda's against the KC.

Personally, I think she should have done the first one better, less biased and featured more BYB rather than KC, and mentioned more about the good KC breeders.
HOWEVER, it is fantastic that the faults of the KC were bought to light - they needed to be addressed and thankfully they are. The KC has made changes for the better and that can only be a good thing. The public know more about it now, and I am happy that changes to breed standards have been made. The welfare of dogs is the issue at heart, not the popularity of the KC vs JH


----------



## simplysardonic

5rivers79 said:


> Why are some of you making fun of the reporter? The documentary hasnt even been on yet but its being judged?


I thought the show was sensationalist. Yes _some_ good may have come exposing _some_ breeding practices but it was very one sided & made it look like all breeders were like this
I read some of her articles in old copies of DT the last week (with an open mind as I've never read her before), as I spent a lot of time in the vet's waiting room, & she writes like she has an axe to grind


----------



## Spellweaver

Tapir said:


> The fact is, if PDE hadn't been done the KC wouldn't have made changes for the better.


That is not a fact at all. The real fact is that the KC has been making many, many changes for many, many years - a lot of them before PDE was even conceived of. It's easy enough to check if you really want to find out the truth - all you have to do is look on the KC site and see all that they have done over the years.



Tapir said:


> Has it not crossed your mind that she might have something good to say, or useful?


:lol: this is JH we're talking about, right? The woman who thinks and said on her program that bergamascos look that way because of what man has done to them? The woman who has lied about the health and welfare of a shar pei in a house of commons AGPAW meeting? And that's before we start on all the untruths in the program, all the gutter-press tactics she used such as comparing the KC to Nazis. And you question why most of the dog world (not just me, by any means) thinks that she cannot possibly have anything useful to say?



Tapir said:


> I don't think it's right that you should attack people who differ to _your_ oppinion.


I don't think it is right that you pretend I am attacking anyone just because I have disagreed with someone's opinion. I have attacked no poster on this forum and I strongly object to you saying that I have. I have, however, disagreed with some opinions. Disagreeing with some opinions, agreeing with others, is what a forum is all about.



Tapir said:


> Personally, I think she should have done the first one better, less biased and featured more BYB rather than KC, and mentioned more about the good KC breeders.


If she had done she would have had the whole of the dog world behind her. But she didn't. So she hasn't. End of story.


----------



## shetlandlover

Pedigree dogs exposed 1 was based on false information and sensationalist media not about truth. Some of the dogs in the program were not even KC registered, some where filmed without their owners consent, there was pure sensationalist rants like comparing the kennel club to Nazi's and asking a member of the kennel club if he would mate with his daughter. 

The kennel club has been working with breed clubs long before JH came along to try and get rid of issues in breeds. What was lacked in the first pedigree dogs exposed was information on finding a good KC breeder, it left everyone with the impression that all KC registered dogs and breeders were bad and sick.

Back yard breeders who breed for extreme looks i/e more wrinkles, merle ect for more money, was left out. Puppy farmers were left out, fair discussion was left out.

Why? Because that's not what sells. 

If you watched a film in the cinema and it was crap would you presume the sequel was crap? Yes, you wouldn't go and watch the second. This is no different except its playing on peoples emotions.


----------



## pickle

vet-2-b said:


> i cant wait till crufts i would love to go this year  i just think that to be an effective documentry they should show the people that are doing something and the good breeders that despite what the show portrays are out  *also if you read dogs today its got a whole 3 pages on it [/B]and surprisingly is very pro PDE2 lol i do think it was good to show that just because a dog is KC reg or are from a KC breeder it does not mean the dog is healthy or that the breeder has the pups intrest at heart .*


*

You are surprised that Dogs Today was pro PDE2? Really? Considering Beverley Cuddy was very supportive of PDE1, contributed to it, and is very anti the KC, the surprise would have been if she was against the programme.*


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: this is JH we're talking about, right? The woman who thinks and said on her program that bergamascos look that way because of what man has done to them?


But dogs are a certain way because of the way we have bred them to look. That's the whole point of pedigree breeding, to make dogs look a certain way either for show and breeding standards or for working function. 

I have recently changed my view after reading JH's blog and watching PDE1 again. I feel there is a lot of truth in what JH says but most of the show world don't want to hear it. Pedigree breeds are unhealthy. There is hardly a single breed that doesn't have at least 1 inherited condition associated with that breed, whether its hip dysplasia or PRA. Some breeds, like Dobermans and Cavaliers have a whole mixture of inherited issues, and the show world think this is ok? The cavalier breeder on PDE1 who let her male cavalier who was diagnosed with syringomelia sire litters AFTER the diagnosis. How can this be right?

I know a lot of improvements have been made by the KC and I still stand by the KC a lot, but I think the majority of blame lies with breed clubs (who make the breed standards) and the breeders who have bred these exaggerations and inheritied issues into their breeds. Now we do have to get out of this mess and a lot of breeders are doing well, but I think there is still a long way to go.

I think more could be done to the breed standards to make dogs less exaggerated, for example all brachycephalic breeds such as pugs and boxers should have their snouts bred out to produce normal sized noses. This would certainly improve dog welfare. But I can't imagine that happening somehow.


----------



## pickle

Let's just see in a few years time what problems these so called "designer breeds" and deliberate breed crosses have, after all aren't those who breed them doing exactly what the pedigree breeders are being accused of!!!!


----------



## Blondie

Ok, so we know and freely admit that SOME show breeders do NOT do right by their dogs re breeding etc - BUT the vast majority DO care an awful lot and PDE1 merely parked all breeders in the same light - which is what really annoyed us!! 

Unless you are a breeder who goes and educates themselves on all aspects of dog breeding and fully understand the job of breed standards, its unfair to comment on them!!! 

A breed standard is a BASIC outline of how a dog should look - lots of room for personal interpretation here - this is why breed clubs hold Seminars to break down the standard and explain in minute detail exactly why it is the way it is.

I do not claim to be an expert on all breeds, I concentrate on my own breed, obviously! I do admit there are some breeds which need to move forward and from I see and hear, most breeders/breed clubs have got their act together and things are moving. To blame the KC for it all is ludicrous and shows a lack of understanding of the KC and how it works!! 

And yes, if JH approached me to film my dogs I'd be telling her to feck off too!!


----------



## lennythecloud

Ceearott said:


> Unless you are a breeder who goes and educates themselves on all aspects of dog breeding and fully understand the job of breed standards, its unfair to comment on them!!!


You don't have to breeder in order to educate yourself on and understand breed standards, breeding and showing. In fact I think people who aren't show breeders can probably look at things more objectively.

Pedigree dogs exposed was an exposé and was thus designed to expose (the clue's in the name). I would not expect an exposé of hospitals or care homes to have a massive focus on how many do a smashing job because there isn't the time and that isn't the point of the program. At no point in PDE was the blame put on ALL breeders. It was not PDE job to promote show breeders, thats the job of the KC and they've had years of uncritical coverage of crufts to do it in.

I'm not saying PDE didn't have drawbacks but it was a massive and much needed catalyst for change. The scientific reports and every welfare and veternary organisation in the country agreed that some things were badly wrong in the way we bred and showed dogs in this country - that is undeniable. The kennel club would not have moved half as fast, if at all to implement the changes it has and I think they still have a long way to go.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

Ceearott said:


> A breed standard is a BASIC outline of how a dog should look - lots of room for personal interpretation here - this is why breed clubs hold Seminars to break down the standard and explain in minute detail exactly why it is the way it is.


doesn't that just prove that a breed standard is too complicated and should be made easier to understand. It shouldn't be open to interpretation as that means its open to exaggeration too.

ALL breed standards should be looked at very closely, made easier to understand and all exagerrations should be taken out, eg all brachy breeds should be bred with longer muzzles.


----------



## DoodlesRule

5rivers79 said:


> Why are some of you making fun of the reporter? The documentary hasnt even been on yet but its being judged?


Because people resort to childish name calling if they are unable to formulate a sensible response - attack is the best form of defence lol



Spellweaver said:


> Her name is mud throughout the dog world, except for her few cronies and the odd one or two people and organisations who are using her to further their own agendas against pedigree dogs and the KC.


Really every dog owner ? Or do you actually mean the "show world" which is the minority of dog owners so perhaps its those people and their cronies who have the agenda. (Personally I have no feelings either way on show breeders I only know one, am sure there are good and bad as there are any walk of life & my comments are just to demonstrate how you try to belittle anyone who is not firmly in your camp)



Spellweaver said:


> I think most posters on here have expressed their opinions about this woman and her farces many times. Put up a thread about it and you can almost guarantee which posters are going to be in the "pro JH" camp, and which posters are going to be in the "anti JH" camp. One thing I have noticed over the last couple of years though is that the "anti-JH" camp is growing, while the numbers who still think JH is all that is wonderful are shrinking fast. And, to get back to the original post - perhaps the shrinking number of followers is one reason that _Carry on Jemima_ no longer warrants prime time BBC1 coverage.


I am neither pro or anti and not in any "camp" I have a brain and use it - by being in a "camp" and judging something before you have read/seen is just being bigotted!

As to making a song & dance about when its on and which channel compared to the spin you tried about Crufts screening, lol you ought to be a politician


----------



## Blondie

lennythecloud said:


> You don't have to breeder in order to educate yourself on and understand breed standards, breeding and showing. In fact I think people who aren't show breeders can probably look at things more objectively.
> 
> I have yet to come across a 'pet' breeder, at least in rotts, attending a seminar to educate themselves. Yeah, books and the internet help, but nothing is as good as listening to an expert talk and have diagrams and actual dogs to see too as regards the ins and outs of breeding.
> 
> I have yet to come across a pet breeder with the intricate knowledge many show breeders have
> 
> I consider myself VERY objective when deciding on my breeding program and when critiquing my own dogs - I can name every fault they have - many pet breeders wouldnt have a clue where to start!


----------



## Blondie

SEVEN_PETS said:


> doesn't that just prove that a breed standard is too complicated and should be made easier to understand. It shouldn't be open to interpretation as that means its open to exaggeration too.
> 
> ALL breed standards should be looked at very closely, made easier to understand and all exagerrations should be taken out, eg all brachy breeds should be bred with longer muzzles.


A breed standard is not complicated at all, It takes a basic knowledge of canine structure and terminology is all. If the breed standards where simplified anymore, there'd be nothing left to write!

Its simply there as a guidleline and a breeder is expected to inform themselves of the more in-depth knowledge - you cant force people to do this, although at times I wish we could!

The KC HAVE indeed removed anything that could be interpreted as 'extreme' and I think you will find the majority of breeders concerned are indeed trying to breed out the eg. shorter muzzles. This wont happen overnight.

To list everything in a breed standard would make it pages and pages long - how many of the pet breeders are even going to look at it, never read and understand it?? I think they need to be left in the format they are already, small changes are of course more than acceptable.


----------



## Spellweaver

lennythecloud said:


> . The scientific reports and _every welfare and veternary organisation in the country _agreed that some things were badly wrong in the way we bred and showed dogs in this country - that is undeniable. The kennel club would not have moved half as fast, if at all to implement the changes it has and I think they still have a long way to go.


It certainly is deniable. Every welfare organisation did not submit to the mass hysteria - what about the Animal Health Trust, for example? They were vociferous in their support of the KC. Look at their records and see how much of their research on genetic disease the KC has funded - genetic research which h resulted in amny of the tests available today - and look at how many years (waaaay back since the 60s) the KC have been doing this. Then see how silly your statement above sounds.

It's sweeping and untrue statements like this, which you have obviously been led to believe is true, that serve to prove what the majority of us are saying - ie that the first program gave people an untrue picture of the facts.

And, btw, one of the most untrue pictures the program led everyone to believe was that the main problem in pedigree dogs stemmed from show breeders. The truth is that most show dogs are healthy. The main problem in pedigree dogs stems from ill-bred pedigrees by puppy farmers and bybs - but while ever people are arguing about the ONE organisation in the country that is actually doing something for the health and welfare of dogs (and has been doing for many years) then the real problem is going unnoticed and getting worse and worse.


----------



## Goblin

Ceearott said:


> Ok, so we know and freely admit that SOME show breeders do NOT do right by their dogs re breeding etc - BUT the vast majority DO care an awful lot and PDE1 merely parked all breeders in the same light - which is what really annoyed us!!


I can understand this annoyance however when you have a label which charges "extra" for what many people percieve as quality you will be judged by the bad, especially when it seems to be accepted. The worst from my viewpoint is enough wasn't being done to resolve this and inform the public of the issues. All very well keeping it in house and fixing it slowly if it affected only in-house but it didn't. My impression is that people felt betrayed. How many people brought a cav with syringomelia with no idea of how common it was and not being informed of the possibility? It's only with PDE that a lot of people became aware of issues such as this. Rather than information coming out after PDE all we have had is "biased", "unfair".. not "some important points were raised and we are making progress". As I've said before "KC A healthy future", would have been great if it could have been made 4 years ago. Something still tells me it couldn't have been made though at the time and not due to finances etc.

Then there's the attitude of the breeders shown in the program and since. A lot of the problem is the lack of admission of the problems and a plain "we got it wrong in some instances but are trying to resolve the issues as quickly as possible". We get the "we're fixing things" now but not "we got it wrong". This is what is needed when people feel betrayed. Instead we get facebook pages and personal attacks on JH.. Given the English tendancy to back the underdog, lets see, an established "elitist body" of people attacking an individual.. Who are most people going to support in this instance?


----------



## DoodlesRule

Spellweaver said:


> The main problem in pedigree dogs stems from ill-bred pedigrees by puppy farmers and bybs - but while ever people are arguing about the ONE organisation in the country that is actually doing something for the health and welfare of dogs (and has been doing for many years) then the real problem is going unnoticed and getting worse and worse.


Why do the KC register them then?


----------



## Spellweaver

DoodlesRule said:


> how you try to belittle anyone who is not firmly in your camp)
> 
> As to making a song & dance about when its on and which channel compared to the spin you tried about Crufts screening, lol you ought to be a politician


In all my posts on here I have answered people's opininons with arguments and opinions of my own. I have attacked no-one personally. Yet here you are, the third person on this thread who has felt the need to resort to a personal attack on me. Hmmm - and all three of you are people who disagree with my opinion. Speaks volumes does that.

Anyone who has to resort to personal attacks has lost their argument before they even begin.

Now, if you want to have a sensible grown up discussion I will debate with you until the cows come home. But I'm not playing these sorts of silly games.


----------



## Blondie

Goblin said:


> I can understand this annoyance however when you have a label which charges "extra" for what many people percieve as quality you will be judged by the bad, especially when it seems to be accepted. The worst from my viewpoint is enough wasn't being done to resolve this and inform the public of the issues. All very well keeping it in house and fixing it slowly if it affected only in-house but it didn't. My impression is that people felt betrayed. How many people brought a cav with syringomelia with no idea of how common it was and not being informed of the possibility? It's only with PDE that a lot of people became aware of issues such as this. Rather than information coming out after PDE all we have had is "biased", "unfair".. not "some important points were raised and we are making progress". As I've said before "KC A healthy future", would have been great if it could have been made 4 years ago. Something still tells me it couldn't have been made though at the time and not due to finances etc.
> 
> Then there's the attitude of the breeders shown in the program and since. A lot of the problem is the lack of admission of the problems and a plain "we got it wrong in some instances but are trying to resolve the issues as quickly as possible". We get the "we're fixing things" now but not "we got it wrong". This is what is needed when people feel betrayed. Instead we get facebook pages and personal attacks on JH.. Given the English tendancy to back the underdog, lets see, an established "elitist body" of people attacking an individual.. Who are most people going to support in this instance?


The most unhealthy and badly conformed rotties I have seen, and no doubt will continue to see in my life have been bred by BYB's and pup farmers and people who think its great to mate bitch with dog who lives just down the road.

This is the real issue!!

And TBH, we are seriously thinking about the possibility of never breeding again, the **** that can, and does, come with it, is hard to live with at times. Not that I want praise and congratulations and all that jazz, but when you get picked and poked at for simply trying to do your best, you can only take so much, everyone has a 'line', and, by god, I am nearing mine ATM!! To know that no matter how hard you try, you can still produce pups with genetic diseases and get hung drawn and quartered for it does NOT help, and does NOT encourage decent people to continue to breed.

I, for one, am sick to death of people, even now, 4 years after PDE1 telling me my dogs are 'mutant freaks', when actually, the opposite is true.

 :mad2::mad2::mad2:

The OH and I seriously wonder why we bother sometimes!


----------



## Shrap

Spellweaver said:


> Her name is mud throughout the dog world, except for her few cronies and the odd one or two people and organisations who are using her to further their own agendas against pedigree dogs and the KC.


Yes, and my evolutionary biology lecturer at university hates her as well. And he has nothing to do with dogs.


----------



## Spellweaver

DoodlesRule said:


> Why do the KC register them then?


What is the alternative? If they are not registered by the KC there will be a huge pool of unregistered pedigrees that no prospective buyer can check up on - ie their lineage, the health tests of their sire and dam, their ancestors etc. Do you think that is a better state of affairs? Put it this way, if you were a puppy buyer, which would you prefer? To be able to actually look at a register and see which puppies' ancestors have had no tests done, or to have to take the puppy farmer's word that of course all health tests have been done but they're not registered because the KC won't register them?


----------



## pickle

Goblin said:


> I can understand this annoyance however when you have a *label which charges "extra"* for what many people percieve as quality you will be judged by the bad, especially when it seems to be accepted. The worst from my viewpoint is enough wasn't being done to resolve this and inform the public of the issues. All very well keeping it in house and fixing it slowly if it affected only in-house but it didn't. My impression is that people felt betrayed. How many people brought a cav with syringomelia with no idea of how common it was and not being informed of the possibility? It's only with PDE that a lot of people became aware of issues such as this. Rather than information coming out after PDE all we have had is "biased", "unfair".. not "some important points were raised and we are making progress". As I've said before "KC A healthy future", would have been great if it could have been made 4 years ago. Something still tells me it couldn't have been made though at the time and not due to finances etc.
> 
> Then there's the attitude of the breeders shown in the program and since. A lot of the problem is the lack of admission of the problems and a plain "we got it wrong in some instances but are trying to resolve the issues as quickly as possible". We get the "we're fixing things" now but not "we got it wrong". This is what is needed when people feel betrayed. Instead we get facebook pages and personal attacks on JH.. Given the English tendancy to back the underdog, lets see, an established "elitist body" of people attacking an individual.. Who are most people going to support in this instance?


Please explain what you mean by a label?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

Spellweaver said:


> What is the alternative? If they are not registered by the KC there will be a huge pool of unregistered pedigrees that no prospective buyer can check up on - ie their lineage, the health tests of their sire and dam, their ancestors etc. Do you think that is a better state of affairs? Put it this way, if you were a puppy buyer, which would you prefer? To be able to actually look at a register and see which puppies' ancestors have had no tests done, or to have to take the puppy farmer's word that of course all health tests have been done but they're not registered because the KC won't register them?


A Kennel Club registered dog should be a dog that has been bred responsibly and with all the correct health tests. At the moment, a KC reg dog could be from a puppy farm.

The Kennel Club could do a lot by only registering puppies that are bred responsibly and with all the correct health tests. But then most of the breeders would go up in arms and the KC would lose money.


----------



## Blondie

SEVEN_PETS said:


> A Kennel Club registered dog should be a dog that has been bred responsibly and with all the correct health tests. At the moment, a KC reg dog could be from a puppy farm.
> 
> The Kennel Club could do a lot by only registering puppies that are bred responsibly and with all the correct health tests. But then most of the breeders would go up in arms and the KC would lose money.


And by completely alienating these people, that will certainly make them go do some homework and start breeding properly wont it???? Hmm, I dont think so!! They will just dive under the radar even more.......

The only way to educate people is by NOT alienating them and keeping them onboard, the KC could do more to promote its excellent health seminars to the general public, admittedly, this point does frustrate me somewhat.


----------



## pickle

SEVEN_PETS said:


> A Kennel Club registered dog should be a dog that has been bred responsibly and with all the correct health tests. At the moment, a KC reg dog could be from a puppy farm.
> 
> The Kennel Club could do a lot by only* registering puppies that are bred responsibly and with all the correct health tests*. But then most of the breeders would go up in arms and the KC would lose money.


The KC are moving in this direction but they have no legal teeth. The latest initiative from the KC should go a long way to address the puppy farmer problem. This article explains this.

Dog World - 07 Breeders


----------



## Spellweaver

SEVEN_PETS said:


> A Kennel Club registered dog should be a dog that has been bred responsibly and with all the correct health tests. At the moment, a KC reg dog could be from a puppy farm.
> 
> The Kennel Club could do a lot by only registering puppies that are bred responsibly and with all the correct health tests. But then most of the breeders would go up in arms and the KC would lose money.


Think about these two scenarios:

a) A puppy buyer has to take the word of a puppy farmer about health tests because the KC won't register their puppies. The puppy farmer says of course all the health tests have been done. The buyer buys a pup and ends up with a very ill dog, huge vet fees, and great heartache when the dog dies at a very young age.

b) A puppy buyer looks on a register and see that the puppy farmer is, in fact, lying, because there are no health tests recorded for dam and sire of the puppy. They walk away, go to another breeder, and check that her pups do come from health tested stock. They buy a pup and the pup has a long, healthy and happy life.

Which scenario is preferable? Do you really think the first scenario is the best? Because that is what will happen if what you advocate above comes to pass.

KC Registration is like car registration. Just because a car has a registration number, it does not mean it is a sound and roadworthy car. But it does mean it can be checked. That is ALL KC registration is. Would you go on a motor forum trying to say things like "car registration should mean that the car is sound and roadworthy"? I doubt it very much  But you are doing exactly the same thing on a pet forum about KC registration.

Just accept KC registration for what it is a - very useful tool (in fact, except for the odd few breed specialist sites such as Anadune, the ONLY tool) for a puppy buyer to use. And part of its usefulness is that it shows everything - the good and the bad, the puppies who come from health tested stock and the puppies who don't. How is that a bad thing?


----------



## shetlandlover

I think good breeders can't do right no matter what.

If you KC register you are tied by JH/Pedigree dogs exposed to other BAD breeders and if you don't KC register then you are a bad breeder because you must have something to hide.

Up until 2011 I didn't show, I went to shows but only to watch and chat to folk. I was under the same impression as other "novice" type folk that showing was a easy, fashion show type comp which people did with little care for the dogs but mostly did it for themselves. 

I can firmly say after being on the showing end, its so stressful for the humans that no one in their right mind would do it for any reason apart from for their dog. Most dogs I have met LOVE show day, its plenty of attention, meeting other dogs, trips in the car, treats and a nice day out. The humans however have frazzled hair, bags under their eyes, poo in their pockets, bags on their backs like a pack mule and by the end of their class have had 1000 coffee's to try and pick themselves up. The dogs however are sat there munching on treats with a big grin or are napping under the show chairs. 

I know quite a few people who show their dogs and don't breed from them because its just a good activity for their dog. 

The money and time that goes into dog shows means many back yard breeders don't bother to show but for the thousands you see at shows only 1 or 2 handfuls will be bad breeders. In the years I watched shows instead of took part I saw one or two show folk who would be heavy handed with their dog or be very very un-professional but on the flip side I have lost count of those I see cuddling and kissing their dogs ring side, sitting with their dogs spoiling them with treats, racing to water in hot weather, buying very pricey wet coats to keep big coated dogs cool in hot weather. 

What's so hard about mentioning those who deserve a mention? Those who dedicate their lives to pleasing and loving their dogs.


----------



## DoodlesRule

Spellweaver said:


> Think about these two scenarios:
> 
> a) A puppy buyer has to take the word of a puppy farmer about health tests because the KC won't register their puppies. The puppy farmer says of course all the health tests have been done. The buyer buys a pup and ends up with a very ill dog, huge vet fees, and great heartache when the dog dies at a very young age.
> 
> b) A puppy buyer looks on a register and see that the puppy farmer is, in fact, lying, because there are no health tests recorded for dam and sire of the puppy. They walk away, go to another breeder, and check that her pups do come from health tested stock. They buy a pup and the pup has a long, healthy and happy life.
> 
> Which scenario is preferable? Do you really think the first scenario is the best? Because that is what will happen if what you advocate above comes to pass.
> 
> KC Registration is like car registration. Just because a car has a registration number, it does not mean it is a sound and roadworthy car. But it does mean it can be checked. That is ALL KC registration is. Would you go on a motor forum trying to say things like "car registration should mean that the car is sound and roadworthy"? I doubt it very much  But you are doing exactly the same thing on a pet forum about KC registration.
> 
> Just accept KC registration for what it is a - very useful tool (in fact, except for the odd few breed specialist sites such as Anadune, the ONLY tool) for a puppy buyer to use. And part of its usefulness is that it shows everything - the good and the bad, the puppies who come from health tested stock and the puppies who don't. How is that a bad thing?


So basically kc registration is meaningless and the bottom line is its nothing more than a database?

By accepting registrations from puppy farmers then surely the KC are colluding with them


----------



## Spellweaver

DoodlesRule said:


> So basically kc registration is meaningless and the bottom line is its nothing more than a database?


It has never puported to be anything other than a database. That is EXACTLY what it is, what it was designed for, what it functions as, what it is meant to be. But as for being meaningless - how can being able to find out anything about any registered dog (including whether or not any or all of its ancestors have been health tested or not) be termed meaningless? Surely it is the single most effective tool any puppy buyer or any breeder could have?



DoodlesRule said:


> By accepting registrations from puppy farmers then surely the KC are colluding with them


Colluding with them how? By showing the world (ie anyone who looks at the register) that they are not health testing? You think that is bad?

I would like to see your answer to my previous post - which scenario would you prefer? Because if you keep insisting that the KC should not register pups from puppy farmers, your only alternative is to say you prefer scenario A - and I don't think you really would prefer that, would you?


----------



## genna ann

Dogs should be bred for health and temperament not for looks.

People that breed for looks regardless of the above should be totally ashamed.

Just my opinion, flame me :crazy:


----------



## noushka05

genna ann said:


> Dogs should be bred for health and temperament not for looks.
> 
> People that breed for looks regardless of the above should be totally ashamed.
> 
> Just my opinion, flame me :crazy:


 they should be bred for all three imo, if breeders dont aim to produce puppies that fit the breed standard all we'll have are poor representatives of our breeds.

tbh im not exactly sure what youre saying so maybe you could clarify? are you saying we should lose our pedigree breeds because they are bred to look a certain way? ...the majority of which are not exaggerated and riddled with health problems.

.


----------



## Spellweaver

genna ann said:


> Dogs should be bred for health and temperament not for looks.
> 
> People that breed for looks regardless of the above should be totally ashamed.
> 
> Just my opinion, flame me :crazy:


Nah - you won't get flamed - thankfully there are only one or two on here who will try personal attacks 

Your opinion may be challenged, however. 

I think dogs should be bred for health and conformation, and conformation brings looks into it - for example, a border collie's tail should be carried low in order for it to move properly when herding sheep, so good breeders will look for breeding stock with low carried tails.

I don't know anyone other than puppy farmers and designer dog breeders who breed for looks alone.


----------



## genna ann

I'm saying that i see many people who breed really unsuitable dogs just for money .Nasty, bad tempered inbred dogs, dogs with nasty hereditary disorders and genetical defects. The fallout is terrible in terms of animals suffering and owner distress. Its a fact i deal with often.

If the breeders cant regulate themselves its about time the were outside regulated by a body made up of vets, breeders and behaviourists.

:smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

genna ann said:


> I'm saying that i see many people who breed really unsuitable dogs just for money .Nasty, bad tempered inbred dogs, dogs with nasty hereditary disorders and genetical defects. The fallout is terrible in terms of animals suffering and owner distress. Its a fact i deal with often.
> 
> If the breeders cant regulate themselves its about time the were outside regulated by a body made up of vets, breeders and behaviourists.
> 
> :smilewinkgrin:


Vets? So, a vet who told me that I should mate my Labrador bitch on days 11 and 13 because that's when ALL Labrador bitches stand should tell me how to breed, you are joking, I hope?

Inbred, it's a closed genepool, otherwise you wouldn't have the word pedigree attached; depending on how tight that gene pool is, and the problems within, you can't really label all pedigrees as inherently unhealthy. Unfortunately many do, because they deem all pedigree breeds as being the same.

The only people who breed for money, are unethical breeders, speaks for itself really, and if puppy buyers did their research, they would be able to avoid these breeders, unfortunately, the vast, vast majority don't, so who's to blame?


----------



## noushka05

genna ann said:


> I'm saying that i see many people who breed really unsuitable dogs just for money .Nasty, bad tempered inbred dogs, dogs with nasty hereditary disorders and genetical defects. The fallout is terrible in terms of animals suffering and owner distress. Its a fact i deal with often.
> 
> If the breeders cant regulate themselves its about time the were outside regulated by a body made up of vets, breeders and behaviourists.
> 
> :smilewinkgrin:


true there are many dreadful breeders out there, but its within the show/working world you'll find the best breeders, good breeders who adhere to their breed clubs code of ethics, who strive to produce healthy puppies....these people are passionate about their breed they certainly arnt the ones breeding for money .

so good breeders regulate themselves very well already without outside intervention.


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> I think dogs should be bred for health and conformation, and conformation brings looks into it - for example, a border collie's tail should be carried low in order for it to move properly when herding sheep, so good breeders will look for breeding stock with low carried tails.


I would also put temperament in there as well, something I am aware good breeders also consider. The difficulty is, over time, what was acceptable when it comes to certain breeds changed so slowly that it became a health issue without people necessarily accepting it as such. It's far easier with working dogs as they have specific functions to perform. Show dogs it's another matter and I would dispute your assertion that it was just puppy farmers and designer dog breeders who bred for looks alone. If it was it wouldn't have gotten so far. Even the KC advert "healthy future" indirectly admitted as much with the bulldog breeder saying it's unlikely their healthier conformation will win any prizes in the short term.



Ceearott said:


> The most unhealthy and badly conformed rotties I have seen, and no doubt will continue to see in my life have been bred by BYB's and pup farmers and people who think its great to mate bitch with dog who lives just down the road.


This may well be the case with rotties but not with every breed. The very fact you have the 15 (I think) breeds which are on a special watch at crufts shows this. Yes you are being penalized for other breed club attitudes but people do lump the any breed with the label "pedigree" and "KC registered" together. It's a shame pressure wasn't as strong and visible to make these breeds giving the "brand" a bad name correct themselves before PDE came out.

I do think the issue with Back Yard Breeders (BYB) is something people on this forum all agree needs sorting and judging from the fact applications in places like Wales are still being granted to enlarge existing ones should fill everyone with disgust. The difficulty is how many BYB pass off their pups as pedigree and are KC registered. It may be just a database but the perception the KC has allowed to persist is that it is something more than that. Even now they are not stating the fact they are just a database and people are under the impression they can enforce things. People like Ceearott are to be congratulated for spreading information about the KC to raise awareness but it is something which needed to be done years ago, not just to places like this forum but to the population at large.


----------



## 5rivers79

In my layman's view the KC doesnt even work as a dog database. My dog cant be registered so there is no account of his history. I mean even with Sam's dad being KC registered, just because his mum isnt, there is no history to track my dog. I cant register my stray so what is her history? Atleast a database should show that she was found as a stray?

Also why are pedigree dogs more to insure? Surely there must be more claims in regards to pedigree dogs than with crosses.

If i was went down the wrong path and began breeding any prospective buyers would know nothing and i could make up anything i wanted...and i hate to say it but there are alot of people out there that are not prepared to pay in excess of 500 quid for a KC reg'd dog regardless of the blood sweat and tears the breeders go through, so do end up going to bybs.

Another thing i dont get is dog breeds were bred for certain jobs, if they cant do those jobs and are merely bred to conform to looks then what is the point of them? These show dogs are then just that..show dogs bred for looks?

Iv been to a dog show and i had a fantastic day but then i think what is the point of dogs running around in circles with their handlers? What are they showing?? IMO Running around in a circle certainly does not prove what the breed was originally designed for.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

5rivers79 said:


> In my layman's view the KC doesnt even work as a dog database. My dog cant be registered so there is no account of his history. I mean even with Sam's dad being KC registered, just because his mum isnt, there is no history to track my dog. I cant register my stray so what is her history? Atleast a database should show that she was found as a stray?
> 
> Also why are pedigree dogs more to insure? Surely there must be more claims in regards to pedigree dogs than with crosses.
> 
> If i was went down the wrong path and began breeding any prospective buyers would know nothing and i could make up anything i wanted...and i hate to say it but there are alot of people out there that are not prepared to pay in excess of 500 quid for a KC reg'd dog regardless of the blood sweat and tears the breeders go through, so do end up going to bybs.
> 
> Another thing i dont get is dog breeds were bred for certain jobs, if they cant do those jobs and are merely bred to conform to looks then what is the point of them? These show dogs are then just that..show dogs bred for looks?
> 
> Iv been to a dog show and i had a fantastic day but then i think what is the point of dogs running around in circles with their handlers? What are they showing?? IMO Running around in a circle certainly does not prove what the breed was originally designed for.


Sorry, but are you saying because your dog can't be registered, there's no point to the kennel club existing?

Pedigree dogs are more to insure, because there is more information on them, than any other dog, and why is that? Because of that darned KC 

Why should dogs run in circles, they don't. They run away from, towards, and across from the judge, so that they can accurately assess movement.

I would agree that a number of breeds have lost direction, and aren't what they should be, because they've been bred to show rather than work, but I think your dismissive attitude is a little forward, considering you bought your dog from a less than reputeable breeder when other reputeable breeders weren't willing to sell a pup to you, going by your past posts


----------



## Spellweaver

5rivers79 said:


> In my layman's view the KC doesnt even work as a dog database. My dog cant be registered so there is no account of his history. I mean even with Sam's dad being KC registered, just because his mum isnt, there is no history to track my dog. I cant register my stray so what is her history? Atleast a database should show that she was found as a stray?


You could register him on the activity register. Then all his breeding, health testing, history on his dad's side would be available. The KC isn't just for pedigrees! 

DNA Screening - CEA Activity Register - The Kennel Club



5rivers79 said:


> If i was went down the wrong path and began breeding any prospective buyers would know nothing and i could make up anything i wanted...


Not if you registered him you couldn't - and here you have just made a very cogent argument for actually having KC Registration! Owners of KC Registered dogs can't just make anything up ........



5rivers79 said:


> Another thing i dont get is dog breeds were bred for certain jobs, if they cant do those jobs and are merely bred to conform to looks then what is the point of them? These show dogs are then just that..show dogs bred for looks?
> 
> Iv been to a dog show and i had a fantastic day but then i think what is the point of dogs running around in circles with their handlers? What are they showing?? IMO Running around in a circle certainly does not prove what the breed was originally designed for.


You may have watched some judging, but you obviously did not understand what you were watching. A judge doesn't just watch movement - they get their hands on the dog and feel their structure. Conformation and movement are the two things that can tell a judge whether or not the dog would be physically capable of carrying out the job it was meant to do. For example, border collies are moved a great deal compared to other breeds - movement is paramount - a judge is assessing whether or not they would be capable of actually working. Dog shows are not just the beauty contests, you seem to think they are.

This is from the border collie breed standard, but this paragraph is stated at the top of the breed standard for EVERY breed:

_Breed Standard
Last updated March 1994

A Breed Standard is the guideline which describes the ideal characteristics, temperament and appearance of a breed and ensures that the breed is fit for function. Absolute soundness is essential. Breeders and judges should at all times be careful to avoid obvious conditions or exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way to the health, welfare or soundness of this breed. From time to time certain conditions or exaggerations may be considered to have the potential to affect dogs in some breeds adversely, and judges and breeders are requested to refer to the Breed Watch section of the Kennel Club website here http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breeds/watch for details of any such current issues. If a feature or quality is desirable it should only be present in the right measure. _

http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breed/standard.aspx?id=5166


----------



## noushka05

5rivers79 said:


> In my layman's view the KC doesnt even work as a dog database. My dog cant be registered so there is no account of his history. I mean even with Sam's dad being KC registered, just because his mum isnt, there is no history to track my dog. I cant register my stray so what is her history? Atleast a database should show that she was found as a stray?
> 
> Also why are pedigree dogs more to insure? Surely there must be more claims in regards to pedigree dogs than with crosses.
> 
> If i was went down the wrong path and began breeding any prospective buyers would know nothing and i could make up anything i wanted...and i hate to say it but there are alot of people out there that are not prepared to pay in excess of 500 quid for a KC reg'd dog regardless of the blood sweat and tears the breeders go through, so do end up going to bybs.
> 
> Another thing i dont get is dog breeds were bred for certain jobs, if they cant do those jobs and are merely bred to conform to looks then what is the point of them? These show dogs are then just that..show dogs bred for looks?
> 
> Iv been to a dog show and i had a fantastic day but then i think what is the point of dogs running around in circles with their handlers? What are they showing?? IMO Running around in a circle certainly does not prove what the breed was originally designed for.


who knows what the history of your stray is! shes a stray.... its hardly the KC's fault that you cant trace your two dogs ancestries is it lol, how ever could anyone expect them to register stray dogs or dogs bred from unregistered parents? American bulldogs arnt even a recognised breed anyway.

many people do need educating about how to find a good breeder, all that flamin program did was tar all show breeders and all breeds with the same brush and led many to believe that all show dogs are unhealthy and that all show breeders are bad...so that was great for the bybs!

my breed, the Siberian husky,is still worked but obviously our climate is far to warm to beable to run them long distance so races are short, but breeders here still strive to maintain their working ability, running a dog around the ring is important to see how the dogs move, without sound movement its unlikely a husky would work very well in harness.


----------



## Spellweaver

Well, it's been very interesting popping on and off here during today, but unfortunately (suppose I should say fortunately really 'cos it means I'm better!) I'm back at work tomorrow so I'm off to my bed - and as I'm doing a 13 hr shift so I shan't be back on here until Tues evening.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed sensibly to the discussion - whether we have agreed or not - have fun uand I'll catch up on Tues!


----------



## comfortcreature

noushka05 said:


> true there are many dreadful breeders out there, but its within the show/working world you'll find the best breeders, good breeders who adhere to their breed clubs code of ethics, who strive to produce healthy puppies....these people are passionate about their breed they certainly arnt the ones breeding for money ..


I do agree that the place to most easily find really great breeders, especially where the show world has a good foothold, is through the breed clubs.



noushka05 said:


> so good breeders regulate themselves very well already without outside intervention.


Knowing the Cavalier world as well as I do and the very well reputed and influential breeders that were deliberately using a high risk Cavalier stud and not informing the puppy owners of the risk in their pups, I 'd have to disagree here completely.

The fiasco at Westminster with the BOB Collie shows me that this is not just the case in one club.

Double Merle Progeny at Westminster

I believe many breed clubs are great influences . . . and others not so much. Unfortunately it is the bad apples that often reflect on the full bunch.

Having systems in place to show the effort is there and that there are some real checks and balances would be proactive. I think the KC has done a better job than the AKC.

CC


----------



## noushka05

5rivers79 said:


> In my layman's view the KC doesnt even work as a dog database. My dog cant be registered so there is no account of his history. I mean even with Sam's dad being KC registered, just because his mum isnt, there is no history to track my dog. I cant register my stray so what is her history? Atleast a database should show that she was found as a stray?
> 
> Also why are pedigree dogs more to insure? Surely there must be more claims in regards to pedigree dogs than with crosses.
> 
> If i was went down the wrong path and began breeding any prospective buyers would know nothing and i could make up anything i wanted...and i hate to say it but there are alot of people out there that are not prepared to pay in excess of 500 quid for a KC reg'd dog regardless of the blood sweat and tears the breeders go through, so do end up going to bybs.
> 
> Another thing i dont get is dog breeds were bred for certain jobs, if they cant do those jobs and are merely bred to conform to looks then what is the point of them? These show dogs are then just that..show dogs bred for looks?
> 
> Iv been to a dog show and i had a fantastic day but then i think what is the point of dogs running around in circles with their handlers? What are they showing?? IMO Running around in a circle certainly does not prove what the breed was originally designed for.


just picking up on this 5Rivers, why did you buy an Akita? i doubt Sammy is still doing the job for which he was originally developed.
Without show breeders we would eventually lose the way our breeds look as few non show breeders bother breeding to a standard....or are you saying you think breeds like the Akita should be allowed to die out being as they are now redundant anyway?.

and i think you'll find most show dogs are faaaar more than just that, they are 1st and foremost much loved pets


----------



## Georgee

5rivers79 said:


> Another thing i dont get is dog breeds were bred for certain jobs, if they cant do those jobs and are merely bred to conform to looks then what is the point of them?


So what was the akita bred for again ? Sure you are allowing your dog to do what it was "bred" for originally ??


----------



## noushka05

comfortcreature said:


> I do agree that the place to most easily find really great breeders, especially where the show world has a good foothold, is through the breed clubs.
> 
> Knowing the Cavalier world as well as I do and the very well reputed and influential breeders that were deliberately using a high risk Cavalier stud and not informing the puppy owners of the risk in their pups, I 'd have to disagree here completely.
> 
> The fiasco at Westminster with the BOB Collie shows me that this is not just the case in one club.
> 
> Double Merle Progeny at Westminster
> 
> I believe many breed clubs are great influences . . . and others not so much. Unfortunately it is the bad apples that ofen reflect on the full bunch.
> 
> CC


maybe thats so about the Cavalier breeders( i would never support such breeders), but i know many breeders in the show world and only know a couple who i would say were less than reputable, the vast majority care very much for the health of their breed and do all they can to breed healthy puppies.

and i think its absolutely discusting that the AKC register puppies from a merle to merle mating , our KC does not.


----------



## ozrex

I think the point of dogs being fit for their original job is not DO they do it but COULD they do it. Presumably the Akita _could _but _doesn't_.

Perhaps we need to breed dogs that function as dogs. Dogs that can run, jump and frolic without respiratory (or other) distress. Dogs that can see, smell, hear, taste and feel. Dogs that are pain-free. Dogs that can breed without massive intervention. Happy dogs, that are not overly nervous or aggressive.

The sad part about poor breeding in the pedigree world is that it's like a criminal policeman. We are terribly disappointed because we expected higher standards from such people. I HATE puppy farms and I respect pedigree breeders.

Nothing a puppy farmer could do would shock me including breeding a double merle (it would distress me, yes). Reputable breeders of pedigree, top-show dogs deliberately breeding a double merle rough collie now THAT shocks me.

Yes, I have different standards for judging pedigree breeders from those I apply to puppy farm breeders; doesn't EVERYONE?


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> You may have watched some judging, but you obviously did not understand what you were watching. A judge doesn't just watch movement - they get their hands on the dog and feel their structure. Conformation and movement are the two things that can tell a judge whether or not the dog would be physically capable of carrying out the job it was meant to do. For example, border collies are moved a great deal compared to other breeds - movement is paramount - a judge is assessing whether or not they would be capable of actually working. Dog shows are not just the beauty contests, you seem to think they are.


Which actually goes against the KC's own video about health where they are now having to have "judge judges" to ensure judges do judge for fitness, not looks. The video actually gives the impression it's hard process to change. The internal acceptance within the judge system for certain show dogs breeds.


----------



## noushka05

ozrex said:


> I think the point of dogs being fit for their original job is not DO they do it but COULD they do it. Presumably the Akita _could _but _doesn't_.
> 
> Perhaps we need to breed dogs that function as dogs. Dogs that can run, jump and frolic without respiratory (or other) distress. Dogs that can see, smell, hear, taste and feel. Dogs that are pain-free. Dogs that can breed without massive intervention. Happy dogs, that are not overly nervous or aggressive.
> 
> The sad part about poor breeding in the pedigree world is that it's like a criminal policeman. We are terribly disappointed because we expected higher standards from such people. I HATE puppy farms and I respect pedigree breeders.
> 
> Nothing a puppy farmer could do would shock me including breeding a double merle (it would distress me, yes). Reputable breeders of pedigree, top-show dogs deliberately breeding a double merle rough collie now THAT shocks me.
> 
> Yes, I have different standards for judging pedigree breeders from those I apply to puppy farm breeders; doesn't EVERYONE?


in answer to your last question yes of course but in every walk of life you get your bad apples im afraid. Dogs should be fit for function and i too am shocked and disappointed that breeders within the show world actually breed double merles, but that does Not happen in this country! i think in the US showing seems to be taken far more seriously, most top show dogs dont even live with their owners they live with their handlers, i think thats awful tbh, and yes i know there are some terrible breeders over here, so obsessed with winning that their dogs suffer in one way or another... but the majority arnt like that, showing is a hobby, their dogs are much loved pets and win or lose they take the best dog home!


----------



## DoodlesRule

Spellweaver said:


> It has never puported to be anything other than a database. That is EXACTLY what it is, what it was designed for, what it functions as, what it is meant to be. But as for being meaningless - how can being able to find out anything about any registered dog (including whether or not any or all of its ancestors have been health tested or not) be termed meaningless? Surely it is the single most effective tool any puppy buyer or any breeder could have?
> 
> Colluding with them how? By showing the world (ie anyone who looks at the register) that they are not health testing? You think that is bad?
> 
> I would like to see your answer to my previous post - which scenario would you prefer? Because if you keep insisting that the KC should not register pups from puppy farmers, your only alternative is to say you prefer scenario A - and I don't think you really would prefer that, would you?


That isn't the perception though its always made out that KC registration "means" something not that its just a database where you can check ancestory and more recently health tests. Its been going long enough why hasn't it been improved beyond that so that you could also find out life span/illness suffered. I asked the KC that very question and was told (in writing lol) that the breeders & breed clubs would not want such information in the public domain.

Colluding by allowing them to be on the KC register - if it was widely publicised that only responsibly bred & health tested dogs were KC registered anything else was excluded, that could go a big way to reducing puppy farmers. If it doesn't help them to sell the pups why do they bother spending the money to register them?


----------



## Cay

The KC is important to allow people to research their dogs. The BRS to most people would just be a list of words, they mean a lot to me and I've used them to find out about breeders who've contacted us for a puppy to see what they breed .


----------



## Snoringbear

Spellweaver said:


> Not really - the KC were forced by the BBC's hypocrisy to look elsewhere, and have _chosen_ to go with More4 and live streaming for the last couple of years - and it has been much better coverage than the hour a day on BBC1. The BBC are committed to screening _Carry on Jemima_ - but hiding it away on an obscure channel and, what is even more incredible, scheduling it in direct conflict with such a well-established series as Whitechapel, makes you wonder why they don't just cancel it altogether.


You've missed the joke and irony


----------



## 5rivers79

noushka05 said:


> just picking up on this 5Rivers, why did you buy an Akita? i doubt Sammy is still doing the job for which he was originally developed.
> Without show breeders we would eventually lose the way our breeds look as few non show breeders bother breeding to a standard....or are you saying you think breeds like the Akita should be allowed to die out being as they are now redundant anyway?.
> 
> and i think you'll find most show dogs are faaaar more than just that, they are 1st and foremost much loved pets


I didnt originally set out to buy an akita..i had a few criteria that i wanted a dog to meet.

No Sammy is not bear hunting or fighting but what he is doing is living up to his breed trait of being a VERY family orientated dog that does not bark without reason. Those are traits that felt very appealing to me and my family so thats why we chose the Akita. I could have just as easily chosen to get any other large breed but at that time felt the Akita's family orientated temperament was the one that would suit me.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry, but are you saying because your dog can't be registered, there's no point to the kennel club existing?
> 
> Pedigree dogs are more to insure, because there is more information on them, than any other dog, and why is that? Because of that darned KC
> 
> Why should dogs run in circles, they don't. They run away from, towards, and across from the judge, so that they can accurately assess movement.
> 
> I would agree that a number of breeds have lost direction, and aren't what they should be, because they've been bred to show rather than work, but I think your dismissive attitude is a little forward, considering you bought your dog from a less than reputeable breeder when other reputeable breeders weren't willing to sell a pup to you, going by your past posts


Im not saying there is no point to the Kennel Club existing, im saying if it is acting out as a database should it not contain info on any dog that an owner would want to register? There are decent people out there who also are pet breeders..would it not make sense to let them health test and register their litters too?

Are pedigree dogs really more to insure as there is more info on them? After speaking to a number of pet insurance companies i have been toldl the price hike is because of more illnesses in pedigree dogs..how do they come to that conclusion? Because there are more claims.

Ok fair enough judges judge movement when they watch the dog run and examine structure when they feel the dog..but does that mean it conforms to breed standard?

What if for example a Border Collie was to win best of breed at a show because of how it looked, moved and felt BUT in the working world it had no interest in herding livestock? Is it still meeting breed standards then?

Breed clubs are forever updating what the dogs should look like..you can see that from a thread made by Ceearott where photos show how Rotts have slowly changed over the years...why keep changing the appearance of a breed no matter how small that change was?

Early pugs had a snout..why was that flattened over time? Its taken the KC up until now to realise the pugs snout is a cause of its health problems??

Lastly yes i bought my dog from a pet breeder..why does that make him less than reputable? Because he doesnt have a KC certificate for his pups? It cant be anything to do with health tests as the KC allows poor health dogs to be registered aslong as the Dam and Sire are registered too...and as stated above they allow certain breeds to be bred to a unhealthy standard.

Why werent other reputable breeders selling to me? Maybe i dont have the right contacts?? May be they didnt like where im from or my name because none replied to emails, not one replied to voicemails. Did they know me to say no? No they didnt, did they ask me questions on how much experience i have? No they didnt. Did they come and see if my home was less than suitable for their pups? No. So i cant really say why i was turned down by 'reputable' breeders.

So why should i or other people like me that cant get anywhere with 'reputable' breeders lose out on having a dog? What makes someone who is chosen by a 'reputable' breeder to be an owner of their pup better than me or the average joe who wants a great family pet?



Georgee said:


> So what was the akita bred for again ? Sure you are allowing your dog to do what it was "bred" for originally ??


Like i briefly mentioned above, Akitas were bred for their lovely temperament. Laid back, family orientated, no meaningless bark, easy to house break, patient, loyal. Known stories that japanese mothers would leave their children with the family Akita while they went rice farming because Akita are gentle with children.

Akitas are a very clean breed. They were also bred to be almost odorless which really suited what we were looking for in a dog.

As for bear hunting, yup i frequently put on a bear outfit and let Sam chase me around.. but shhh dont tell anyone 

I did watch some documentary once based somewhere in canada/america (cant remember now) where akitas were used to ward off bears roaming in to public areas. So i guess that part of why it was originally bred is still being used in some parts of the world.


----------



## Cay

What about the pet breeders that are breeding from the exact same dogs, they aren't trying to breed Pugs with longer noses. They weren't shocked enough to stop breeding these dogs and the public still buy these puppies .


----------



## noushka05

5rivers79 said:


> I didnt originally set out to buy an akita..i had a few criteria that i wanted a dog to meet.
> 
> No you set out to buy an Akita Inu didnt you
> 
> No Sammy is not bear hunting or fighting but what he is doing is living up to his breed trait of being a VERY family orientated dog that does not bark without reason. Those are traits that felt very appealing to me and my family so thats why we chose the Akita. I could have just as easily chosen to get any other large breed but at that time felt the Akita's family orientated temperament was the one that would suit me.
> 
> so you do think theres a point to breeding a breed such as an Akita then lol
> 
> Im not saying there is no point to the Kennel Club existing, im saying if it is acting out as a database should it not contain info on any dog that an owner would want to register? There are decent people out there who also are pet breeders..would it not make sense to let them health test and register their litters too?
> 
> sorry but registering a dog with unknown ancestry is never going to work, and theres nothing stopping anyone from health testing their dogs....but you wont find many who breed from non registered pedigrees bothering to do that!.
> 
> Are pedigree dogs really more to insure as there is more info on them? After speaking to a number of pet insurance companies i have been toldl the price hike is because of more illnesses in pedigree dogs..how do they come to that conclusion? Because there are more claims.
> 
> maybe its because more owners insure pedigrees? i have very good cover on my huskies and its very cheap
> 
> Ok fair enough judges judge movement when they watch the dog run and examine structure when they feel the dog..but does that mean it conforms to breed standard?
> 
> no dog is perfect but judges place the dogs that they think fit the breed standard the closest, so to do well show dogs must have the correct physical conformation and sound movement
> 
> Lastly yes i bought my dog from a pet breeder..why does that make him less than reputable? Because he doesnt have a KC certificate for his pups? It cant be anything to do with health tests as the KC allows poor health dogs to be registered aslong as the Dam and Sire are registered too...and as stated above they allow certain breeds to be bred to a unhealthy standard.
> 
> well for a start the fact that he doesnt seem to know what breed hes even breeding makes him a bit less than reputable, dont you think!:blink:...you thought you'd bought an Akita Inu
> 
> 
> Why werent other reputable breeders selling to me? Maybe i dont have the right contacts?? May be they didnt like where im from or my name because none replied to emails, not one replied to voicemails. Did they know me to say no? No they didnt, did they ask me questions on how much experience i have? No they didnt. Did they come and see if my home was less than suitable for their pups? No. So i cant really say why i was turned down by 'reputable' breeders.
> 
> when we bought our first Sibe, from very reputable breeders, we had no contacts, but after we were thoroughly vetted they entrusted us with one of their puppies...good breeders are extremely careful who they place their puppies with but i couldnt say why you were turned down
> 
> So why should i or other people like me that cant get anywhere with 'reputable' breeders lose out on having a dog? What makes someone who is chosen by a 'reputable' breeder to be an owner of their pup better than me or the average joe who wants a great family pet?
> 
> well some people have different standards and principles, i personally could NEVER support the type of breeder you got Sammy from, i would seek one out in rescue rather than line the pockets of some byb!
> 
> Like i briefly mentioned above, Akitas were bred for their lovely temperament. Laid back, family orientated, no meaningless bark, easy to house break, patient, loyal. Known stories that japanese mothers would leave their children with the family Akita while they went rice farming because Akita are gentle with children.
> 
> Akitas are a very clean breed. They were also bred to be almost odorless which really suited what we were looking for in a dog.
> 
> As for bear hunting, yup i frequently put on a bear outfit and let Sam chase me around.. but shhh dont tell anyone


you were the one asking what was the point of breeding a breed which no longer has a job lol


----------



## 1290423

noushka05 said:


> you were the one asking what was the point of breeding a breed which no longer has a job lol


Perhaps humans should stop breeding then eh! seeing as there are no jobs for em


----------



## noushka05

DT said:


> Perhaps humans should stop breeding then eh! seeing as there are no jobs for em


lmao good point!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

5rivers79 said:


> Im not saying there is no point to the Kennel Club existing, im saying if it is acting out as a database should it not contain info on any dog that an owner would want to register? There are decent people out there who also are pet breeders..would it not make sense to let them health test and register their litters too?
> 
> Are pedigree dogs really more to insure as there is more info on them? After speaking to a number of pet insurance companies i have been toldl the price hike is because of more illnesses in pedigree dogs..how do they come to that conclusion? Because there are more claims.
> 
> Ok fair enough judges judge movement when they watch the dog run and examine structure when they feel the dog..but does that mean it conforms to breed standard?
> 
> What if for example a Border Collie was to win best of breed at a show because of how it looked, moved and felt BUT in the working world it had no interest in herding livestock? Is it still meeting breed standards then?
> 
> Breed clubs are forever updating what the dogs should look like..you can see that from a thread made by Ceearott where photos show how Rotts have slowly changed over the years...why keep changing the appearance of a breed no matter how small that change was?
> 
> Early pugs had a snout..why was that flattened over time? Its taken the KC up until now to realise the pugs snout is a cause of its health problems??
> 
> Lastly yes i bought my dog from a pet breeder..why does that make him less than reputable? Because he doesnt have a KC certificate for his pups? It cant be anything to do with health tests as the KC allows poor health dogs to be registered aslong as the Dam and Sire are registered too...and as stated above they allow certain breeds to be bred to a unhealthy standard.
> 
> Why werent other reputable breeders selling to me? Maybe i dont have the right contacts?? May be they didnt like where im from or my name because none replied to emails, not one replied to voicemails. Did they know me to say no? No they didnt, did they ask me questions on how much experience i have? No they didnt. Did they come and see if my home was less than suitable for their pups? No. So i cant really say why i was turned down by 'reputable' breeders.
> 
> So why should i or other people like me that cant get anywhere with 'reputable' breeders lose out on having a dog? What makes someone who is chosen by a 'reputable' breeder to be an owner of their pup better than me or the average joe who wants a great family pet?


I'm sorry, but I'd hardly say someone who bred under the circumstances of your dog's breeder, is a good pet breeder, they may be a nice bloke or whatever, but why on earth would you bring unregistered, pups into the world, we're killing enough of them every day as it is! Anyone buying such a dog is really perpetuating the awful cycle we have in this country of dogs being bought on a whim and being given up whether or not that is actually what happens to their dog(s), because every time the pockets of this sort of breeder is lined with cash, they will do it again.

I would agree there are good pet breeders, who do health test, and do care they produce quality KC registered pups, I know because that's where I got my two Labradors from.

The KC do register non pedigree dogs, as has been pointed out, you can put Sammy on the activity register.

What do you regard as a poor health test? I'm sure you mean a result of some sort, but going from being a [email protected] database, the KC should only record some results, what good is that for a database?

I haven't a foggiest why you didn't hear any response from the breeders you tried to contact, I'm not sure why you're asking me tbh, unless it's just a rhetorical question you're posing?

So are you telling me 100% of all dogs in this country are of a known health status? Or do you think that more pedigree dogs are from health tested parents, and more is known about individual pedigree breeds and their health than for all cross breeds/accidents/mongrels etc?

I'm not going to argue with you about the very small number of breeds that have changed for the worse, but it's still no excuse for peole to breed non-registered dogs from stock that hasn't had appropriate health tests, and it never will be.


----------



## shetlandlover

For the handful of breeds that do not do what they where originally bred for (i.e bull fighting ect) there are 3 handful's that can and do do the jobs they were first bred for.

Retrievers I know alot of those who do still do what they were bred for.
Border collies still herd sheep, just look at working dog trials.
Shetland sheepdogs still herd sheep, infact Alaska's dad does it daily.
German Shepherds are still used as "sheep type" dogs on many farms.
Siberian Husky's are still used as sled dogs.

But there are also new jobs we have created for these dogs, guide dogs for example was started using German Shepherds and now uses many breeds of dog. Police dogs, Agility, PAT dogs, drug detecting dogs and hell we are even training some dogs to detect low blood sugar in diabetics. 

And lets not forget that pugs, Papillon and many other dogs that were bred for a job they still do now.....be companions. 

I know many many pedigree dogs who are perfectly healthy and more than prove their ability's. There are a couple of breeds that need work however look at the many many other breeds who are healthier than ever because of breeders testing and selecting their dogs carefully and being careful of linage.


----------



## Galadriel17

Spellweaver said:


> What is the alternative? If they are not registered by the KC there will be a huge pool of unregistered pedigrees that no prospective buyer can check up on - ie their lineage, the health tests of their sire and dam, their ancestors etc. Do you think that is a better state of affairs? Put it this way, if you were a puppy buyer, which would you prefer? To be able to actually look at a register and see which puppies' ancestors have had no tests done, or to have to take the puppy farmer's word that of course all health tests have been done but they're not registered because the KC won't register them?


I just have one question; based on the above logic then why do they not register puppies from a merle to merle as is mentioned in the below post, or puppies from bitches who have had over a certain number of litters etc?



noushka05 said:


> maybe thats so about the Cavalier breeders( i would never support such breeders), but i know many breeders in the show world and only know a couple who i would say were less than reputable, the vast majority care very much for the health of their breed and do all they can to breed healthy puppies.
> 
> and i think its absolutely discusting that the AKC register puppies from a merle to merle mating , our KC does not.


ETA: I do agree with a lot of what you have said Spellweaver but then I think unless ALL dogs have to be registered and ancestry made available by law then perhaps it would be better if the KC changed their policy to only registering those puppies bred to high welfare standards then buyers would know as long as they were buying from a KC registered breeder they would be buying the healthiest possible pup?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Galadriel17 said:


> I just have one question; based on the above logic then why do they not register puppies from a merle to merle as is mentioned in the below post, or puppies from bitches who have had over a certain number of litters etc?
> 
> ETA: I do agree with a lot of what you have said Spellweaver but then I think unless ALL dogs have to be registered and ancestry made available by law then perhaps it would be better if the KC changed their policy to only registering those puppies bred to high welfare standards then buyers would know as long as they were buying from a KC registered breeder they would be buying the healthiest possible pup?


Posting quickly before getting Tau out for her billy no mates run in the field, but I disagree, I think not allowing registration of dogs that aren't pedigree, allows people to sweep bad breeding practices under the carpet. I'd like to see all dogs bred registered with the KC, and a star system of some kind, to indicate health tests in place, parents proven in some way, worked, shown etc, and all pups/dogs sold under contract so that they can never get lost in the system and end up homeless, or sadly destroyed. It's those who don't care what sort of home their pups/dogs go to that need to be stopped, however, the puppy buying public are far too used to having the freedom to just buy whatever sort of pet they want, and then abandon it when they need to because they can't cope for whatever reason.

PS the second quote you posted was from Noushka, not Spellweaver


----------



## Galadriel17

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Posting quickly before getting Tau out for her billy no mates run in the field, but I disagree, I think not allowing registration of dogs that aren't pedigree, allows people to sweep bad breeding practices under the carpet. I'd like to see all dogs bred registered with the KC, and a star system of some kind, to indicate health tests in place, parents proven in some way, worked, shown etc, and all pups/dogs sold under contract so that they can never get lost in the system and end up homeless, or sadly destroyed. It's those who don't care what sort of home their pups/dogs go to that need to be stopped, however, the puppy buying public are far too used to having the freedom to just buy whatever sort of pet they want, and then abandon it when they need to because they can't cope for whatever reason.


I agree with what you've said/think what you've suggested is a good idea and for the record I think the gorvernment needs to introduce a licence that all breeders must have to ensure they meet _at least_ the minimum welfare standards that the KC assured breeder scheme sets out and breeding without that licence should be banned.

But I don't think you've answered my question...



> PS the second quote you posted was from Noushka, not Spellweaver


Yeah I know  I was referring to Spellweaver's posts.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

That's because I thought the question was directed at Spellweaver, I was just adding a comment about registration, and why I think limiting registration is a bad idea. However, my thoughts behind the merle to merle matings would be that the KC aim to prevent them happening in the first place by refusing to allow them to be registered, which is surely a good thing with the associated health problems? 

However, going with the idea of a rating scheme, if such a thing were introduced, and all dogs registered, that type of mating should be down there with the puppy farmers, to act as a deterrent to anyone considering that sort of mating.


----------



## Guest

5rivers79 said:


> Early pugs had a snout..why was that flattened over time? Its taken the KC up until now to realise the pugs snout is a cause of its health problems??


but the kc has nothing to do with what`s endorsed and encouraged by the breed clubs , they can only go as far as saying `we recommend` you do things this way , in saying that , it don`t necessarily mean it`s going to happen , making changes to a standard aren`t going to happen overnight because in most cases everything would have to be re-written and certain breeding stock used , reviewed , which isn`t going to happen overnight to implement the kind of changes most people want to see


----------



## 5rivers79

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm sorry, but I'd hardly say someone who bred under the circumstances of your dog's breeder, is a good pet breeder, they may be a nice bloke or whatever, but why on earth would you bring unregistered, pups into the world, we're killing enough of them every day as it is! Anyone buying such a dog is really perpetuating the awful cycle we have in this country of dogs being bought on a whim and being given up whether or not that is actually what happens to their dog(s), because every time the pockets of this sort of breeder is lined with cash, they will do it again.


But is this statement made purely on assumptions? This guy had one litter which he did for a pup, the other pups went to family, friends and me. He asked me plenty of questions which i would have expected a 'reputable breeder' to ask and regularly asks how Sam is doing and still gives me advice whenever i need it. After that litter the Dam was spayed, so he cant line his pockets again. Not every pet breeder is a greedy, money minded idiot..but i do agree a majority of bybs are idiots who dont care where the pups go.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> What do you regard as a poor health test? I'm sure you mean a result of some sort, but going from being a [email protected] database, the KC should only record some results, what good is that for a database?


I didnt say poor health tests, what i meant was endorsing pups that breed standards force to be unhealthy eg the pug. Im sure the KC have some sort of power. Maybe they need to tell these breed clubs that until changes are made they will not register these unhealthy breeds ..this might imo push breed clubs to make changes faster.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I haven't a foggiest why you didn't hear any response from the breeders you tried to contact, I'm not sure why you're asking me tbh, unless it's just a rhetorical question you're posing?


It was a rhetorical question based on your post stating how 'reputable' breeders werent willing to sell to me.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> but I think your dismissive attitude is a little forward, considering you bought your dog from a less than reputeable breeder when other reputeable breeders weren't willing to sell a pup to you, going by your past posts





Sleeping_Lion said:


> So are you telling me 100% of all dogs in this country are of a known health status? Or do you think that more pedigree dogs are from health tested parents, and more is known about individual pedigree breeds and their health than for all cross breeds/accidents/mongrels etc?


I dont know, it is what insurance companies have told me when iv got quotes for my dogs. Pedigree = higher insurance costs due to greater claims...not my words so i cant say whether that is true or not.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm not going to argue with you about the very small number of breeds that have changed for the worse, but it's still no excuse for peole to breed non-registered dogs from stock that hasn't had appropriate health tests, and it never will be.


Your right here, unless non registered dogs are healthy they should not be bred from.

But tell me will the average joe who hasnt done much research pay £700+ for a dog with papers or will he/she pay a couple hundred quid for a dog without papers that in his/her eyes looks the same as the kc reg'd pup from a reputable breeder?


----------



## Goblin

shetlandlover said:


> For the handful of breeds that do not do what they where originally bred for (i.e bull fighting ect) there are 3 handful's that can and do do the jobs they were first bred for.


Unfortunately this line of thinking doesn't hold up in reality where you have show lines and working lines. I do not see people complaining about looks and poor health in working lines for some reason. Could it be the lack of exaggeration in terms of excessive folds of skin or sloping backs so the dog cannot walk properly etc?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

5rivers79 said:


> But is this statement made purely on assumptions? This guy had one litter which he did for a pup, the other pups went to family, friends and me. He asked me plenty of questions which i would have expected a 'reputable breeder' to ask and regularly asks how Sam is doing and still gives me advice whenever i need it. After that litter the Dam was spayed, so he cant line his pockets again. Not every pet breeder is a greedy, money minded idiot..but i do agree a majority of bybs are idiots who dont care where the pups go.
> 
> That does not make him a good breeder in any way shape or form, from what you've posted, he cares, but what health tests were in place? How did he know they were good representatives of the breed? Did he put any contract in place restricting breeding on?
> 
> I didnt say poor health tests, what i meant was endorsing pups that breed standards force to be unhealthy eg the pug. Im sure the KC have some sort of power. Maybe they need to tell these breed clubs that until changes are made they will not register these unhealthy breeds ..this might imo push breed clubs to make changes faster.
> 
> Breeders do endorse, and use those endorsements to ensure unhealthy and poor representatives of a breed aren't bred on from. Unfortunately, it's not consistent, but as the quality of a dog is subjective it's very difficult to put in place black and white rules about this sort of thing.
> 
> I dont know, it is what insurance companies have told me when iv got quotes for my dogs. Pedigree = higher insurance costs due to greater claims...not my words so i cant say whether that is true or not.
> 
> Do you not wonder why it is though?
> 
> Your right here, unless non registered dogs are healthy they should not be bred from.
> 
> But tell me will the average joe who hasnt done much research pay £700+ for a dog with papers or will he/she pay a couple hundred quid for a dog without papers that in his/her eyes looks the same as the kc reg'd pup from a reputable breeder?


If cost is the criteria for you buying a pup, I'd turn you down straight away, I'd expect any good breeder to turn you down. It's the last question I'd ask.

Thank you for the nice discussion btw, and apologies if any of my posts have come across as harsh or critical, I'm sort of passionate about dog breeding


----------



## 5rivers79

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If cost is the criteria for you buying a pup, I'd turn you down straight away, I'd expect any good breeder to turn you down. It's the last question I'd ask.
> 
> Thank you for the nice discussion btw, and apologies if any of my posts have come across as harsh or critical, I'm sort of passionate about dog breeding


Cost is not a factor to me, but to the average person it is..that is what keeps bybs in business dont you think? What other reason is there for buying from a byb especially in these current times when the economy is all over the place?

You say you would turn people down who have a problem with paying kc reg'd champion dog prices..but all that does is send them to bybs so the vicious circle carries on and byb laugh all the way to the bank.

Its plain to see even when meeting fellow dog people that most are average people who havent researched before buying. Its only after getting a dog do they start reading up or coming on forums like this.

Are endorsements really worth anything? I could for example buy a dog with all the breeding endorsements under the sun and not stick to any of them? How would a reputable breeder enforce me to neuter my dog? Also what powers do endorsements have to stop me from breeding? All it would mean is that i cant kc register the litter? But looking at the viewpoint of a byb they wouldnt really care as they can still make 300-400 quid per pup even if its not reg'd.

My question is what would the byb do if prices of kc reg'd dogs from reputable breeders were brought in line with prices that byb charge? Surely that would urge mr joe public to think about going down the reputable route?

Sam's dad is a KC reg'd dog with a full history of its bloodline..the Dam is a family pet and both have great temperaments. Are you saying the guy shouldnt have wanted a pup from his own dogs? He knew exactly where his litter has gone so has not added to the rescue crisis.

Also Im curious to know how you would judge a bear hunter/fighting dog to be a good representative of its breed apart from how it looks and moves?

But the point about the thread is some breeders/breed clubs dont care about the health of their breed and simple carry on with their practices so that the dog has these weird exaggerated looks. Of course there are good breeders but why would a tv programme show those? For example the panorama episode about care homes highlighted how badly individuals were treated by care staff in a certain home, i dont remember them showing how great other care homes can be.

And in the first pde why did breeders tell the camera to f off? If some of the good breeders on here were approached wouldnt you try and explain the good and decent side of the story and show how good breeding is good for the health of dogs? I dont understand why anyone would tell reporters to f off unless they had something to hide?

I can tell that you are passionate about breeding and that is a good thing because you care about your breed and iv not taken anything you have posted to be harsh at all. Its good debate and discussion that give people that browse these forums insight and knowledge to make responsible decisions. Calling a reporter names as some have done on this thread just does not give a good impression at all imo.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

Rivers is absolutely right about the average joe getting a pup down the road from a byb rather than paying hundreds of pounds for a show bred pup. Many people just want a pet, and if they can get one for free or cheap (and remember there is a recession), they would most likely get that pup than travel halfway across the country, and pay £700 or more for a champion, show bred pup. After all, to the average joe, a pet bred lab looks exactly the same as a show bred lab.

I don't really know what the show world can do about this though, and I'm not saying they should drop their prices or anything, but it is a very real issue, and all this byb breeding needs to be sorted out.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

5rivers79 said:


> Cost is not a factor to me, but to the average person it is..that is what keeps bybs in business dont you think? What other reason is there for buying from a byb especially in these current times when the economy is all over the place?
> 
> You say you would turn people down who have a problem with paying kc reg'd champion dog prices..but all that does is send them to bybs so the vicious circle carries on and byb laugh all the way to the bank.
> 
> Its plain to see even when meeting fellow dog people that most are average people who havent researched before buying. Its only after getting a dog do they start reading up or coming on forums like this.
> 
> Are endorsements really worth anything? I could for example buy a dog with all the breeding endorsements under the sun and not stick to any of them? How would a reputable breeder enforce me to neuter my dog? Also what powers do endorsements have to stop me from breeding? All it would mean is that i cant kc register the litter? But looking at the viewpoint of a byb they wouldnt really care as they can still make 300-400 quid per pup even if its not reg'd.
> 
> My question is what would the byb do if prices of kc reg'd dogs from reputable breeders were brought in line with prices that byb charge? Surely that would urge mr joe public to think about going down the reputable route?
> 
> Sam's dad is a KC reg'd dog with a full history of its bloodline..the Dam is a family pet and both have great temperaments. Are you saying the guy shouldnt have wanted a pup from his own dogs? He knew exactly where his litter has gone so has not added to the rescue crisis.
> 
> Also Im curious to know how you would judge a bear hunter/fighting dog to be a good representative of its breed apart from how it looks and moves?
> 
> But the point about the thread is some breeders/breed clubs dont care about the health of their breed and simple carry on with their practices so that the dog has these weird exaggerated looks. Of course there are good breeders but why would a tv programme show those? For example the panorama episode about care homes highlighted how badly individuals were treated by care staff in a certain home, i dont remember them showing how great other care homes can be.
> 
> And in the first pde why did breeders tell the camera to f off? If some of the good breeders on here were approached wouldnt you try and explain the good and decent side of the story and show how good breeding is good for the health of dogs? I dont understand why anyone would tell reporters to f off unless they had something to hide?
> 
> I can tell that you are passionate about breeding and that is a good thing because you care about your breed and iv not taken anything you have posted to be harsh at all. Its good debate and discussion that give people that browse these forums insight and knowledge to make responsible decisions. Calling a reporter names as some have done on this thread just does not give a good impression at all imo.


Cost shouldn't be a factor when it comes to buying any pet, unfortunately, not only do people skimp on the purchase price, but they don't accurately investigate or know just how much that puppy might cost them in the future. I once did a thread on another forum some years back, asking for costs that people had spent on their dogs, and the total was between £1500-£2000 for the first two years alone, without taking the purchase price into consideration, so that was insurance, food, normal vets bills, worming, fleaing etc, etc. If you want to do dogs on a budget, buy a stuffed toy, or volunteer to help out down at a local kennels. Owning a dog is a privilege, unfortunately, it's not treated that way, owning a dog has become more of a disposable *asset*.

So no, I don't think charging a reasonable price for a fully KC registered dog is *driving* people to puppy farmers, I think they're there already, because to be perfectly honest, some people need to sit down and think harder whether they can actually afford a dog. I met a couple on Sunday when out walking Rhuna and Indie, who'd got a new Lab pup, and were just trying to socialise her, they mentioned possibly taking a litter from her when she was older, but they thought they might spay her as it was a little bit daunting. I mentioned a few things like health testing, hip scores, eye certs etc, and I could tell from their reactions it was all completely over the top of their head, I didn't ask any further as she's obviously a well loved little pup and she will very likely be spayed from what they said, once she's old enough, the sad thing is, I meet people like that all the time with Labs, and yet it's such an easy breed to research, there is so much information to hand 

Yes, endorsements are worth it, and I feel they should be the way forward for anyone who breeds dogs. None of mine have ever come with endorsements, the Labs because the breeder didn't endorse any pups until after Tau's litter, she had a bad experience with a full litter sister of Indie who went on to be bred out of, the last litter had no eye cert in place even. If she'd been endorsed, the pups would not have been able to be KC registered, which is a deterrent, but if she'd been sold under contract as well, the breeder would have had some recourse as long as the contract was adequately worded. One reason why I'm having my contract checked by a solicitor, so I know I can enforce it if necessary.

Not all back yard breeders charge a pittance, some still charge a fortune for rarer and less freely available breeds, that a reputeable breeder wouldn't likely sell to some folk, basset hounds spring to mind as my OH's sister has one that was passed on from a home where he was crated all day. He's from a puppy farm in Ireland, they just bought him from a shop and paid about £1k for him. He was crated because the children were frightened of him, a couple of months after they rehomed him, they asked for him back, the OH managed to persuade them they were better off without a dog. This poor puppy had no muscle tone what so ever, he'd never been allowed out enough to play. But then you get back to the fact that many people feel dog ownership is a right instead of a privilege.

Whatever Sammy's breeder has done you can't ignore the fact that they cut corners because they wanted to. What health tests were done for the parents? Since they owned both of them, they would easily be able to arrange for all the health tests pertinent to the breed, and any that might be common across breeds, eye conditions seem to be present in numerous breeds for example. I'd have liked a pup from Indie, but I chose not to take a litter, even with someone wanting a foundation bitch from her, because of the dodgy elbow grade she came back with. Just because we want something, doesn't always make it right.

Akitas are not a breed I am at all familiar with, but in the same way that Labradors are judged by their conformation and movement to be able to do a job, that's how all breeds will be judged in the ring. It's the lack of understanding of the role, combined with a focus on certain aspects of a breed standard that seems to lead to some breeds becoming exaggerated. Take Labs for example, their breed standard states they should have a broad skull, what's been lost from that standard however, is the wording that the skull should be broad in comparison to a flat coat. So taken on it's own, that wording could lead to some people breeding with the wrong focus, for a broader, and broader skull, where as in reality, the head of a Lab shouldn't be as broad as something like a Rottweiler for example.

Jemima Harrison is not liked in the pedigree world at all after PDE, because many felt it was a lost opportunity to show both sides of the debate. Instead, by focussing on the wrong doings of a minority, the programme overnight turned people against all pedigrees, and we are still dealing with that backlash of folk believing that pedigree equals unhealthy and inbred. Yet they are willing to buy from a puppy farmer with no history of the dog, could be a brother/sister mating for all they know, but it's healthier because it's not a pedigree.

I can't disagree with you about a minority of breeds, such as bassets for example, even dogs as common as cockers have become so exaggerated for the ring they're not recognisable as the working dog they were, although I know a couple of people will argue till blue in the face the show version is the true version. Why would people tell Jemima Harrison and her crew to F off? Because they don't like her, nor do they like what she's done for dogs. There have been numerous times she's been caught out either lying, or jumping on a newly discovered *fact* to spread as the gospel truth, only to find out it's not a reliable source of information, but by then the harm has been done. I was a member on a breed forum when the first PDE came out, and I know that overnight, waiting lists for pups from good breeders disappeared, all because of the effect of that programme. Where did those people go? Judging by feedback, they went off to line the pockets of byb's and puppy farmers who weren't (apparently) breeding those inbred mutant pedigree dogs.

For someone who apparently loves dogs, they have a very strange way of showing it, and if they don't understand just how they caused people to shy away from good breeders of dogs, they are far less intelligent than I thought they were in the first place.


----------



## Galadriel17

Regarding insurance, I don't think it has anything to do with how much information there is available about a pedigree.

All insurance companies care about is money, if they have to pay out more often to a certain group, they charge more to that group.

I have always understood it costs more to insure a pedigree than a cross/mongrel because more claims are made for pedigrees and generally, over a dog's lifetime, a cross/mongrel will require fewer trips to the vets.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of biology will understand that generally speaking, the more genetically diverse an animal is (dog, human, horse, whatever), the healthier they are likely to be.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Galadriel17 said:


> Regarding insurance, I don't think it has anything to do with how much information there is available about a pedigree.
> 
> All insurance companies care about is money, if they have to pay out more often to a certain group, they charge more to that group.
> 
> *I have always understood it costs more to insure a pedigree than a cross/mongrel because more claims are made for pedigrees and generally, over a dog's lifetime, a cross/mongrel will require fewer trips to the vets.*
> 
> Anyone with a basic knowledge of biology will understand that generally speaking, the more genetically diverse an animal is (dog, human, horse, whatever), the healthier they are likely to be.


Just to throw a different slant on that, who do you think would be most likely to whizz a pup down to the vets, someone who's gone to a breeder of pedigrees, got a puppy pack, with microchip number, list of instructions telling them to take the pup to a vet within a certain timescale to have them checked out etc, etc, or someone who's bought a dog out of the free ads from an oops mating?


----------



## HeartofClass

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Owning a dog is a privilege, unfortunately, it's not treated that way, owning a dog has become more of a disposable *asset*.


I agree with everything you said, but this is just so completely spot on it should be quoted.


----------



## Galadriel17

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just to throw a different slant on that, who do you think would be most likely to whizz a pup down to the vets, someone who's gone to a breeder of pedigrees, got a puppy pack, with microchip number, list of instructions telling them to take the pup to a vet within a certain timescale to have them checked out etc, etc, or someone who's bought a dog out of the free ads from an oops mating?


I don't know but judging from the way you have worded the above you think that someone who owns a pedigree is more likely to care about the dog's health than someone who owns a cross or a mongrel which I think is an unfair assumption to make. I for one treat my crosses the same as my purebred however I've had to take my lab to the vets a lot more than the other two as he has more health issues but that's anecdotal.

We're talking about insurance here and I would imagine that if someone is responsible enough to insure their dog then they would be responsible enough to seek veterinary treatment if required, regardless of whether their dog is a pedigree or a cross or mogrel.

Scientific studies that have been carried out show what I mentioned, that generally speaking, crosses and mogrels are healthier and live longer than pedigrees which is why insurance companies charge more for pedigrees.

ETA: I think the sort of person you're talking about wouldn't bother to have their dog insured.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Galadriel17 said:


> I don't know but judging from the way you have worded the above you think that someone who owns a pedigree is more likely to care about the dog's health than someone who owns a cross or a mongrel which I think is an unfair assumption to make. I for one treat my crosses the same as my purebred however I've had to take my lab to the vets a lot more than the other two as he has more health issues but that's anecdotal.
> 
> We're talking about insurance here and I would imagine that if someone is responsible enough to insure their dog then they would be responsible enough to seek veterinary treatment if required, regardless of whether their dog is a pedigree or a cross or mogrel.
> 
> Scientific studies that have been carried out show what I mentioned, that generally speaking, crosses and mogrels are healthier and live longer than pedigrees which is why insurance companies charge more for pedigrees.


No, I'm not saying one owner will *care* more than the other, but one owner has been primed by a breeder to ensure the pup is taken to the vets already, the other one could be a pedigree dog, but the puppy owners won't have had the lectures from the breeder about taking the pup to the vets because they sneezed wrong, ok, slight exaggeration, but you get the idea hopefully? And unfortunately, I think your appraisal of the majority of folk who are willing to cut corners on the purchase price of a pup and turn to the free ads as a first port of call, is a lot less cynical than mine. I doubt very much they'd even have insurance in place in the first place, which again, would skew figures. It'd be interesting to see how many dogs insured are pedigrees, and how many aren't, where they were bought from and if the parents were health tested. I personally feel that pedigrees are penalised because we know more about their health status, and yet other dogs aren't, even though we don't know their actual health status, it's a presumption that because there are less claims and less actual facts, they MUST be healthier, is that really the case?


----------



## Goblin

Galadriel17 said:


> Regarding insurance, I don't think it has anything to do with how much information there is available about a pedigree.
> 
> All insurance companies care about is money, if they have to pay out more often to a certain group, they charge more to that group.
> 
> I have always understood it costs more to insure a pedigree than a cross/mongrel because more claims are made for pedigrees and generally, over a dog's lifetime, a cross/mongrel will require fewer trips to the vets.


Have to agree with this. If pedigree = more healthy due to more information the cost would be lower. It's not just insurance though is it. Doesn't the PDSA also have restrictions now where only one pedigree is allowed.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just to throw a different slant on that, who do you think would be most likely to whizz a pup down to the vets, someone who's gone to a breeder of pedigrees, got a puppy pack, with microchip number, list of instructions telling them to take the pup to a vet within a certain timescale to have them checked out etc, etc, or someone who's bought a dog out of the free ads from an oops mating?


That argument doesn't hold up. I don't know anyone, pedigree or not who doesn't go to the vet for a puppy check, for vaccinations and if their dog is ill. OK recession may be hitting but this effects all, pedigree dog or not. We have a mongrel (refuse to call it a crossbreed as to me any "cross" is a mongrel). An Oops mating as you call it. Came with a puppy pack, microchip, EU passport, vaccination schedule as well as information given about general health care etc. It's not as uncommon as pedigree breeders like to make out. I'm not condoning "Oops matings" as I believe health tests etc are important but if it happens, many try to do the best they can for their dog and also the resulting puppies.

Pedigree owner *<>* better owner.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Goblin said:


> Have to agree with this. If pedigree = more healthy due to more information the cost would be lower. It's not just insurance though is it. Doesn't the PDSA also have restrictions now where only one pedigree is allowed.
> 
> That argument doesn't hold up. I don't know anyone, pedigree or not who doesn't go to the vet for a puppy check, for vaccinations and if their dog is ill. OK recession may be hitting but this effects all, pedigree dog or not. We have a mongrel (refuse to call it a crossbreed as to me any "cross" is a mongrel). An Oops mating as you call it. Came with a puppy pack, microchip, EU passport, vaccination schedule as well as information given about general health care etc. It's not as uncommon as pedigree breeders like to make out. I'm not condoning "Oops matings" as I believe health tests etc are important but if it happens, many try to do the best they can for their dog and also the resulting puppies.
> 
> Pedigree owner *<>* better owner.


Gaaaahhhh, where have I said pedigree owner equals better owner??!!

Off to walk the dogs, at least they understand me without turning something I say into a completely different sentence, a *treat* will always be a treat to them, not a bribe to get them to do what I want for example.


----------



## Galadriel17

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, I'm not saying one owner will *care* more than the other, but one owner has been primed by a breeder to ensure the pup is taken to the vets already, the other one could be a pedigree dog, but the puppy owners won't have had the lectures from the breeder about taking the pup to the vets because they sneezed wrong, ok, slight exaggeration, but you get the idea hopefully? And unfortunately, I think your appraisal of the majority of folk who are willing to cut corners on the purchase price of a pup and turn to the free ads as a first port of call, is a lot less cynical than mine. I doubt very much they'd even have insurance in place in the first place, which again, would skew figures. It'd be interesting to see how many dogs insured are pedigrees, and how many aren't, where they were bought from and if the parents were health tested. I personally feel that pedigrees are penalised because we know more about their health status, and yet other dogs aren't, even though we don't know their actual health status, it's a presumption that because there are less claims and less actual facts, they MUST be healthier, is that really the case?


Exactly! So we agree, the sort of people who wouldn't take their dog to the vet wouldn't have insurance so, in insurance terms they don't count.

When an insurance company looks at who's been to the vet more often they find it's pedigrees so they charge more to the owners of pedigrees.

And I'm sure they'll allow for the numbers and adjust accordingly, I doubt they'll charge more just because there are more pedigrees insured, if there are in the same way they don't charge more for car drivers for being in their 30's for example than those in the 20's simply because there are more people in their 30's insured than those in their 20's even though people in their 20's have more crashes (I don't know if that's true - that there are more insured car drivers in their 30's than there are in their 20's etc - just using it as an example to illustrate a point)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Galadriel17 said:


> Exactly! So we agree, the sort of people who wouldn't take their dog to the vet wouldn't have insurance so, in insurance terms they don't count.
> 
> When an insurance company looks at who's been to the vet more often they find it's pedigrees so they charge more to the owners of pedigrees.
> 
> And I'm sure they'll allow for the numbers and adjust accordingly, I doubt they'll charge more just because there are more pedigrees insured, if there are in the same way they don't charge more for car drivers for being in their 30's for example than those in the 20's simply because there are more people in their 30's insured than those in their 20's even though people in their 20's have more crashes (I don't know if that's true - that there are more insured car drivers in their 30's than there are in their 20's etc - just using it as an example to illustrate a point)


No, we don't agree, am busy off doing something atm, but will be back later, I need another sugary cup of tea to explain fully


----------



## Galadriel17

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, we don't agree, am busy off doing something atm, but will be back later, I need another sugary cup of tea to explain fully


Sorry, I thought we were agreed on the point that the type of person you were referring to probably wouldnt have their dog insured.

I didnt want to get into a discussion over the health of pedigree dogs over non-pedigree dogs as there are lots of variables to take into consideration.

I was just pointing out that insurance companies charge more for pedigrees because they have to pay out more and/or more frequently to owners of pedigree dogs.

I felt you were making an assumption that anyone who doesnt buy from a pedigree breeder doesnt care about the health of their dog which I dont think is fair.

There are some bad pedigree breeders just like there are some good BYB breeders and I dont think all people who decide not to buy from a pedigree breeder are irresponsible or dont care about the dogs health or are lackadaisical when it comes to taking them to the vet. More often than not I would imagine they just feel they dont need to buy a pedigree because theyre not going to show or are lacking in knowledge when it comes to choosing the right dog.


----------



## Shrap

I wonder what percentage of mongrels are treated by the PDSA vs insured, and what % of pedigree dogs are treated by the PDSA bs insured.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Galadriel17 said:


> Sorry, I thought we were agreed on the point that the type of person you were referring to probably wouldnt have their dog insured.
> 
> I didnt want to get into a discussion over the health of pedigree dogs over non-pedigree dogs as there are lots of variables to take into consideration.
> 
> I was just pointing out that insurance companies charge more for pedigrees because they have to pay out more and/or more frequently to owners of pedigree dogs.
> 
> I felt you were making an assumption that anyone who doesnt buy from a pedigree breeder doesnt care about the health of their dog which I dont think is fair.
> 
> There are some bad pedigree breeders just like there are some good BYB breeders and I dont think all people who decide not to buy from a pedigree breeder are irresponsible or dont care about the dogs health or are lackadaisical when it comes to taking them to the vet. More often than not I would imagine they just feel they dont need to buy a pedigree because theyre not going to show or are lacking in knowledge when it comes to choosing the right dog.


Right, cup of sugary tea to hand, I think we're coming at this from completely different view points.

Going back to the couple I met on Sunday with the Lab pup, they very much *cared* about her, even though they didn't really have much knowledge, and were considering breeding from her in the future. I didn't ask the question about where they got her from, but it was obvious that it wasn't a good breeder, the second health tests were mentioned their eyes glazed over in a *wish I'd known about that before* sort of way, with the cogs whirring round. Does that make them bad people or uncaring? It certainly doesn't make them uncaring, but they have most likely, as many others do without knowing it, supported the wrong sort of breeder. There are two totally separate issues there and whether or not a dog is a pedigree, or bought from the right sort of breeder does not dictate whether a puppy buyer emotionally cares about their dog(s).

I don't take my dogs to the vets for minor ailments that many others would do, does that mean I don't care, or that those who whisk their dogs off to buy eye ointment from the vets rather than have a ready supply of drops from the chemist in the fridge, just in case, cares more than me?

I've not made any assumptions, I think people have taken the posts in completely the wrong context actually.

I think insurance is too complicated an issue to make assumptions as well, I do think many breeders of pedigrees will tell puppy buyers to get insurance in place, and you'll also get lots of people who've bought a pup from a poor breeder, who then get told, get insurance just in case. There's no way of telling from insurance figures how well bred a dog is, whether there were health tests in place for the parents, whether environmental factors have contributed to the statistics even, or whether the dogs are actually what they say on the insurance paperwork. I've got a friend with a *Labrador* that has no Labrador in it, just looks like one!

You'll get a helluva lot of people who are too ignorant or just don't want to spend part of their budget on insurance either, and I'm guessing if they've got dogs, they couldn't have got them from a breeder who was skeptical about whether they could afford to fully provide for their pup/dog. And yet again, I reiterate, that does not mean that person doesn't care for the dog in an emotional way, but they are unable to provide a level of *care* that someone better off could. Just for the record, none of mine are insured, I have money put aside if I ever need it for any treatment for them.

So for those pedigree breeders who also get drummed at them day and night, well, pedigree dogs cost more to insure so therefore they MUST be unhealthy, it's a raw deal, you're damned if you do health test and know the health status of your dog (and breed overall), but anyone who's had an ooops litter with a jrt and a St Bernard is contributing healthier dogs to the world apparently. And that's without one health test in place to prove it!


----------



## Guest

Shrap said:


> I wonder what percentage of mongrels are treated by the PDSA vs insured, and what % of pedigree dogs are treated by the PDSA bs insured.


i believe the numbers on PDSA treating pedigree dogs would be quite low since they`re rules changed!

PDSA Vet Care - Changes To PDSA PetAid Hospital Service


----------



## Galadriel17

Shrap said:


> I wonder what percentage of mongrels are treated by the PDSA vs insured, and what % of pedigree dogs are treated by the PDSA bs insured.


A valid question but in this context, perhaps indicitive of a prejudicial view?


----------



## DoodlesRule

Just done a mini survey of work colleagues, 14 staff in total 6 of whom are dog owners and their experience on health issues/insurance/taking to the vets. Obviously does not prove anything but its a cross section - if I know from health tested parents have mentioned, rest I don't know & haven't asked. The two who had not previously insured did with their next dog following the experience I had with my Tibetan as the costs put the frighteners on them!


A: Would take to the vet immediately if anything amiss. Never bred.
JRT insured, only required routine vet visits/no health issues. Died of old age at 16 years
Pedigree whippet insured, died at 1 year old auto-immune anaemia disease
Pedigree Whippet insured, no major health issues until recently started to pee in the house possibly due to early spay, currently 3 years old

B: (Me) Would take to the vet immediately if anything amiss. Never bred
Pedigree Tibetan Terrier insured (health tested parents)  idiopathic polyarthritis (auto immune disease) at 2 years old, pts age 5 years due to liver cancer. Insurance claims circa £9,000
Golden Retriever cross (Doodle if you prefer!) insured (health tested parents). No health issues to date, currently 20 months old

C: Would take to the vet immediately if anything amiss. Never bred
Pedigree German Shepherd insured  pts age 6 severe hip dysplasia
Labrador/dalmation cross insured  currently aged 9 years had operation last year for cruciate problem, operation this year to remove cancerous growth from mouth
Lurcher insured  was a rescue age unknown, died last year approximately aged 8 or 9 years cause unknown had sickness bug
Pedigree Whippet insured (health tested parents from litter of F below)  no health issues currently aged 7 months 

D: Would take to the vet immediately if anything amiss. Never bred
Cavalier/bichon cross insured  been to vets frequently with stomach issues, possibly due to feeding Bakers which was what breeder used! Gave gentle guidance now on wainwrights wet and no further problems

E: Would take to the vet immediately if anything amiss. 
2 heinz 57s were not insured/inoculated delayed vet visits as long as possible. One died of old age at 12 years, one pts last year with skin cancer was about 10 years old
JRT (rescue, took on from neighbours when they split up) insured take to the vets with slightest thing. Fussy eater  give weebox? Allowed him to be used at stud

F: Would take to the vet immediately if anything amiss. Bred.
Mother bred & showed Golden Retreivers
Pedigree Golden Retriever not insured - died last year aged 12 years of cancer
Pedigree Whippet (health tested parents) insured. Shows mum, was placed at Crufts, currently aged 3.5 years had one litter last year kept one pup being showed as is litter mate which her mother had. No known health issues. Despite mother having been a breeder still found it very stressful & will not have another litter


----------



## Galadriel17

I posted the following:



Galadriel17 said:


> Regarding insurance, I don't think it has anything to do with how much information there is available about a pedigree.
> 
> All insurance companies care about is money, if they have to pay out more often to a certain group, they charge more to that group.
> 
> I have always understood it costs more to insure a pedigree than a cross/mongrel because more claims are made for pedigrees and generally, over a dog's lifetime, a cross/mongrel will require fewer trips to the vets.
> 
> Anyone with a basic knowledge of biology will understand that generally speaking, the more genetically diverse an animal is (dog, human, horse, whatever), the healthier they are likely to be.


And you responded by saying:



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just to throw a different slant on that, who do you think would be most likely to whizz a pup down to the vets, someone who's gone to a breeder of pedigrees, got a puppy pack, with microchip number, list of instructions telling them to take the pup to a vet within a certain timescale to have them checked out etc, etc, or someone who's bought a dog out of the free ads from an oops mating?


Which to me, implied that you thought an owner who'd bought from a pedigree breeder would be more likely to take their dog to the vet than someone who'd bought from an 'oops mating'. Now that, I thought was an unfair assumption and I also thought that the above statement you made implied there were just two camps, 1) responsible people who buy from pedigree breeders and 2) irresponsible people who buy from anyone that's not a pedigree breeder. I apologise if I deduced incorrectly or just based on the above post.

Insurance however is as simple as what generally costs more pays more.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

That's really interesting, thanks for that, mine would be as follows:

Would take to the vet if unsure it wasn't anything I couldn't treat, such as mild conjunctivitus or cuts/scrapes etc.
Indie (Labrador) about six years old - ruptured cruciate and torn meniscus, insured at the time, total cost is over £3k, however, I strongly believe environmental factors were an issue as my ex believed in walking the legs off a dog so he could have a lie in. She's been health tested, her hip score is 3:3 and elbow grade 2:1 - the vet did fluff the plates and they had to be redone for her elbows, not sure if that's a good reflection of her actual elbows, but she's spayed in any case. She's clear for gPRA and did pass a BVA eye exam when younger, haven't retested her. She may also suffer mild spay incontinence.
Tau (Labrador) about five years old - Has been ill once for 24 hours with a tummy bug, and tore her dew claw last year, her health test results are 0:0 hips, 0 elbows, gPRA clear, CNM clear and her recent eye test is clear. 
Rhuna (the original one) - rescued from a guy who bred and worked Labs, so assume she was a pedigree working bred dog, she'd got numerous mammary tumours before she came to us, and was given a few weeks only to live, she died seven months later, most likely over ten years old.
Chloe - Lab x collie, suffered with joint problems, an infected skin tag which was removed shortly after she came to us, she also looked to have poor eyes (cloudy) and had a deformed soft palette which meant she choked herself pulling against a collar, so had to wear a harness. She went downhill quickly after a retirement of about 18months with us, aged over ten years at least. 
Rhuna (flatcoat) - fit as a fiddle so far, aged 8 1/2 months. 

The only one of the lot of them I made an insurance claim for was Indie, the rest were paid for either by rescue, or out of our own pockets.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Galadriel17 said:


> Which to me, implied that you thought an owner who'd bought from a pedigree breeder would be more likely to take their dog to the vet than someone who'd bought from an 'oops mating'. Now that, I thought was an unfair assumption and I also thought that the above statement you made implied there were just two camps, 1) responsible people who buy from pedigree breeders and 2) irresponsible people who buy from anyone that's not a pedigree breeder. I apologise if I deduced incorrectly or just based on the above post.
> 
> Insurance however is as simple as what generally costs more pays more.


You assumed I meant that pedigree dog owners care more about their dogs than those with non-pedigrees, which I've already explained isn't the case; you've also queried someone else about why they're asking a question regarding the % of pedigree vs non-pedigree dogs treated by the PDSA, of course, we must be all biased against those non-pedigrees if we question the making of PDE, I completely forgot *that*!

I'll go through it again, if someone buys a pup from a free ad, or local advert in a pet shop, how likely do you think it will be that the *breeder* will be interested in whether that pup goes to the vets regularly, or do you think when the dog goes out the door they'll bother very much to keep in touch at all? It's common sense, if you can only pay £200 for a dog, and you choose to buy from a breeder who has cut corners and is churning pups out for extra cash, are you going to then pay £20 per month for insurance? If you go to a breeder who ensures that insurance will be in place for the first six weeks, yes it is free, but how many do you think continue that insurance on then? I'd suggest it's a much higher rate than those who spent £200 on the pup from the bloke down the road. NONE of that means one CARES more than the other, it simply means one does not have the right knowledge and money to possibly provide as high a standard of welfare than the other.

I think you're really just making up what I've said now, I've not implied anything of the kind, I've taken great pains to explain. I'll just wait for the posts that tell me what I've actually said in the future, off to watch a dvd and chill with my inbred mutants


----------



## shetlandlover

I too have only claimed on the insurance once.

Alaska -Shetland sheepdog- *2 and a half years old. Hip scores: 7/3 = 10, eye exam clear. DNA CEA carrier*. broken leg £3000 in vet fee's. *My only ever claim. * she's also had a 24 hour tummy bug which I took her to the vets and paid for. She's only been to the vets twice with health problems, she goes routinely for check ups.

Aiden -Shetland sheepdog- *1 and a half years old. Hip score 6/5 = 11. Eye exam Clear, DNA CEA results pending. * Never been to the vets with any health issues, only for vaccines and check ups.

Kai -Shetland sheepdog - 2 years old, not hip scored, bought from a less than reputable breeder. Only been to the vets to have his retained testicle removed and be neutered at the same time. And only been for vaccines/check ups.

Scorcher - 11 years old - had since 7 years old. Collie x GSD. Within the first week of having her she was diagnosed with anal furunculosis and given a choice of putting her down or life long steroids. Then she was diagnosed with arthritis in her front elbows she would collapse while walking. She then had a fit. Then she was diagnosed with hip dysplasia. We were given a cancer diagnosis in 2010. The vet said she had 6 months to live, she has out lived that diagnosis but she does have cancer. We have also had to take her to the vet repeatedly for blocked tear ducts and for a ulcer on her cancer lump on her shoulder.


----------



## Galadriel17

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You assumed I meant that pedigree dog owners care more about their dogs than those with non-pedigrees, which I've already explained isn't the case; you've also queried someone else about why they're asking a question regarding the % of pedigree vs non-pedigree dogs treated by the PDSA, of course, we must be all biased against those non-pedigrees if we question the making of PDE, I completely forgot *that*!
> 
> I'll go through it again, if someone buys a pup from a free ad, or local advert in a pet shop, how likely do you think it will be that the *breeder* will be interested in whether that pup goes to the vets regularly, or do you think when the dog goes out the door they'll bother very much to keep in touch at all? It's common sense, if you can only pay £200 for a dog, and you choose to buy from a breeder who has cut corners and is churning pups out for extra cash, are you going to then pay £20 per month for insurance? If you go to a breeder who ensures that insurance will be in place for the first six weeks, yes it is free, but how many do you think continue that insurance on then? I'd suggest it's a much higher rate than those who spent £200 on the pup from the bloke down the road. NONE of that means one CARES more than the other, it simply means one does not have the right knowledge and money to possibly provide as high a standard of welfare than the other.
> 
> I think you're really just making up what I've said now, I've not implied anything of the kind, I've taken great pains to explain. I'll just wait for the posts that tell me what I've actually said in the future, off to watch a dvd and chill with my inbred mutants


Theres no need to be like that,  I apologised for deducing from that one post.

Nowhere did I say that questioning the making of PDE made you biased against non-pedigrees! Nor have I made things up. You responded to a statement I made that simply said pedigrees cost more to insure than non-pedigrees because insurance companies pay out more to owners of pedigrees in a way which I took to mean something that Ive explained (Im not going to repeat myself) and again, I apologised if I deduced incorrectly. Nor do I think that your pedigrees are inbred mutants! Blimey.


----------



## Galadriel17

One thing we clearly agree on Sleeping_Lion is that we want a healthy, happy future for all dogs.  (The following is not directed at you btw, just putting it here to raise awareness to other readers)

One sure way of assisting that is for the government to impose controls on breeding; what saddens me is the response I got to this thread I started - http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/219541-e-petitions.html

Out of over 100,000 members on here, only 100 people looked at that thread and I bet less than 10 looked at or signed any of the petitions Id linked to. Only one person liked it and only one person commented and that was to make a joke. How long does it take to sign a petition then post signed on the thread to keep bumping it up?

Four of the petitions I linked to were asking for tougher controls on breeding, including the KCs own petition to stop puppy farming - Help End Puppy Farming - e-petitions which only has about 4,800 signatures, seeing as how the KC (according to its own website) registers over 200,000 pedigree dogs every year it sometimes makes me wonder if as many people who say they care about the welfare of dogs actually do.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Galadriel17 said:


> Theres no need to be like that,  I apologised for deducing from that one post.
> 
> Nowhere did I say that questioning the making of PDE made you biased against non-pedigrees! Nor have I made things up. You responded to a statement I made that simply said pedigrees cost more to insure than non-pedigrees because insurance companies pay out more to owners of pedigrees in a way which I took to mean something that Ive explained (Im not going to repeat myself) and again, I apologised if I deduced incorrectly. Nor do I think that your pedigrees are inbred mutants! Blimey.


It was all tongue in cheek, hence the wink.

However, I do feel that some of what I've put has been taken as being meant differently, I haven't said that one set of owners is more caring at all, most people do care about their dogs, unfortunately, that doesn't include good knowledge of what's best for them, nor what a good breeder is. There is however some sort of concept that a lack of knowledge for non-pedigree dogs, combined with a lack of insurance claims, does equal a healthier population of dogs. To me a gap in knowledge doesn't conclude anything, it throws up lots of different hypotheses. It's like a health test result that isn't there, for example, is it best to use a dog with 3/3 hips and 2 elbow grade, or a dog with 0:0 hips? A lot of people would inadvertently shy away from that 2 elbow grade, and if you had to pin them down to a choice, they would opt for the second dog even though there is the possibility that it could be worse than the other dog that has been tested, does that make sense?

One thing I forgot to mention is that insurance levels will not necessarily be cheaper for breeds with less claims against them either; like anything, the cost is partly determined by how much it's wanted/needed. If you've got a popular and healthy breed, the insurance won't necessarily be less than a less popular and healthy breed. If only life were that fair!

And honestly, it's a good debate, we don't have to agree on every last detail, but yes, we do have the welfare of dogs at heart, and that's a good thing. I'll use the tongue emocion next time to make sure the tongue in cheek bit gets across properly, apols for any misunderstanding


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Galadriel17 said:


> One thing we clearly agree on Sleeping_Lion is that we want a healthy, happy future for all dogs.  (The following is not directed at you btw, just putting it here to raise awareness to other readers)
> 
> One sure way of assisting that is for the government to impose controls on breeding; what saddens me is the response I got to this thread I started - http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/219541-e-petitions.html
> 
> Out of over 100,000 members on here, only 100 people looked at that thread and I bet less than 10 looked at or signed any of the petitions Id linked to. Only one person liked it and only one person commented and that was to make a joke. How long does it take to sign a petition then post signed on the thread to keep bumping it up?
> 
> Four of the petitions I linked to were asking for tougher controls on breeding, including the KCs own petition to stop puppy farming - Help End Puppy Farming - e-petitions which only has about 4,800 signatures, seeing as how the KC (according to its own website) registers over 200,000 pedigree dogs every year it sometimes makes me wonder if as many people who say they care about the welfare of dogs actually do.


I think I've already signed that petition tbh, a lot of them get circulated on FB as well, and I've signed a few. I've also contributed to a group making suggestions for a way forward with the ABS, to try and come up with different ideas to bat around, as well as regularly being a pain up the backside reporting ABS members who aren't abiding by the KC regs direct to the guy in charge of the ABS. His emails have gotten shorter and shorter


----------



## BlueBeagle

Galadriel17 said:


> One thing we clearly agree on Sleeping_Lion is that we want a healthy, happy future for all dogs.  (The following is not directed at you btw, just putting it here to raise awareness to other readers)
> 
> One sure way of assisting that is for the government to impose controls on breeding; what saddens me is the response I got to this thread I started - http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/219541-e-petitions.html
> 
> Out of over 100,000 members on here, only 100 people looked at that thread and I bet less than 10 looked at or signed any of the petitions I'd linked to. Only one person 'liked' it and only one person commented and that was to make a joke. How long does it take to sign a petition then post 'signed' on the thread to keep bumping it up?
> 
> Four of the petitions I linked to were asking for tougher controls on breeding, including the KC's own petition to stop puppy farming - Help End Puppy Farming - e-petitions which only has about 4,800 signatures, seeing as how the KC (according to its own website) registers over 200,000 pedigree dogs every year it sometimes makes me wonder if as many people who say they care about the welfare of dogs actually do.


I don't tend to look at those threads because I am not in the UK and most petitions require you to be a resident and I am not. If I am wrong then let me know and I will sign quite happily.

ETA: it let me sign and accept it! Before I got emails saying because I was outside the UK I wouldn't be able to sign, they must have changed the regulations!


----------



## Shrap

What I meant was that more pedigrees will be insured. More mongrels will be treated by the PDSA. This means that although they may pay out more in claims for pedigrees, it's not because mongrels don't have anything wrong with them. 

Lots of mongrel owners won't insure because they can't afford it. Or they think they have a mongrel which will be much healthier than those crippled pedigrees, therefore don't need insurance. 
So whether or not pedigrees do cost more in claims, that in no way reflects the health status of pedigrees or mongrels.

Does anyone know if insurance companies have looked into asking about health test results for parents when considering insurance premiums?


----------



## Galadriel17

Shrap said:


> *What I meant was that more pedigrees will be insured. More mongrels will be treated by the PDSA. This means that although they may pay out more in claims for pedigrees, it's not because mongrels don't have anything wrong with them. *
> 
> Lots of mongrel owners won't insure because they can't afford it. Or they think they have a mongrel which will be much healthier than those crippled pedigrees, therefore don't need insurance.
> So whether or not pedigrees do cost more in claims, that in no way reflects the health status of pedigrees or mongrels.
> 
> Does anyone know if insurance companies have looked into asking about health test results for parents when considering insurance premiums?


That's exactly what I thought you meant which is why I thought you were being predudice. You're making assumptions, unless of course you've seen some research or figures which back up your statement?


----------



## comfortcreature

Shrap said:


> What I meant was that more pedigrees will be insured. More mongrels will be treated by the PDSA. This means that although they may pay out more in claims for pedigrees, it's not because mongrels don't have anything wrong with them. . . .


You are missing something here. When insurance companies state they pay our more for pedigree dogs and therefore breeds have a higher premium . . . it is PER pedigree dog they are speaking.

If they insure more pedigrees then they also pay out more in total on pedigrees, but THAT is not what they are referring to when they calculate which breeds, or non breeds, should be charged the higher premiums.

PER dog, on average, insurance companies spend more on pedigrees than on mixed dogs.



> So whether or not pedigrees do cost more in claims, that in no way reflects the health status of pedigrees or mongrels.


Yes it does. They don't have to insure a lot of mix breeds to make comparison statistics. Approximately 150 would be enough to be considered significant enough to work from . . . and I'm sure they ALL insure more than 150 mixed dogs.

Of course that does not mean mongrels will all have nothing wrong with them. Dogs are dogs and of course some will and some won't just as some pedigrees do and some don't no matter what testing and care has gone into their breeding. Mother nature is just like that.

Here is one study that is often referenced if you care to have a look to see their numbers. Unfortunately it cuts off at ten years of age, so shows little about longevity in longer lived breeds/mixes. It is still quickly noticable just from the charts that mongrels face a lower rate of illnesses than many breeds (not all) and a higher rate of death than many breeds due to accident or trauma - many prior to the age of 2. JRTs also suffer this problem statistically. Retrievers and mongrels tend to be on similar footing at about the age of 8 with Retrievers doing better prior. It is a pity this study did not look at older dogs. Please notice the left side scale varies. - http://www.actavetscand.com/content/46/3/121

"Mortality in over 350,000 Insured Swedish Dogs from 1995-2000: II. Breed-Specific Age and Survival Patterns and Relative Risk for Causes of Death . . .










That study was the companion paper for this one. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1624819/?tool=pubmed

_"Mortality in over 350,000 Insured Swedish dogs from 1995-2000: I. Breed-, Gender-, Age- and Cause-specific Rates"_

CC


----------



## Shrap

The less dogs used to calculate the average the less accurate it is....

They don't have a true cross section. What would be better would be if all vets sent anonymous information about breed and amount of money spent on vet care. not inculding vaccs, car accidents etc. Then we would have to account for the bump ups that vets charge when it's an insurance company paying though


----------



## comfortcreature

Shrap said:


> The less dogs used to calculate the average the less accurate it is....
> 
> They don't have a true cross section. . . .


This study looked at ALL types of death, trauma, heart, locomotor (HD type), neurological . . . and charted and adjusted for them. ALL of the dogs were insured dogs so the 'bump up" factor wouldn't play in as it would be even across the board. On 350,000 dogs how can you say it is not a true cross section? I can't understand your thinking here.

CC


----------



## Shrap

comfortcreature said:


> Shrap said:
> 
> 
> 
> The less dogs used to calculate the average the less accurate it is....
> 
> They don't have a true cross section. . . . QUOTE]
> 
> This study looked at ALL types of death, trauma, heart, locomotor (HD type), neurological . . . and charted and adjusted for them. ALL of the dogs were insured dogs so the 'bump up" factor wouldn't play in as it would be even across the board. On 350,000 dogs how can you say it is not a true cross section? I can't understand your thinking here.
> 
> CC
> 
> 
> 
> Not a true cross section of all living dogs. Only insured ones.
Click to expand...


----------



## comfortcreature

Shrap said:


> comfortcreature said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a true cross section of all living dogs. Only insured ones.
> 
> 
> 
> . . . And when a good portion of those insured dogs are mongrels how does that make a difference?
> 
> When the numbers are large enough they are just as significant as if the full population was studied.
> 
> CC
Click to expand...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

CC, can I just ask as well, does the study you're referring to actually take into account the health of the dogs, not just what they died from? I ask, because the mixed breed dog I had did not have as good a quality of life as my pedigrees, due to her health issues. She lived until well past ten if her reported age was anything to go by, but is it worth living five years longer if you can't run about and/or have to live with constant health issues?


----------



## noushka05

comfortcreature said:


> Shrap said:
> 
> 
> 
> The less dogs used to calculate the average the less accurate it is....
> 
> They don't have a true cross section. . . . QUOTE]
> 
> This study looked at ALL types of death, trauma, heart, locomotor (HD type), neurological . . . and charted and adjusted for them. On 350,000 dogs how can you say it is not a true cross section? I can't understand your thinking here.
> 
> CC
> 
> 
> 
> but i wonder what percentage of these pedigree dogs will have been bred by poor breeders?.
> 
> because here in the UK the vast majority of pedigrees bred are not bred by breed enthusiasts but by breeders who know little and who dont do anything to promote the health and welfare of the breed.
Click to expand...


----------



## comfortcreature

SL, I've had exactly the opposite experience, with purebred dogs that I have owned being much less 'hardy' and much more commonly in need of care. I've cared for only 2 purebred dogs - one living to 14 and he did O.K. but the mutt collies were much hardier. Two died younger than him, and one lived longer. My village bred Husky needed NO CARE from a vet nor from me(she got here regular check ups though) for her first 16 years. Not one incident in 18 years of tummy troubles or any other unhardy incidenses. Her heart finally turned on her over the last two years.

Each one of us is going to have different anecdotes which is why large number comparisons are important. (A multiple of anecdotes does not equal a statistic).

To answer your question the study specifically looked at causes of death, but in those causes health factors are reflected. This is from the original paper and it describes their categories.

_"Diagnoses

Since the first of January 1995 a hierarchical registry [24] has been used at the insurance company to assign diagnostic codes to each claim. This registry contains more than 8,000 alpha-numerical codes. The registry is based on the 14 following different major organ systems: integumentary, digestive, genital, respiratory, skeletal, auditory, joints, ocular, urinary, cardiovascular, endocrine, nervous, muscular and un-specified. System 'unspecified' contains signs of disease that cannot be attributed to a specific system as well as diseases that are considered to involve the whole animal, such as infectious diseases and all parasitic conditions. Ten major process groups can be assigned within each system: symptomatic, developmental, degenerative, circulatory, inflammatory, immunologic, neoplastic, traumatic, toxic and idiopathic (details, see [13]). Within all systems except endocrine, sub-divisions of the organ system can be included. In the absence of a specific diagnosis, a veterinarian can assign "dead- no diagnosis" within system unspecified. In the database each claim can only have one diagnostic code associated with it and that is based on the diagnosis provided by the attending veterinarian.

For this study, the registered causes of death were partitioned into six general categories  tumours, trauma, locomotor disorders, heart, neurological and other problems. Tumours were those diagnoses listed under process neoplastic. The diagnostic category trauma included all diagnoses that were listed as traumatic processes; locomotor disorders were all those in systems skeletal, muscles and joints, except for the traumatic or neoplastic processes. Similarly, the diagnostic category heart consisted of all heart diagnoses, and neurological disorders included all diagnoses said to emanate from the nervous system, except for those said to be neoplastic or traumatic in origin. Cases with the diagnosis epileptiforme seizures were included under the diagnostic category neurological (from system unspecified). The specific diagnosis cruciate rupture was included under the diagnostic category locomotor and gastric dilatation/volvulus was included under the diagnostic category other (both from the traumatic process). All diagnoses that did not belong in any of the preceding categories were assigned to 'other'."_

CC


----------



## comfortcreature

noushka05 said:


> but i wonder what percentage of these pedigree dogs will have been bred by poor breeders?. . .


Absolutely a point to note. It is worthy of considerationg but do you also wonder how many of the mutts were bred by poor breeders?

That is my first thought when reading the desire for this comparison.

If we want to differentiate we need to compare well bred mutts to well bred pedigrees.

Now if you are looking to see if 'well-bred' pedigrees might be better off than 'poor-bred' mutts, I would imagine that could be the case.

A well bred mutt might even most always be better than a poor bred pedigree.

Those considerations give us no information at all with regard to whether heterosis should be a factor looked at when making breeding decisions.

The study I WANT to see is between well bred mutt, by weight category, to well bred pedigrees. THAT would be telling.

One study that I do know was done by the Great Scotts Magazine - 2005. It was the largest study ever on Scotties (785 dogs) and looked to see if well-bred Scotties fared better than the ones bred from those people call BYBs.

They did not.

Great Scots Magazine for Scottish Terrier Lovers Celebrating Scottish Terrier Companionship

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Thanks CC, I think it's difficult to really draw any conclusions when you've only got such a small amount of data, and I think it's dangerous to make the assumption that *all* pedigree dogs are unhealthy in comparison to *all* non-pedigree dogs, and that is the assumption that a lot of Joe Public made from the first airing of PDE. There are many reasons why that assumption just isn't right to me, and I know I get fed up of hearing pedigrees are unhealthy in comparison to cross breeds, along with a few others I'm sure. I'll readily agree that there is a number of breeds where things have gone very wrong, either with genetic conditions and/or conformation issues. But at the same time, there are a lot of very fit and healthy pedigree dogs out there, where the health status is known, and yet knowing the health status seems to carry the stigma of having more health issues than not knowing what health issues are there, which is bonkers!


----------



## comfortcreature

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Thanks CC, I think it's difficult to really draw any conclusions when you've only got such a small amount of data,!


I agree that solid conclusions should not be drawn when the data is non-specific. It is definately not a 'small amount' of data however and 'general' ideas can be grasped from it, to be sure.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> and I think it's dangerous to make the assumption that *all* pedigree dogs are unhealthy in comparison to *all* non-pedigree dogs, and that is the assumption that a lot of Joe Public made from the first airing of PDE.


You and I will continue to disagree that that was the message that most gleaned from that show. I personally know at least 10 new owners who more carefully sought out purebred breeders as a result of PDE. Prior they would have been fooled by the many commercial breeders that we have around here.

To me that is 10 less puppies purchased from horrid conditions, and I thank PDE for it. Of course there are others that would go the lazy route whether the show was aired on not, and I know a couple of those as well.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> There are many reasons why that assumption just isn't right to me, and I know I get fed up of hearing pedigrees are unhealthy in comparison to cross breeds, along with a few others I'm sure. I'll readily agree that there is a number of breeds where things have gone very wrong, either with genetic conditions and/or conformation issues.


I understand where you are coming from. I believe often pedigree breeders are sensitive and when they here 'pedigrees are unhealthy in comparison to cross breeds' they believe people are speaking of ALL pedigrees.

I am not a pedigree breeder and that would not be something I'd take from that sentence. I would just not be inclined to read the ALL into that statement. I don't know of one single person in my mutt loving community that would mean 'all' when making a statement such as that.

BTW, I have been hearing the statement 'purebreds aren't as healthy as mutts' for my full memory in life - and it started a little before PDE.  I never took it to mean ALL purebreds.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> But at the same time, there are a lot of very fit and healthy pedigree dogs out there, where the health status is known, and yet knowing the health status seems to carry the stigma of having more health issues than not knowing what health issues are there, which is bonkers!


Yes, I believe it needs to be shouted from the roof tops that there ARE fit breeds and breeders helping that along. Many people like predictability in the pets they bring into their home. Purebred breeders doing things right should be celebrated and not stigmatized for 'looking' at the health in their breeds.

CC


----------



## Shrap

comfortcreature said:


> Absolutely a point to note. It is worthy of considerationg but do you also wonder how many of the mutts were bred by poor breeders?
> 
> That is my first thought when reading the desire for this comparison.
> 
> If we want to differentiate *we need to compare well bred mutts *to well bred pedigrees.
> 
> Now if you are looking to see if 'well-bred' pedigrees might be better off than 'poor-bred' mutts, I would imagine that could be the case.
> 
> A well bred mutt might even most always be better than a poor bred pedigree.
> 
> Those considerations give us no information at all with regard to whether heterosis should be a factor looked at when making breeding decisions.
> 
> The study I WANT to see is between well bred mutt, by weight category, to well bred pedigrees. THAT would be telling.
> 
> One study that I do know was done by the Great Scotts Magazine - 2005. It was the largest study ever on Scotties (785 dogs) and looked to see if well-bred Scotties fared better than the ones bred from those people call BYBs.
> 
> They did not.
> 
> Great Scots Magazine for Scottish Terrier Lovers Celebrating Scottish Terrier Companionship
> 
> CC


None exist, by definition. Mongrel is of unknown parentage, thus cannot be bred responsibly. Only dogs of known heritage can be bred responsibly. And most aren't as Noushka pointed out. Which is why I'd like to see insurance companies taking health tests into account for pedigree dogs when pricing premiums.


----------



## comfortcreature

Shrap said:


> None exist, by definition. Mongrel is of unknown parentage, thus cannot be bred responsibly. Only dogs of known heritage can be bred responsibly. And most aren't as Noushka pointed out. Which is why I'd like to see insurance companies taking health tests into account for pedigree dogs when pricing premiums.


This post just shows me how completely uninformed you are, especially of breeding traditions in countries other than your own. Do you have any knowledge of the fact that many countries do not have a purebred system of any consequence in place?

Do you know that in Northern Canada there is not a single dog venue - not agility, not show, not obedience - for days and days and days worth of driving? In ALL of Canada our purebred registry registers ~10% of pups born. That means 90% are unregistered, and that is because the registry is of no consequence in most places here.

I don't give a flying freak what your definition of mongrel or mutt is quite frankly, or what your obviously prejudiced opinions are.

If you want to get a heated conversation with me just imply that mutts/mixbreeds/mongrels, whatever you want to call them, can't be bred responsibly. That is complete hogwash.

I grew up in Northern Canada, and my Grandfather was putting mixed Collie landrace litters on the ground prior to WWI, with knowledge of their ancestors. Following in his footsteps were my mom and her sisters., their dogs going back to his through to the 70s.

Our Husky breeders here breed a wonderful hardy landrace, and many breed knowing heritage. The Husky I just buried this summer, at the age of 18, came from such a breeder.

I have two small mixed breed spaniels (mutts of no known purebred heritage but with known heritage of other mutts behind them) that are from a wonderfully responsible health testing breeder. I also know and have met all of their grandparents to assess them myself.

So you can be sure that I know you have no clue what you are talking about with those sweeping generalizations.

Way to ruin a conversation with utter snobbery. That statement deliberately misses the point JUST so you can make a stab at mutts.

CC


----------



## Shrap

Are you saying you can breed responsibly from dogs who could quite possibly have dogs in their pedigree (i'm not using this word in the KC sense, I'm using it in the genetic sense..) that have produced epilepsy or some other condition that can't be tested for?

I don't care what breed your dog is, or whether it's a crossbreed or anything else, for the sake of this discussion. To breed responsibly you have to know what has been produced by that line of dog. Since no-one actually knows what gene/s is/are responsible for epilepsy apart from in wirehaired dachshunds, how do we know that they aren't the same in some breeds? So cross breeding or not. There are things you need to know that the average farmer doesn't know about his collies etc. Or are you telling me they go ahead and do the research at least a few generations back as to what they have produced and what their siblings have produced and with who.

Clearly you have no idea about genetics.

Oh and I couldn't give a crap about breeding traditions in other countries, genetics doesn't change.


----------



## comfortcreature

Shrap said:


> Are you saying you can breed responsibly from dogs who could quite possibly have dogs in their pedigree (i'm not using this word in the KC sense, I'm using it in the genetic sense..) that have produced epilepsy or some other condition that can't be tested for?.


No, I am not. You are reading that because you want to argue.



Shrap said:


> I don't care what breed your dog is, or whether it's a crossbreed or anything else, for the sake of this discussion. To breed responsibly you have to know what has been produced by that line of dog.


Yes, and mutts/mongrels/crossbreds can be bred that way. HERE we use the word mutt to cover dogs bred from other dogs that are not purebred. It does not mean their heritage, their health, what they have produced, is not known.



Shrap said:


> Since no-one actually knows what gene/s is/are responsible for epilepsy apart from in wirehaired dachshunds, how do we know that they aren't the same in some breeds? So cross breeding or not. There are things you need to know that the average farmer doesn't know about his collies etc. .


Where did I mention we were speaking of the average farmer. AGAIN you are deliberately stretching and obfuscating what I said to argue instead of trying to take in (understand) the original idea I posted on.



Shrap said:


> Or are you telling me they go ahead and do the research at least a few generations back as to what they have produced and what their siblings have produced and with who..


They do the research. Some OWN the dogs generations back. Those dogs have been part of their 10, 20, 30 or 40 year breeding lines.

Tell you what. Look at a KC pedigree and tell me how many gens back epilepsy, or the propensity to pass on epilepsy, or which dogs sideways in the pedigree might have displayed symptoms. Tell me where it is recorded on there. Tell me how many gens back eye testing can be found. How about HD, there's been testing for that for quite a while. How many gens back are the results recorded on the pedigree and do those results include the ability to look sideways at uncles/aunts etc.



Shrap said:


> Clearly you have no idea about genetics..


Makes me laugh. Clearly you don't. We can have a go with a conversation about genetic draft, genetic drift, and the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium model if you'd like to start.



Shrap said:


> Oh and I couldn't give a crap about breeding traditions in other countries, genetics doesn't change.


If you are going to make sweeping generalizations about 'mutts/mixbreeds not being able to be bred responsibly' as a rude, snippy and prejudiced retort to the suggestion that we need to study well bred mutts as well, you best be aware that you are speaking to posters from countries other than your own where the purebred registry institutions do not have anything near a similar foothold.

CC


----------



## Shrap

comfortcreature said:


> No, I am not. You are reading that because you want to argue.
> 
> Yes, and mutts/mongrels/crossbreds can be bred that way. HERE we use the word mutt to cover dogs bred from other dogs that are not purebred. It does not mean their heritage, their health, what they have produced, is not known.
> 
> As I said, mongrels are of unknown parentage. Crossbreeds are of known parentage....
> 
> Where did I mention we were speaking of the average farmer. AGAIN you are deliberately stretching and obfuscating what I said to argue.
> 
> They do the research. They OWN the dogs generations back. Those dogs have been part of their 20 or 30 or 40 year breeding lines.
> 
> What about the puppies they sold on, and what those pups produced later on?
> 
> Tell you what. Look at a KC pedigree and tell me how many gens back epilepsy, or the propensity to pass on epilepsy, is recorded on there.
> 
> It's not recorded, you have to do your research with people in the know.
> 
> Makes me laugh. Clearly you don't. We can have a go with a conversation about genetic draft, genetic drift, and the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium model if you'd like to start.
> 
> If you are going to make sweeping generalizations about 'mutts/mixbreeds not being able to be bred responsibly' you best be aware that you are speaking to posters from countries other than your own.
> 
> CC


This is the most pointless argument. You've missed my point entirely. If you know the parentage then I'm not saying you can't breed responsibly, only if you don't. Clearly the people you're talking about DO - by the defintion I'm using, not a mutt/mongrel. A mixed breed/crossbreed.

Anyway, I'm sorry but the majority of mutts/crossbreeds are NOT bred like that, so what has your point got to do with anyway? Where has this thread gone?


----------



## comfortcreature

Shrap said:


> This is the most pointless argument. You've missed my point entirely. If you know the parentage then I'm not saying you can't breed responsibly, only if you don't. Clearly the people you're talking about DO - by the defintion I'm using, not a mutt/mongrel. A mixed breed/crossbreed.
> 
> Anyway, I'm sorry but the majority of mutts/crossbreeds are NOT bred like that, so what has your point got to do with anyway? Where has this thread gone?


Off topic because you insisted on taking a jab at mutts with a blanket generalization. I take vehement exception to that.

Prior we were speaking on the insurance studies. I mentioned, to Noushka,



> Absolutely a point to note. It is worthy of considerationg but do you also wonder how many of the mutts were bred by poor breeders?
> 
> That is my first thought when reading the desire for this comparison.
> 
> If we want to differentiate we need to compare well bred mutts to well bred pedigrees.
> 
> Now if you are looking to see if 'well-bred' pedigrees might be better off than 'poor-bred' mutts, I would imagine that could be the case.
> 
> A well bred mutt might even most always be better than a poor bred pedigree.
> 
> Those considerations give us no information at all with regard to whether heterosis should be a factor looked at when making breeding decisions.
> 
> The study I WANT to see is between well bred mutt, by weight category, to well bred pedigrees. THAT would be telling.
> 
> One study that I do know was done by the Great Scotts Magazine - 2005. It was the largest study ever on Scotties (785 dogs) and looked to see if well-bred Scotties fared better than the ones bred from those people call BYBs.
> 
> They did not.
> 
> Great Scots Magazine for Scottish Terrier Lovers Celebrating Scottish Terrier Companionship
> 
> CC


The point is it would be great to have studies that look at which breeding practices are most beneficial for dogs, to see if heterosis is a factor, and if so how much is it? . . . to see at which point breed populations might be in trouble, or if they can continue on viably in a closed population when breeders are conscientious and honest. To see where improvements in breeding systems can be encouraged. We need to compare like to like.

Meanwhile we only have generalized studies and it is hard to glean specific information from them.

I'd love to see other purebreds studied like the Scotty Magazine did. I believe in that breed some of the problems are so endemic that they can't be got around, even by those trying hard. I'm hoping that there are many other breeds NOT in that position.

I believe, from looking, that the Retriever breeds tend to be in good shape and I'd love to see someone do a study like this comparing the health results of top winning breeders of Retrievers and the health results from those that are bred carelessly. I think we'd find a vast, vast difference in results and that would be worth noting.

CC


----------



## Shrap

I agree.
See if you replace the word "mutt" with "dogs of unknown parentage" (in my posts) - then I'm pretty sure we're in agreement? It's the defintion that we're arguing over..


----------



## leashedForLife

shetlandlover said:


> ...there [were] pure sensationalist rants... comparing the kennel club to [Nazis]...


that was not sensationalism - the KC was begun during the era of eugenics, & much of the thinking 
at the time revolved around improving the species [dogs, cats, cattle, humans...] by PREVENTING 
the 'lesser quality' specimens from breeding - IOW, don't allow free breeding with 2 or 3 bulls running 
with the herd, choose ONE sire & use him on all the cows, or emasculate all the young bulls but one, etc.

Google 'eugenics' & U'll get a whopping education; here in the USA, the state of VA continued to sterilize 
her own citizens until 1972; the 'undesirables' might be black, native Americans, retarded, 
or simply poor - they had no choice in the matter, they were surgically sterilized. 
Hitler corresponded regularly with some USA & UK fans of eugenics. Britain had eugenicists in many 
politically powerful offices, for decades. Several well-known Brit educators who founded or ran schools, 
including universities & colleges for civil service, were eugenicists - their legacy is still with us, today.

Google <== a link for *'history of eugenics in Britain'*



shetlandlover said:


> ...a member of the kennel club [was asked] if he would mate with his daughter.


the questioner was making a valid *point - * 
if incest is NOT acceptable in humans, why is it acceptable or even preferable in nonhumans?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

The KC might have been founded at around the same time with the eugenics movement, but the comparison is unfounded, dogs have been bred to type for hundreds of years, with some breeds known to be over 1000 years old. Crufts and the kennel club happened to come about, they weren't prompted by eugenics at all. I'd say they were more prompted by cash tbh! 

You cannot compare humans to dogs, if there were no other female available, a dog would willingly mate with a close relative, such as a daughter; a human shouldn't because we have morals, ethics and are sentient beings able to make complex decisions based on those morals and ethics. Incest is absolutely fine in the wild to a certain degree, and there are much more inbred companion animals than dogs, for some reason they seem to be the focus of attention.


----------



## Shrap

leashedForLife said:


> that was not sensationalism - the KC was begun during the era of eugenics, & much of the thinking
> at the time revolved around improving the species [dogs, cats, cattle, humans...] by PREVENTING
> the 'lesser quality' specimens from breeding - IOW, don't allow free breeding with 2 or 3 bulls running
> with the herd, choose ONE sire & use him on all the cows, or emasculate all the young bulls but one, etc.
> 
> Google 'eugenics' & U'll get a whopping education; here in the USA, the state of VA continued to sterilize
> her own citizens until 1972; the 'undesirables' might be black, native Americans, retarded,
> or simply poor - they had no choice in the matter, they were surgically sterilized.
> Hitler corresponded regularly with some USA & UK fans of eugenics. Britain had eugenicists in many
> politically powerful offices, for decades. Several well-known Brit educators who founded or ran schools,
> including universities & colleges for civil service, were eugenicists - their legacy is still with us, today.
> 
> Google <== a link for *'history of eugenics in Britain'*
> 
> the questioner was making a valid *point - *
> if incest is NOT acceptable in humans, why is it acceptable or even preferable in nonhumans?


Because the reasons humans think it isn't acceptable are down to emotions and the fact people generally think it will cause some kind of freak mutation. That was definitely sensationalism. I don't support inbreeding in dogs, linebreeding yes, but she asked that question because she knew it would shock, rather than educating the viewers about it.
Educated line breeding is preferable to sticking any 2 random dogs together.


----------



## leashedForLife

Galadriel17 said:


> I've always understood it costs more to insure a pedigree than a cross/mongrel because more claims are made
> for pedigrees & generally, over a dog's lifetime, a cross/mongrel will require fewer trips to the vets.
> 
> Anyone with a basic knowledge of biology [understands] that generally speaking, the more genetically-diverse
> an animal is (dog, human, horse, whatever), the healthier they are likely to be.


i am not absolutely certain, but IMO this is very-likely to be a chicken & egg phenomenon: 
folks who buy purebred pups are more-likely to have the dosh to splash on vet-care.

conversely, folks who get a free pup or buy a cheap BYB-bred puppy are far less-likely to spend a fortune 
on vet-care - or for that matter, grooming appts, orthopedic beds for their senior dog, etc.

if U *HAVE* money, U are more likely to spend it - eh?  if U lack it, there's a lot less choice - 
U will spend as little as possible, & only on necessities. 


Galadriel17 said:


> Anyone with a basic knowledge of biology [understands] that generally speaking, the more genetically-diverse
> an animal is (dog, human, horse, whatever), the healthier they are likely to be.


also for the record - 
cross-bred dogs & random-bred dogs can still have many health problems, merely being a cross 
or of unknown but heavily-mixed parentage does not in any way 'guarantee' good health.

statistically in the USA, *1 in 5 dogs of any breeding - purebred, cross or random-bred - 
have 1 or more food allergies.* As allergies don't arise singly, that means that 20% of our k9-popn 
has 3 to 6 allergies: one or more foods, plus the common fleabite dermatitis, pollens, molds/mildews, etc.

also, ANY health problem found in either parent-breed of a cross can arise in the crossbred progeny, 
and ANY health problem found in any of the multiple parent-breeds of a random-bred mix can arise 
in that random-bred progeny. Hip dysplasia, UAP elbows, entropion/ectropion, stenotic nares, 
anal fistulas, shunts [liver or kidney], PDA / blue-baby are among the many heritable conditions 
that i've seen in random-bred dogs.

one young dog, adopted at 9-MO from a shelter who was some sort of collie x GSD x sighthound, 
was diagnosed with bone-cancer in a foreleg just 3-weeks later. Sadly, his adopter refused to have 
his foreleg amputated, & instead opted to kill him. :nonod: Both i & the vet tried to explain that he'd 
have a normal life, IF IT WAS TAKEN; she insisted she 'couldn't do that to him', despite the evidence 
that 3-legged dogs are perfectly happy & have normal lifespans, by & large.


----------



## Snoringbear

leashedForLife said:


> that was not sensationalism - the KC was begun during the era of eugenics, & much of the thinking
> at the time revolved around improving the species [dogs, cats, cattle, humans...] by PREVENTING
> the 'lesser quality' specimens from breeding - IOW, don't allow free breeding with 2 or 3 bulls running
> with the herd, choose ONE sire & use him on all the cows, or emasculate all the young bulls but one, etc.
> 
> Google 'eugenics' & U'll get a whopping education; here in the USA, the state of VA continued to sterilize
> her own citizens until 1972; the 'undesirables' might be black, native Americans, retarded,
> or simply poor - they had no choice in the matter, they were surgically sterilized.
> Hitler corresponded regularly with some USA & UK fans of eugenics. Britain had eugenicists in many
> politically powerful offices, for decades. Several well-known Brit educators who founded or ran schools,
> including universities & colleges for civil service, were eugenicists - their legacy is still with us, today.
> 
> Google <== a link for *'history of eugenics in Britain'*
> 
> the questioner was making a valid *point - *
> if incest is NOT acceptable in humans, why is it acceptable or even preferable in nonhumans?


While there is a fair comparison with eugenics, the reference to Nazis was sensationalist. The most inflammatory and by it's connotations, damning comparison was chosen. There was no mention of Galton. If that had been stated on an Internet forum it would have fallen foul of Godwin's Law, which should really extend beyond that.


----------



## leashedForLife

Sleeping_Lion said:


> dogs have been bred to type for hundreds of years, with some breeds known to be over 1000 years old.


Please name one of those "1,000-YO breeds"?

the Pharaoh, Afghan & other middle-eastern sighthounds are re-creations, not the 'original' as painted on the walls 
of various dynastic or historic tombs; there was mDNA research done to establish the breeds' ages.

Akitas & other Nordic types are among the most-primitive breeds, but even they are not 1,000-YO.


Sleeping_Lion said:


> The KC might have been founded at around the same time with the eugenics movement, but the comparison
> is unfounded...
> Crufts & the KC happened to come about, they weren't prompted by eugenics at all.


i disagree.

the eugenics movement was massively popular, & very pervasive; i've read 1920s magazine articles, 
& short-stories and books as well, which included eugenics ideas in fiction. It was literally everywhere. 
the founding of the KC was not 'happenstance'. It was 'purebred' wealthy people, establishing a registry 
for their 'purebred' dogs. It was, in point of fact, canine & human snobbery; class privileges, colonialism, 
racist bigotry, "science", money, sporting competition, ALL came into play in the KC's founding.

well-educated Britons with money to spend, set out to wall-off the undocumented dogs of the average 
citizen; if the cit's dogs could hunt, race, herd, etc, that didn't matter as much as the fact that they WEREN'T 
PUREBRED & couldn't prove their pedigrees.  Just like registries for horses, cattle, etc, even chickens, 
which became popular show-animals also - fancy pigeons were the rage during Darwin's lifetime, & fancy chickens, 
racing horses, purebred cattle, all date their registries from that period - when eugenics ruled, as a common meme 
all around the developed world.

it is no accident that colonial nations were struggling to evict their conquerors at the same time 
that various scientists were opining on the races' intelligence, moral fibre, fertility, educability, etc; 
claiming that white-skinned people were more intelligent / educable & had instinctive moral behavior, 
while dark-skinned or yellow- or red-skinned peoples had criminal tendencies, poorly controlled impulses, 
couldn't stop themselves from violence / rape / incest, etc.


----------



## 5rivers79

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You assumed I meant that pedigree dog owners care more about their dogs than those with non-pedigrees, which I've already explained isn't the case; you've also queried someone else about why they're asking a question regarding the % of pedigree vs non-pedigree dogs treated by the PDSA, of course, we must be all biased against those non-pedigrees if we question the making of PDE, I completely forgot *that*!
> 
> I'll go through it again, if someone buys a pup from a free ad, or local advert in a pet shop, how likely do you think it will be that the *breeder* will be interested in whether that pup goes to the vets regularly, or do you think when the dog goes out the door they'll bother very much to keep in touch at all? It's common sense, if you can only pay £200 for a dog, and you choose to buy from a breeder who has cut corners and is churning pups out for extra cash, are you going to then pay £20 per month for insurance? If you go to a breeder who ensures that insurance will be in place for the first six weeks, yes it is free, but how many do you think continue that insurance on then? I'd suggest it's a much higher rate than those who spent £200 on the pup from the bloke down the road. NONE of that means one CARES more than the other, it simply means one does not have the right knowledge and money to possibly provide as high a standard of welfare than the other.
> 
> I think you're really just making up what I've said now, I've not implied anything of the kind, I've taken great pains to explain. I'll just wait for the posts that tell me what I've actually said in the future, off to watch a dvd and chill with my inbred mutants


Disagree on the point above. Sam was on epups so i guess its a kind of free ad. He came with insurance, a puppy pack and a life time of advice on breed or health issues as they guy is a veterinary nurse. Byb also keeps in touch to see how Sam is getting along. Through this byb i have also been able to chat to owners of Sam's siblings.

Its not common sense that if a breeder has cut corners the owner will not pay £20 a month. Im using myself as an example here..you could say i got my dog from a byb. But my dog was insured as soon as his free insurance finished. I pay more than £20 a month for Sam..and i know many other people who have purchased from the bloke down the road and still insure and look after their pets to a extremely high standard.

I have also taken Sam to the vet if anything has come up because his health is my priority because it was my choice to get him. I would care for any dog in the same way because if i choose to own a dog then its health and welfare is my responsibility not matter what the cost or hardship to me.


----------



## leashedForLife

The persistence of Eugenics

Human Genetics Alert - 
topics covered by issues include: 
- Genetics & reproduction
- Cloning
- Genetic Selection
- Patents on life
- Genetic discrimination
- Personal genetic information & research
- Behavioural genetics 
- Genetics & Health
- Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill 2008

Human Genetics Alert response to Nuffield Council consultation on Behavioural genetics

self-labeled "scientific racist" Christopher Brand - 
Times Higher Education - Key factors in the fall of a 'scientific racist'


----------



## comfortcreature

Shrap said:


> Because the reasons humans think it isn't acceptable are down to emotions and the fact people generally think it will cause some kind of freak mutation. That was definitely sensationalism. I don't support inbreeding in dogs, linebreeding yes, but she asked that question because she knew it would shock, rather than educating the viewers about it.
> Educated line breeding is preferable to sticking any 2 random dogs together.


The reasons humans believe it is unacceptable is down to its genetic consequences. That was my teachings anyway. Had nothing to do with the mores of it. I was surprised when I saw people were shocked by the question after PDE was aired cuz when I saw that bit it never occurred people would think of it being posed from a moral perspective. That seems nonsensical to me.

Peoples experiences here will be different depending on the enviroment you have been raised in. I was raised in a family that bred animals together for a living and put good study into what they were doing as their livelihood depended on it - farmers. I was taught breeding concepts and dos and dont's before I could walk. My Mom used rotational bulls of only 3/4 or 7/8 blood even if that meant paying a good price for artificial insemination cuz they weren't available in the province. I have memories of two day drives sleeping in a stock truck and living on sandwiches to exchange breeding stock with other like minded farmers, cuz if you didn't do so you knew you were in for a higher rate of non-doers born, and no farmer wants that.

With thoughts toward the genetic consequences in a linebred dog to a mutt with little/no testing, I would disagree with you here. I believe the odds of difficulties are about the same with each. Risks are being increased/or not decreased with each method of breeding . . . and I am well schooled on the topic.

I don't expect you to agree. Just pointing out there is not an absolute answer to this. A lot depends on how tight the historical linebreeding has been.

As an example would I believe that a Cavalier or Scottie or Deerhound or Great Dane or Clumber or American Cocker pup from well tested linebred stock would have a better chance than a random bred dog. Not on your life. With some other breeds, probably so.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> The KC might have been founded at around the same time with the eugenics movement, but the comparison is unfounded, dogs have been bred to type for hundreds of years, with some breeds known to be over 1000 years old. Crufts and the kennel club happened to come about, they weren't prompted by eugenics at all. I'd say they were more prompted by cash tbh! .


I believe the concept you might not be taking into consideration here is that prior to the KC selection was indeed used, but the word "purebred' did NOT mean by bloodline. It was a term used to describe dogs of the same type - but they were far from 'pure'.

I usually don't argue this topic because as a 'mutt' human being, and being called such as a child due to my mixed heritage, I can be sensitive here. I will disclose that.

It always ruffled my feathers, therefore, that *dog* registries specifically excluded keeping record of mixed pedigrees. Many animal registries include the capability of keeping record of the mixed animals, and as well a method of bringing them into the gene pool of named breeds.

That to me is where the tie in with 'eugenics' lies. It took me a long time to swallow the idea that some 'good' might be part of the registry system solely based on my dislike of that exclusion.

CC


----------



## LexiLou2

On the insurance point, you will pay more for your pedigree dogs BECAUSE of the high number of poorly bred BYB 'pedigree' dogs.
For example car insurance premiums at the minute are going through the roof at the minute, because of the number of incidents caused by uninsured drivers. The MIB pay claims for inocent third parties hit by uninsured drivers, the MIB get the money for these claims for the insurers, like and overrider, the more the MIB have to pay out in uninsured claims the more money they need from insurance companies, the insurance companies get their money from their customer so therefore the insured drivers premiums go up.
So you have a large number of claims for hip dysplacia in Labs, insurance companies don't look at the breeding of these dogs, they simply look at the breed and see there is an issue with the hips and they are loosing money, so all lab owners see their premiums rise. If you irradicate poorly bred dogs, make health testing madatory you will find that pedigree dogs cost less to insurer than mongrels or cross breeds as you will know more about their health.
Insurance all comes down to risk, because of the poor breeding in pedigrees the bit health issues are at the minute associated with pedigrees so high premiums. Mind you with the large number of 'designer' breeds coming out of the wood work I imagine cross breed premiums will go up.
It costs me more to insure Bos a patterdale than Lexi a staffie, I know Lexis breeding is poor and she is more of a 'risk' but from and insurance companies point of view Bos is a 'working' dog so carries a far greater risk of been injured in the field than Lexi who doesn't really have a purposes, hence Bosleys premium been higher.
Anyone tell I work in insurance?!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

leashedForLife said:


> i am not absolutely certain, but IMO this is very-likely to be a chicken & egg phenomenon:
> folks who buy purebred pups are more-likely to have the dosh to splash on vet-care.
> 
> conversely, folks who get a free pup or buy a cheap BYB-bred puppy are far less-likely to spend a fortune
> on vet-care - or for that matter, grooming appts, orthopedic beds for their senior dog, etc.
> 
> if U *HAVE* money, U are more likely to spend it - eh?  if U lack it, there's a lot less choice -
> U will spend as little as possible, & only on necessities.


LFL, pretty much summises what I was trying to post earlier!



leashedForLife said:


> Please name one of those "1,000-YO breeds"?


Hungarian Viszla for one, there are a couple of others with ancient depictions and heritage, that *type* has been seen depicted in cave paintings carrying out what appears to be a similar function to the modern breed.



5rivers79 said:


> Disagree on the point above. Sam was on epups so i guess its a kind of free ad. He came with insurance, a puppy pack and a life time of advice on breed or health issues as they guy is a veterinary nurse. Byb also keeps in touch to see how Sam is getting along. Through this byb i have also been able to chat to owners of Sam's siblings.
> 
> Its not common sense that if a breeder has cut corners the owner will not pay £20 a month. Im using myself as an example here..you could say i got my dog from a byb. But my dog was insured as soon as his free insurance finished. I pay more than £20 a month for Sam..and i know many other people who have purchased from the bloke down the road and still insure and look after their pets to a extremely high standard.
> 
> I have also taken Sam to the vet if anything has come up because his health is my priority because it was my choice to get him. I would care for any dog in the same way because if i choose to own a dog then its health and welfare is my responsibility not matter what the cost or hardship to me.


I think you've got a good pair of rose tinted glasses I'm afraid. The new vets I'm registered with, one of the vets breeds Labs, I'm not really impressed with their breeding ethics I'm afraid, working as a vet, or at a vets, makes no difference in my experience, and in fact I've come across more byb badly bred litters from those associated with vets, than well bred litters I'm afraid.

You need to read a couple of my other posts, as I think you've skipped a few points. I don't take my lot to the vets if it's something I can treat easily at home, does that mean I don't care for my dogs? Mine aren't insured, because I've got a good job and a healthy bank balance, and I don't believe insurance is always beneficial, again, does that mean I care less? I actually bought my own dog for £2k off my ex, because I'd stupidly put her in joint ownership instead of in my name when I paid for her initially. I also paid for the solicitor to put that she belonged to me in black and white so that it could never be disputed. I also came between my ex and the dogs, when he wanted to take them away on holiday as he'd previously brought Indie back lame from over exercise; I put up with abuse and nasty emails until he finally just shut up and let it go.



comfortcreature said:


> I believe the concept you might not be taking into consideration here is that prior to the KC selection was indeed used, but the word "purebred' did NOT mean by bloodline. It was a term used to describe dogs of the same type - but they were far from 'pure'.
> 
> I usually don't argue this topic because as a 'mutt' human being, and being called such as a child due to my mixed heritage, I can be sensitive here. I will disclose that.
> 
> It always ruffled my feathers, therefore, that *dog* registries specifically excluded keeping record of mixed pedigrees. Many animal registries include the capability of keeping record of the mixed animals, and as well a method of bringing them into the gene pool of named breeds.
> 
> That to me is where the tie in with 'eugenics' lies. It took me a long time to swallow the idea that some 'good' might be part of the registry system solely based on my dislike of that exclusion.
> 
> CC


I'm aware of the breeding to type history  I'm sorry as I know you've had a difficult time in the past, I'll be honest too, I haven't a foggiest what my heritage is as I'm adopted, which carries it's own stigmas.

Back to the topic, and in some ways, the health testing we have I think has been as much of a curse as it is a help. Before we had these new fangled databases that told us the nth degree about the dog in front of us, people had to research if they wanted to find this sort of thing out. And I think they would actually end up knowing more, they'd have talked to people who knew the dam, the sire, and siblings etc. Now, you just get a piece of paper about *that* dog, which tells you so very little really.


----------



## 5rivers79

LexiLou2 said:


> On the insurance point, you will pay more for your pedigree dogs BECAUSE of the high number of poorly bred BYB 'pedigree' dogs.
> For example car insurance premiums at the minute are going through the roof at the minute, because of the number of incidents caused by uninsured drivers. The MIB pay claims for inocent third parties hit by uninsured drivers, the MIB get the money for these claims for the insurers, like and overrider, the more the MIB have to pay out in uninsured claims the more money they need from insurance companies, the insurance companies get their money from their customer so therefore the insured drivers premiums go up.
> So you have a large number of claims for hip dysplacia in Labs, insurance companies don't look at the breeding of these dogs, they simply look at the breed and see there is an issue with the hips and they are loosing money, so all lab owners see their premiums rise. If you irradicate poorly bred dogs, make health testing madatory you will find that pedigree dogs cost less to insurer than mongrels or cross breeds as you will know more about their health.
> Insurance all comes down to risk, because of the poor breeding in pedigrees the bit health issues are at the minute associated with pedigrees so high premiums. Mind you with the large number of 'designer' breeds coming out of the wood work I imagine cross breed premiums will go up.
> It costs me more to insure Bos a patterdale than Lexi a staffie, I know Lexis breeding is poor and she is more of a 'risk' but from and insurance companies point of view Bos is a 'working' dog so carries a far greater risk of been injured in the field than Lexi who doesn't really have a purposes, hence Bosleys premium been higher.
> Anyone tell I work in insurance?!


Thats the point though, why do the KC allow registration of poorly bred pedigree dogs? Even then there is bias towards these unfit dogs as they can go on and enter KC competitions and even potentially win at dog shows? If the KC cant regulate which dogs it gives its 'elite' registration to then what is the point of it? After all this elite registration allows bad breeders to still command a premium price.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

5rivers79 said:


> Thats the point though, why do the KC allow registration of poorly bred pedigree dogs? Even then there is bias towards these unfit dogs as they can go on and enter KC competitions and even potentially win at dog shows? If the KC cant regulate which dogs it gives its 'elite' registration to then what is the point of it? After all this elite registration allows bad breeders to still command a premium price.


What criteria would you use to stop them being registered, or even just entered at a show?


----------



## comfortcreature

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm aware of the breeding to type history  . . . .


As you ARE aware then why the objection to the obvious tie in between eugenics and the celebration of only purebred dogs by lineage which was introduced with the K.C. system?

This is something that I think wouldn't even be a discussion point because it is so obvious.

And it doesn't matter either way as long as we recognize that some of the purity theories that came out of that movement have been proven to be very, very harmful, and they have a hangover seen in the present K.C. system.

That is the point in giving it acknowledgement.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Back to the topic, and in some ways, the health testing we have I think has been as much of a curse as it is a help. Before we had these new fangled databases that told us the nth degree about the dog in front of us, people had to research if they wanted to find this sort of thing out. And I think they would actually end up knowing more, they'd have talked to people who knew the dam, the sire, and siblings etc. Now, you just get a piece of paper about *that* dog, which tells you so very little really.


A bit of a blessing and a curse. Hopefully in the end it will be more of the former. I hope in the end ALL dogs will be allowed entry into a centralized database system. I like your idea of a star rating.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

comfortcreature said:


> As you ARE aware then why the objection to the obvious tie in between eugenics and the celebration of only purebred dogs by lineage which was introduced with the K.C. system?
> 
> This is something that I think wouldn't even be a discussion point because it is so obvious.
> 
> And it doesn't matter either way as long as we recognize that some of the purity theories that came out of that movement have been proven to be very, very harmful, and they have a hangover seen in the present K.C. system.
> 
> That is the point in giving it acknowledgement.
> 
> A bit of a blessing and a curse. Hopefully in the end it will be more of the former.
> 
> CC


Because dogs have been bred to type for hundreds of years, I don't think the KC and crufts had any thing to do with the Nazis, nor was it a cynical move of any kind, it was more a formalisation of what was really happening on the ground.


----------



## comfortcreature

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because dogs have been bred to type for hundreds of years, I don't think the KC and crufts had any thing to do with the Nazis, nor was it a cynical move of any kind, it was more a formalisation of what was really happening on the ground.


The mention of a tie with eugenics does not imply a tie with Nazis. Lots of things have a tie with eugenics but not with Nazis. Nazis are tied with eugenics theories as well of course.

I also don't believe it was just a formalisation of what was happening on the ground. On the ground breeders were still bringing in b-register dogs (unknown heritage), within their own clubs, for years and years and years. In the Tibetan Spaniel I know this went on right into the '80s, prior to their bid for AKC recognition.

On the ground, therefore, dog breeders were like all good stock people. It WAS the registry that forced the purity. That is not a formalisation, that is a marked change . . . and that IS tied with theories that celebrate purity.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

comfortcreature said:


> Umm. The mention of a tie with eugenics does not imply a tie with Nazis. Lots of things have a tie with eugenics but not with Nazis. Nazis are tied with eugenics theories as well of course.
> 
> I also don't believe it was just a formalisation of what was happening on the ground. On the ground breeders were still bringing in b-register dogs (unknown heritage), within their own clubs, for years and years and years. In the Tibetan Spaniel I know this went on right into the '80s, prior to their bid for AKC recognition.
> 
> On the ground, therefore, dog breeders were like all good stock people. It WAS the registry that forced the purity. That is not a formalisation, that is a marked change . . . and that IS tied with theories that celebrate purity.
> 
> CC


If you go back up the thread a little way, Nazis and eugenics were tied together, hence my response, as I honestly think the two are that closely linked in the minds of many, including my own. 

Of course I know there's a difference, but if we go back to PDE, the eugenics link was depicted with scenes of Nazi Germany, so you could very well argue in that instance, that the way it was shown was inappropriate.

Dogs were brought in to different breeds for many years after the KC and Crufts, they had to be otherwise some breeds would have been lost forever. Despite that intermingling, there are still huge differences between closely related breeds. I own two closely related breeds and am quite frankly, intrigued by the vast differeences between them. Even though they are from a very much shared background, they have huge differences, and I wouldn't want to personally see either of them somehow lost within the generalisation of being bred to type retrievers.


----------



## Malmum

Roll on the 27th!


----------



## comfortcreature

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If you go back up the thread a little way, Nazis and eugenics were tied together, hence my response, as I honestly think the two are that closely linked in the minds of many, including my own. .


That is interesting to note. I don't consider 'Nazi' every time I read 'eugenics theory'.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Of course I know there's a difference, but if we go back to PDE, the eugenics link was depicted with scenes of Nazi Germany, so you could very well argue in that instance, that the way it was shown was inappropriate.


With the explanation that Nazis had a tie to eugenic theory as well, as I mentioned above. That is not inappropriate. It is the truth. The Nazi link was shown to illustrate that we have gotten past those theories with humans. Again, appropriate unless someone is thinking emotionally and without a hint of science in their skull.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Dogs were brought in to different breeds for many years after the KC and Crufts, they had to be otherwise some breeds would have been lost forever. Despite that intermingling, there are still huge differences between closely related breeds. I own two closely related breeds and am quite frankly, intrigued by the vast differeences between them. Even though they are from a very much shared background, they have huge differences, and I wouldn't want to personally see either of them somehow lost within the generalisation of being bred to type retrievers.


In some cases they might STILL have to be depending upon population size and breeding practices within that population. This has been a concept known to breeders forever. That does not mean, however, that breeders cannot 'specialize' a type. The allowance for outcrossing is not an end to that, and has proven not to be in many instances former to this time.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

comfortcreature said:


> That is interesting to note. I don't consider 'Nazi' every time I read 'eugenics theory'.
> 
> With the explanation that Nazis had a tie to eugenic theory as well, as I mentioned above. That is not inappropriate. It is the truth. The Nazi link was shown to illustrate that we have gotten past those theories with humans. Again, appropriate unless someone is thinking emotionally and without a hint of science in their skull.
> 
> In some cases they might STILL have to be depending upon population size and breeding practices within that population. This has been a concept known to breeders forever. That does not mean, however, that breeders cannot 'specialize' a type. The allowance for outcrossing is not an end to that, and has proven not to be in many instances former to this time.
> 
> CC


Oh b*gga, this multi quoting thing's going to get the better of me tonight, it doesn't take much, I can vouch in a series of planned breeding for humans I'd be left out for my planning abilities, or lack of!!!

Right, I'm now very confused about the Nazis and eugenics, on the one hand, they're not linked, or they are but they're not the same, but on the other hand, it's ok for Jemima Harrison to show footage of the Nuremburg Rally to depict eugenics in dogs? Surely that can't be right? Or it's stretching the truth at least?

Agree with the last paragraph, and I think it's already been pretty much covered in the thread


----------



## BlueBeagle

leashedForLife said:


> *Please name one of those "1,000-YO breeds"? *
> the Pharaoh, Afghan & other middle-eastern sighthounds are re-creations, not the 'original' as painted on the walls
> of various dynastic or historic tombs; there was mDNA research done to establish the breeds' ages.
> 
> Akitas & other Nordic types are among the most-primitive breeds, but even they are not 1,000-YO.
> 
> i disagree.
> 
> the eugenics movement was massively popular, & very pervasive; i've read 1920s magazine articles,
> & short-stories and books as well, which included eugenics ideas in fiction. It was literally everywhere.
> the founding of the KC was not 'happenstance'. It was 'purebred' wealthy people, establishing a registry
> for their 'purebred' dogs. It was, in point of fact, canine & human snobbery; class privileges, colonialism,
> racist bigotry, "science", money, sporting competition, ALL came into play in the KC's founding.
> 
> well-educated Britons with money to spend, set out to wall-off the undocumented dogs of the average
> citizen; if the cit's dogs could hunt, race, herd, etc, that didn't matter as much as the fact that they WEREN'T
> PUREBRED & couldn't prove their pedigrees.  Just like registries for horses, cattle, etc, even chickens,
> which became popular show-animals also - fancy pigeons were the rage during Darwin's lifetime, & fancy chickens,
> racing horses, purebred cattle, all date their registries from that period - when eugenics ruled, as a common meme
> all around the developed world.
> 
> it is no accident that colonial nations were struggling to evict their conquerors at the same time
> that various scientists were opining on the races' intelligence, moral fibre, fertility, educability, etc;
> claiming that white-skinned people were more intelligent / educable & had instinctive moral behavior,
> while dark-skinned or yellow- or red-skinned peoples had criminal tendencies, poorly controlled impulses,
> couldn't stop themselves from violence / rape / incest, etc.


Ok first point, the Thai Ridgeback is believed to be a spontaneous mutation of early Thai dogs who accompanied hunters and were depicted in rock art dating back 2.000 years. They were Pariah dogs and are one of the most primitive breeds around. I do not believe that Thai people have recreated this breed as some street dogs have this ridge too. I saw about 6 new dogs brought into the local shelter all with ridges. The isolation of the villages where they originate mean they breed naturally and so breed true.

I am unsure of any mDNA studies on the Thai but the earliest Thai dog with a ridgeback seems to have been the Funan Dog (named after a period of history in the region) about 1,000 years ago. The Phu Quoc Ridgeback in Vietnam is also thought to be from this time.

Since reading this thread and watching the original programme (not being in the UK when it was first shown) I am a little confused. The Kennel Club was founded in 1873 but the Eugenics movement was most active in the early 1900s so did the KC predate the Eugenics movement or is it just my google only shows 1920/30s related stuff? The only one I can find mentioned is the Eugenics Education Movement founded in 1907, 34 years after the KC. How can the KC be founded on the basis of a movement started after its own conception?

I really don't want to get into a race debate but it wasn't always 'white-skinned' people who used a form of eugenics, India forcibly sterilized 'undesirables' in the 1970s, Japan had it's own Eugenics law and sterilized many of it's own people and China might still be doing so.


----------



## 5rivers79

Why are pedigree GSD's bred to have such a unnatural slope in their spines? Is that to improve the health of the breed or movement/structure for working dogs or is it for looks?


----------



## rocco33

SEVEN_PETS said:


> A Kennel Club registered dog should be a dog that has been bred responsibly and with all the correct health tests. At the moment, a KC reg dog could be from a puppy farm.
> 
> The Kennel Club could do a lot by only registering puppies that are bred responsibly and with all the correct health tests. But then most of the breeders would go up in arms and the KC would lose money.


Why? and says who? A kennel club registered dog is one that has a known and documented ancestry. It never has been anything more than that. The fact that some people 'think' it means more than that is because of ignorance, the same way people think only show dogs need health tests or to be kc registered.


----------



## Malmum

5rivers79 said:


> Why are pedigree GSD's bred to have such a unnatural slope in their spines? Is that to improve the health of the breed or movement/structure for working dogs or is it for looks?


I would think it was for looks otherwise why would they be changing the standard for GSD's and now trying to breed with less of a slope? Some of those shepherds looked awful with their hocks knocking together - who ever thought that looked good was quite mad IMO.

Rather dogs like ours anyday eh five?


----------



## Goblin

rocco33 said:


> Why? and says who? A kennel club registered dog is one that has a known and documented ancestry. It never has been anything more than that. The fact that some people 'think' it means more than that is because of ignorance, the same way people think only show dogs need health tests or to be kc registered.


It has been a view which the KC has done nothing to negate however. They've allowed and even encouraged the fact that "KC registered" equates to status. That's why the backlash to PDE was so severe. If KC registered didn't have that status attached many people wouldn't register, despite some advantages and it would hit their balance sheet. Only by being seen as having a status can the KC do everything they do which includes all the good they do.


----------



## leashedForLife

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Hungarian Viszla for one [1k-YO breed] - there are a couple of others with ancient depictions
> & heritage, that *type* has been seen depicted in cave paintings carrying out what appears to be
> a similar function to the modern breed.


just "looks" doesn't cut it - we need data, & mDNA is the best. 
Sloughis LOOK LIKE the dogs on a dynastic tomb wall, but they aren't.


----------



## Shrap

5rivers79 said:


> Why are pedigree GSD's bred to have such a unnatural slope in their spines? Is that to improve the health of the breed or movement/structure for working dogs or is it for looks?


And I was just about to go to sleep as well, thought, bugger it I'll have a sneaky check of PF on my phone.

The sloped topline is for more efficient gaiting. If you look back at the original GSDs, and not the photos selectively taken for certain sites, even then they were breeding towards a more sloped back. There are a fair few German dogs that are too exaggerated and I don't like it, but most judges don't go for that look anymore.

If you watch a German line GSD gait, compared with an English type (flat backed with dip behind withers and non existent angulation ) - you will see which has the effortless, ground covering, powerful gait. Something Very useful when you're a living fence trying to conserve energy yet cover ground quickly.

A lot of working line kennels are also breeding dogs with sloped backs, although you do have to realise that the working type are bred for a completely different job than the breed standard is set out for.

Cow hocks have nothing to do with the topline. I don't like hocky GSDs either although my boy is still a little cow hocked. He was the hockiest of the litter though which I knew at the time. It's not something which came into my decision when picking a pup. If cow hocks are all you have to worry about you're doing not bad in my book. (American showlines are a hell of a lot worse for cow hocks)


----------



## ozrex

Really, really interesting debate, guys. Thank you.

I think Malmum may have hit the nail on the head. Selection for "beauty" rather than function may not be in the best interests of our dogs. Frankly it is both wrong and cruel.

There is a difference between the best interests of breeding a healthy dog of a specific type (closed gene pool) and the best interests of the dog population.

Pedigree dog breeders who health test and exemplify the BEST of dog breeders will have the best chance of producing a healthy dog of recognisable type. However their selection of breeding animals will further reduce the variation in the gene pool.

Pedigree breeders of ANY kind (including the good ones) breeding from a closed gene pool will cause problems to that dog population. The loss of diversity will compromise the breed's ability to survive environmental change. The most obvious will be the breed's response to new infectious organisms. If resistance to that disease is not included in the gene pool the animals will become extinct.

At the moment the dog gene pool is rich and diverse but the belief that closed pool breeding is the only "good" breeding can destroy that diversity very quickly.


----------



## comfortcreature

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Oh b*gga, this multi quoting thing's going to get the better of me tonight, it doesn't take much, I can vouch in a series of planned breeding for humans I'd be left out for my planning abilities, or lack of!!!
> 
> Right, I'm now very confused about the Nazis and eugenics, on the one hand, they're not linked, or they are but they're not the same, but on the other hand, it's ok for Jemima Harrison to show footage of the Nuremburg Rally to depict eugenics in dogs? Surely that can't be right? Or it's stretching the truth at least?
> 
> Agree with the last paragraph, and I think it's already been pretty much covered in the thread


They are linked. They are not the same. . . not a hard concept here. Eugenics describes a HUGE spectrum of thought, with the Nazi movement being a tiny part of that.

_Eugenics has, from the very beginning, meant many different things to many different people. Historically, the term has referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia. To population geneticists the term has included the avoidance of inbreeding without necessarily altering allele frequencies; for example, J. B. S. Haldane wrote that "the motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent".[38] Much debate has taken place in the past, as it does today, as to what exactly counts as eugenics.[39] Some types of eugenics deal only with perceived beneficial and/or detrimental genetic traits. These are sometimes called "pseudo-eugenics" by proponents of strict eugenics._​
PDE documented the relationship between dog breeding practices and eugenics. *How can that be wrong?*

What is wrong with showing photos of the Nuremburg Rally? Are we so sensitive that we can't recognize history and how influences took place?

Eugenics theory - influenced dog breeding
Eugenics theory - influenced breeding strategies in many species
Eugenics theory - influenced the Nazi movement as well. 
There is not a thing wrong with the recognition of that, or the admittance of that. Taking offence to it is silliness. Because they are BOTH linked to eugenics theories does not make breeders who practise selection the same as Nazis. That is like saying 2 + 2 = 9. It takes a big leap to get there.

From PDE:

_"Narrator: "But behind the glitz and glamour of Crufts. behind the doors of the Kennel Club's $20-million pound HQ in London's posh Mayfair, lies a dark and dirty secret. The Kennel Club was born out of the eugenics movement. The idea that we could improve the human race by controlling who bred to whom. It sounds incredible now, but the eugenics movement was hugely popular. Eugenicist doctrine taught that the genetic improvement of man lay in breeding only best to best in purifying the humane race of undesirable traits and in never allowing any mixing between races. The problem was that what was considered best was often decided solely on what you looked like and very often on what race you were. And then, in the 1930s, the eugenics movement found its ultimate champion."

Quote by Prof. Steve Jones: "Adolf Hitler was a very keen geneticist. I mean he really was. He believed there was a pure race, the Arians, which were different from every other race and you should breed from that race and kill off the others.

Narrator: "The Holocaust exposed eugenics as morally flawed. Its ideas about purity make no scientific sense, either. And yet one organization almost unnoticed has continued to embrace eugenicist principles."

Professor James Serpell: "That view is very much still propagated by the Kennel Club today. It's all about maintaining these lines of very pure, very unsullied aristocratic breeds."

Narrator: "It's not just that they don't allow any mixing. True to the Kennel Club's eugenicist principles, breeders sometimes discard dogs born that deviate from the breed standard."​_​
I cannot find a bit of untruth in all that was said. If you can please point it out. Hiding from history or denying the truth in it because people have become sensitive is NOT an acceptible practise, IMHO.

If a breeder, of any animal and that includes me, does not realize that selective breeding and the registries and purebreeding have links to the eugenicist movement, or doesn't "like" the connection I would suggest that they rethink being a breeder.

When I read objections to the link I think "what an incredible shame". My Grandfather lost a good chunk of his arm fighting in WWI. My fathers full family is military. You would think we would ALL want to remember the lessons learned through history and the impact that they might of had or we do not progress as a society.



BlueBeagle said:


> . . . Since reading this thread and watching the original programme (not being in the UK when it was first shown) I am a little confused. The Kennel Club was founded in 1873 but the Eugenics movement was most active in the early 1900s so did the KC predate the Eugenics movement or is it just my google only shows 1920/30s related stuff? . . . .


The KC did not predate the eugenics movement.

Sir Francis Galton, in an 1865 article entitled "Hereditary Talent and Character," first sketched out his theory of controlled breeding for humans, In it dogs were mentioned as an example of successful breeding for improved function. He elaborated on this proposal for humans in 1869 in a book called "Hereditary Genius".

_The word eugenics derives from the Greek word eu (good or well) and the suffix -genēs (born), and was coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883 to replace the word stirpiculture (also see: Oneida stirpiculture) which he had used previously but which had come to be mocked by people of culture due to its perceived sexual overtones.[36] Galton defined eugenics as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations".[_​
Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CC


----------



## BlueBeagle

comfortcreature said:


> They are linked. They are not the same. . . not a hard concept here. Eugenics describes a HUGE spectrum of thought, with the Nazi movement being a tiny part of that.
> 
> _Eugenics has, from the very beginning, meant many different things to many different people. Historically, the term has referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia. To population geneticists the term has included the avoidance of inbreeding without necessarily altering allele frequencies; for example, J. B. S. Haldane wrote that "the motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent".[38] Much debate has taken place in the past, as it does today, as to what exactly counts as eugenics.[39] Some types of eugenics deal only with perceived beneficial and/or detrimental genetic traits. These are sometimes called "pseudo-eugenics" by proponents of strict eugenics._​
> PDE documented the relationship between dog breeding practices and eugenics. *How can that be wrong?*
> 
> What is wrong with showing photos of the Nuremburg Rally? Are we so sensitive that we can't recognize history and how influences took place?
> 
> From PDE:
> 
> _"Narrator: "But behind the glitz and glamour of Crufts. behind the doors of the Kennel Club's $20-million pound HQ in London's posh Mayfair, lies a dark and dirty secret. The Kennel Club was born out of the eugenics movement. The idea that we could improve the human race by controlling who bred to whom. It sounds incredible now, but the eugenics movement was hugely popular. Eugenicist doctrine taught that the genetic improvement of man lay in breeding only best to best in purifying the humane race of undesirable traits and in never allowing any mixing between races. The problem was that what was considered best was often decided solely on what you looked like and very often on what race you were. And then, in the 1930s, the eugenics movement found its ultimate champion."
> 
> Quote by Prof. Steve Jones: Adolf Hitler was a very keen geneticist. I mean he really was. He believed there was a pure race, the Arians, which were different from every other race and you should breed from that race and kill off the others.
> 
> Narrator: "The Holocaust exposed eugenics as morally flawed. Its ideas about purity make no scientific sense, either. And yet one organization almost unnoticed has continued to embrace eugenicist principles."
> 
> Professor James Serpell: "That view is very much still propagated by the Kennel Club today. It's all about maintaining these lines of very pure, very unsullied aristocratic breeds."
> 
> Narrator: "It's not just that they don't allow any mixing. True to the Kennel Club's eugenicist principles, breeders sometimes discard dogs born that deviate from the breed standard."​_​
> There is not a bit of untruth in all that was said. Hiding from history or denying the truth in it because people have become sensitive is NOT an acceptible practise, IMHO.
> 
> If a breeder, of any animal and that includes me, does not realize that selective breeding and the registries and purebreeding have links to the eugenicist movement, or doesn't "like" the connection I would suggest that they rethink being a breeder.
> 
> When I read objections to the link I think "what an incredible shame". My Grandfather lost a good chunk of his arm fighting in WWI. My fathers full family is military. You would think we would ALL want to remember the lessons learned through history and the impact that they might of had or we do not progress as a society.
> 
> The KC did not predate the eugenics movement.
> 
> Sir Francis Galton, in an 1865 article entitled "Hereditary Talent and Character," first sketched out his theory of controlled breeding for humans, In it dogs were mentioned as an example of successful breeding for improved function. He elaborated on this proposal for humans in 1869 in a book called "Hereditary Genius".
> 
> _The word eugenics derives from the Greek word eu (good or well) and the suffix -genēs (born), and was coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883 to replace the word stirpiculture (also see: Oneida stirpiculture) which he had used previously but which had come to be mocked by people of culture due to its perceived sexual overtones.[36] Galton defined eugenics as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations".[_​
> Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> CC


Thanks for that, I was going mad googling and finding nothing earlier than 1920!

But I will reiterate the Thai Ridgeback and the Pho Quoc have been around for 1,000 years and it's ancestors were unridged Pariah dogs around for 2,000 years in Eastern Thailand, although until mDNA testing is done it is unproven. But I do think the Thai population had better things to do than 'recreate' a dog they saw illustrated on rock paintings. It would be interesting to see any results of this if it has been done?


----------



## Shrap

ozrex said:


> Really, really interesting debate, guys. Thank you.
> 
> *I think Malmum may have hit the nail on the head.* Selection for "beauty" rather than function may not be in the best interests of our dogs. Frankly it is both wrong and cruel.


Really? So she knows nothing about dog breeds/showing and she's hit the nail on the head? Fantastic.

Could you give me a list of a few working breeds you think are bred for beauty rather than a conformation that is fit for function?


----------



## Bijou

> The sloped topline is for more efficient gaiting. ....
> 
> ...If you watch a German line GSD gait, compared with an English type (flat backed with dip behind withers and non existent angulation ) - you will see which has the effortless, ground covering, powerful gait. Something Very useful when you're a living fence trying to conserve energy yet cover ground quickly.


Sorry - I disagree here - the BSD was also bred to be a living fence and is capable of gaiting efficiently for very long periods - yet look at the difference in their topline and general construction :










Comfort Creature - you mention that North Canada has many populations of non registered dogs bred in small isolated communities where their heritage is known - does this not mean that they are very likely to be as genetically restricted and therefore as inbred as any registered pedigree dog ? ..especially in the past when travel was much more difficult .


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

5rivers79 said:


> Why are pedigree GSD's bred to have such a unnatural slope in their spines? Is that to improve the health of the breed or movement/structure for working dogs or is it for looks?


Are you going to answer my questions I asked as well? I asked what, if any health tests, Sammy's parents had that the breeder took into account for the parents? Also, what criteria would you use for health tested dogs to allow them to be registered or not, how would you say a dog couldn't be registered because of a certain status, ie what cut off points would you apply?

GSD's are bred with a sloping topline to conform to the breed standard, this is something that's been recognised as gone too far, and is one of the breeds where measures have been put in place to try and reverse that trend to some extent, and get the breed back on track, as I understand it, a bit like the mastiffs and bulldogs that were depicted in the recent KC short film.



leashedForLife said:


> just "looks" doesn't cut it - we need data, & mDNA is the best.
> Sloughis LOOK LIKE the dogs on a dynastic tomb wall, but they aren't.


Well unless you know of anyone that's going to fund all that testing, it will have to just cut it, as I haven't a foggiest where that sort of data would come from and don't know anyone who would even start to think about doing it as a project. 

CC, I'm not ignoring you, I've got a ton of stuff to finish sticking on ebay before I start packing to move, and I'm due to take Tau up for another round of blood tests today (oh joy) so will read your post later, but didn't want you to think I'd lost the plot, thanks for taking the time to respond


----------



## shetlandlover

Just wanted to pop in and say that although the slope back on a GSD is rather un-attractive there is no link to the back's looks and hip dysplasia. Many GSD show folk and breeders hip score and have low scores. As well as dogs like my Scorcher who have straight backs who suffer with hip dysplasia. 

I do dislike the slope back but as it stands right now it's no more a risk to the dogs health than it would be to be straight backed. 

I would also like to point out that the kennel club are just a dog registry. They have no legal powers to remove dogs from puppy farms/back yard breeders nor to force their way into homes to make sure the owners are not puppy farmers. The RSPCA does have this power. Sadly its not used. 

I think there is a misconception as to how powerful the kennel club are and what they are legally able to do. (which is not very much).


----------



## terencesmum

I am not going to contribute anything that hasn't been said already, but I would just like to say that I find the mentioning of eugenics and Nazis in a thread about dog breeding and PDE2 highly distasteful and disrespectful to the millions of people who suffered immeasurable pain during the years of the Second World War. 
Completely inappropriate. :nonod:


----------



## Colette

> I would also like to point out that the kennel club are just a dog registry. They have no legal powers to remove dogs from puppy farms/back yard breeders nor to force their way into homes to make sure the owners are not puppy farmers. The RSPCA does have this power. Sadly its not used.
> 
> I think there is a misconception as to how powerful the kennel club are and what they are legally able to do. (which is not very much).


Just wanted to say that contrary to popular belief the RSPCA does NOT have these poswers either.

They have no legal powers and can do nothing without police involvement; can't force entry, remove animals etc unless the owner expressly allows them to or they have the police with them. If they turn up alone and get the door slammed in their face there is nothing they can do.


----------



## shetlandlover

Colette said:


> Just wanted to say that contrary to popular belief the RSPCA does NOT have these poswers either.
> 
> They have no legal powers and can do nothing without police involvement; can't force entry, remove animals etc unless the owner expressly allows them to or they have the police with them. If they turn up alone and get the door slammed in their face there is nothing they can do.


But with police involvement they can enter and take the animals. (with proof of neglect obviously).

The kennel club don't even have a "holding" type facility for any dogs they did take. So for many who say "The kennel club should stop registering from puppy farmers, do more about puppy farmers/back yard breeders ect" the kennel club are doing what they can legally, they have a 5 litters a year rule where they force said person to produce their council licence. Now, its less than perfect because many puppy farmers are council licence'd but you would think the council would go check these places out correctly before issuing a licence and then check them out regularly after that.

As for back yard breeders the kennel club has the assured breeders scheme which promotes health testing, they can't ban registrations of non health tested dogs outright because gene-pools would drop so much that inbreeding would be the only way forward, no one wants that.

The RSPCA, council and police should work together to shut down puppy farmers.


----------



## 5rivers79

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Are you going to answer my questions I asked as well? I asked what, if any health tests, Sammy's parents had that the breeder took into account for the parents? Also, what criteria would you use for health tested dogs to allow them to be registered or not, how would you say a dog couldn't be registered because of a certain status, ie what cut off points would you apply?


I can hand on heart say i dont know what tests Sammys parents had done. At the time of buying Sam i was probably like a majority of the general public and looking deep into health testing didnt cross my mind. Of course i would do things differently next time i buy a pup..but you live and learn.

I dont which health tests should qualify a pup for KC registration status as im a) not a breeder b) not a vet c) not a scientist *BUT* people buying a registered pup expect quality because the status of the KC registration is something that should reflect quality and optimum health. At the end of the day they have paid a premium for that pup.

You can say to all your hearts content that money shouldnt matter but in the real world it does. If someone is willing to pay the hundreds more for a KC pup then it really does need to be of exceptional quality imo.


----------



## DoodlesRule

Firstly thank you to Comfort Creature & Sleeping Lion for a proper informative debate - whatever side of the fence you sit on this both make valid knowledgeable points



Shrap said:


> What I meant was that more pedigrees will be insured. More mongrels will be treated by the PDSA. This means that although they may pay out more in claims for pedigrees, it's not because mongrels don't have anything wrong with them.
> 
> Lots of mongrel owners won't insure because they can't afford it. Or they think they have a mongrel which will be much healthier than those crippled pedigrees, therefore don't need insurance.
> So whether or not pedigrees do cost more in claims, that in no way reflects the health status of pedigrees or mongrels.
> 
> Does anyone know if insurance companies have looked into asking about health test results for parents when considering insurance premiums?


How do you know ie on what data are you basing your assumption that mongrel owners either have less money and/or don't insure?

I doubt that health test results are valid for insurance claims data anyway, other than for the conditions tested - it will have no relevance to the many long term conditions that insurers have to pay out for. My previous purebred/pedigree was from fully health tested parents but insurance claims were circa £9000 for a non-testable condition, the medication cost £2000 a year so would have been much higher had he not died at 5 year old. Insurers have that sort of data on all the dogs insured, they share information.



Shrap said:


> None exist, by definition. Mongrel is of unknown parentage, thus cannot be bred responsibly. Only dogs of known heritage can be bred responsibly. And most aren't as Noushka pointed out. Which is why I'd like to see insurance companies taking health tests into account for pedigree dogs when pricing premiums.


So you do recognise then that crosses can be bred responsibly then as their parentage is known?

As above, it would only provide information on say hip/elbow/eye problems not the other multitude of ailments. Insurers are purely & simply out to make money, they weigh up the odds on what they need to charge to stay in front. Therefore they have calculated the risks to the insurer for covering whatever pure breed/cross/mongrel you have, that is why the price can vary hugely even between pure breeds.



terencesmum said:


> I am not going to contribute anything that hasn't been said already, but I would just like to say that I find the mentioning of eugenics and Nazis in a thread about dog breeding and PDE2 highly distasteful and disrespectful to the millions of people who suffered immeasurable pain during the years of the Second World War.
> Completely inappropriate. :nonod:


Sorry terencesmum I disagree, as already said eugenics is all about selective breeding which is still practised in dog breeding - the war was fought against such theories (nazism obviously not dog breeding!) so I cannot feel its disrespectful. I did not think it was suggesting that all dog breeders are nazis, merely demonstrated to those who did not know what eugenics is what it means when taken to the extremes the nazis did.


----------



## Blondie

Hmm, interesting reading catching up here, lol! I wanted to pick up on the mentionings of breed clubs, I cant speak for them all individually, obviously, because I dont know, but generally speaking -

National breed clubs just sort of grew up. They are a collection of people who own the same breed. They hold shows to compare their dogs. If you attend a breed club show, you can mix with like-minded people, talk about yesterdays winners, who is going to win today, does my dog have a chance? etc etc. Some hold dinner dances before/after the show, raise money for breed welfare with auctions and the like. Thats the way they are, the way they have always been, its for the fun of dogs, the sport of dogs, people enjoy it and why shouldnt they enjoy it? We shouldnt change this.

Historically, control of genetic disease was never part of the responsibilities of a breed club, so the vast majorityhave never done anything about genetic disease. Maybe half of breed clbus have a genetic or breed improvement committee but most of these committees havent done a heck of a lot. Many Clubs hold seminars on movement or breeding a winning dog or for judges to better understand conformation or to achieve more effective training. Maybe a few on behaviour, and fewer yet are on genetic disease and its control.

If people want breed clubs to have anything to do with the control of genetic disease, you have to add another dimension to the rols of breed clubs, they can accept additional responsibilities if they are sincere in wishing to improve their breed and bring it to its greatest possible perfection.

1. They should generate a list of genetic defects occuring in their breed by surveying members and owners. This list should be made available to members and breeders and the mode of inheritance of each trait should be listed if it is known.

2. They should form Committees to assess the impact of each trait on the breed.

3. They should advocate the registration of dogs and bitches affected with genetic defects and those known to carry genes for these traits in an open registry.

4. They should develop lists of dogs known to be affected with or carry genes for a given trait and this list should be made freely available to breeders and members.

5. They should determine which defects should be attacked on a breed-wide basis.

6. They should develop a brochure discussing the diseases that occur in their breed, giving clinical signs, methods of diagnosis, age of onset, mode of inheritance (if known), potential treatments and prognosis. This should be available to every club member, breeder and owner of dogs of the breed.

8. Information should also be available discussing the rationale of the various systems that can be used to control disease and how to handle carriers and potential carriers of the various traits.

9. They should strongly support those breeders and owners with the honesty, courage and foresight to openly register dogs affected with genetic diseases, because they is no hope for control without knowledge. They should clearly state that the ethical course is to openly discuss dogs with defects ot those that produce defects when selling a show dog, breeding prospect or stud service.


----------



## terencesmum

DoodlesRule said:


> Sorry terencesmum I disagree, as already said eugenics is all about selective breeding which is still practised in dog breeding - the war was fought against such theories (nazism obviously not dog breeding!) so I cannot feel its disrespectful. I did not think it was suggesting that all dog breeders are nazis, merely demonstrated to those who did not know what eugenics is what it means when taken to the extremes the nazis did.


Maybe, you need to read up on your history a bit.
Hitler's ideology had very little to do with why WW2 was fought. 
Hitler wanted to eradicate a whole race (for want of a better phrase) off the face of the Earth. I have never heard of a Rottweiler breeder (or any other breeder) who wanted to get rid off all other breeds.
So I stand by my original statement. Completely inappropriate and disrespectful.

ETA: This might help as a quick overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II


----------



## Shrap

Bijou said:


> Sorry - I disagree here - the BSD was also bred to be a living fence and is capable of gaiting efficiently for very long periods - yet look at the difference in their topline and general construction :


Well I am no expert but them being developed in a different area perhaps they had different requirements, more varied terrain? Requiring a higher step? 
What I do know is that I've seen straight backed GSDs gait and it is nothing on the German line dogs. Never mind the fact that English show types are bags of nerves with no working drives...

And ShetlandLover, until you've seen these dogs in the flesh I don't think you can say the sloped back is unattractive. I will grant you I'm taking personal offence because Dino has a lovely topline which matches the breed standard.

















(Lesson learned about trying to stack and take photos yourself when there are cats in the garden lol)

Yes he's uuuugly









If anyone wants to see the flat backed show GSDs then PM me. Can't put them on the public forum I don't think.


----------



## L/C

I agree that references to Nazism are over the top but if the discussion is going to veer into the founding of the Kennel Club I don't think you can avoid mentioning eugenics. It was a fact of intellectual life at the end of the 19th/start 20th century that eugenics was accepted and promoted by prominent politicians and intellectuals. It would have had an influence on people who were interested in genetics and those who were involved with formulating breeding practices.

Eugenics has a dark history and has been applied appallingly to human beings but it shaped a lot of how people thought about in the first part of this century and actually a lot of good things like marriage counselling and genetic screening are based in the theory.


----------



## terencesmum

L/C said:


> I agree that references to Nazism are over the top but if the discussion is going to veer into the founding of the Kennel Club I don't think you can avoid mentioning eugenics. It was a fact of intellectual life at the end of the 19th/start 20th century that eugenics was accepted and promoted by prominent politicians and intellectuals. It would have had an influence on people who were interested in genetics and those who were involved with formulating breeding practices.
> 
> Eugenics has a dark history and has been applied appallingly to human beings but it shaped a lot of how people thought about in the first part of this century and actually a lot of good things like marriage counselling and genetic screening are based in the theory.


I am not necessarily against referring to Eugenics. I agree that in a debate about breeding, it will probably be mentioned sooner rather than later. My problem is the references to the Nazis and their ideas about "breeding". That is highly offensive and uncalled for.


----------



## Shrap

DoodlesRule said:


> How do you know ie on what data are you basing your assumption that mongrel owners either have less money and/or don't insure?
> 
> There is no data, but I'm basing it on what people on this forum have said would be reasons for buying a mongrel over a pedigree.
> There should also have been a big bold "I THINK" on my second post. My original post was actually "I wonder how many".
> 
> I doubt that health test results are valid for insurance claims data anyway, other than for the conditions tested - it will have no relevance to the many long term conditions that insurers have to pay out for. My previous purebred/pedigree was from fully health tested parents but insurance claims were circa £9000 for a non-testable condition, the medication cost £2000 a year so would have been much higher had he not died at 5 year old. Insurers have that sort of data on all the dogs insured, they share information.
> 
> For German Shepherds a history of hip scoring, and the DNA test for DM (CDRM) has been available for a few years. They are the top problems in GSDs. The only other huge problem I can think of is epilepsy, and hopefully we'll isolate the genes responsible soon
> 
> So you do recognise then that crosses can be bred responsibly then as their parentage is known?


They can be bred to the same standards of health as any pedigree if the same amount of research is done


----------



## AlbertRoss

Shrap said:


> Well I am no expert but them being developed in a different area perhaps they had different requirements, more varied terrain? Requiring a higher step?
> What I do know is that I've seen straight backed GSDs gait and it is nothing on the German line dogs. Never mind the fact that English show types are bags of nerves with no working drives...
> 
> And ShetlandLover, until you've seen these dogs in the flesh I don't think you can say the sloped back is unattractive. I will grant you I'm taking personal offence because Dino has a lovely topline which matches the breed standard.
> 
> If anyone wants to see the flat backed show GSDs then PM me. Can't put them on the public forum I don't think.


As a breeder of straight backed GSDs I think one has to be very careful about the description. I have no problem with a GSD with a slope back - it's part of the breed standard. The breed standard also says that the back should be STRAIGHT. The 'German' type GSD, bred with a curved back, isn't anything like the original GSD. At Crufts last year (which was ruled by bent backs) I overheard, and agreed with, a person say that he wouldn't trust one of them to guard his outside toilet.

As far as temperament goes, at the same show there was an 'English' dog lying in one of the aisles being played with by passing toddlers whilst there were several instances of 'German' dogs fighting each other in the benching area. My dogs aren't 'nervy' - we specifically breed for temperament. As for drive - most of the bent back GSDs I've seen don't look as if they could run across a garden, never mind a field.

I notice that the KC rebuttal of Jemima whatsherface was taken largely at the Richmond show - where the vast majority of the entry were 'English' type GSDs. I don't believe that was an accident. I believer it's because they want to show what a healthy GSD should look like.

I am very aware that those of us that breed 'English' types are being very selective in terms of bloodline, hip scoring, etc. in trying to improve the breed. Unfortunately, the last lot of hip scores I saw from the KC indicated that the same wasn't true of the 'German' types. However, the unsavoury fact remains that whilst the show judges keep scoring these deformities highly then they will increase in population. There is no question that the KC can control the future of dog health, although it will take several generations to see a marked improvement. Sadly, they won't do it because it will affect the money they take.

As a final note - see if you can find a photo of last year's GSD Crufts finalist where he's not sitting down. It's very, very rare. And all those photos of him sitting disguise what his back end looks like.


----------



## L/C

terencesmum said:


> I am not necessarily against referring to Eugenics. I agree that in a debate about breeding, it will probably be mentioned sooner rather than later. My problem is the references to the Nazis and their ideas about "breeding". That is highly offensive and uncalled for.


Oh I agree - Nazism and selective breeding is completely different. And quite frankly it makes it seem quite ridiculous to compare the two. Godwin's law people!


----------



## BlueBeagle

L/C said:


> I agree that references to Nazism are over the top but if the discussion is going to veer into the founding of the Kennel Club I don't think you can avoid mentioning eugenics. It was a fact of intellectual life at the end of the 19th/start 20th century that eugenics was accepted and promoted by prominent politicians and intellectuals. It would have had an influence on people who were interested in genetics and those who were involved with formulating breeding practices.
> 
> Eugenics has a dark history and has been applied appallingly to human beings but it shaped a lot of how people thought about in the first part of this century and actually a lot of good things like marriage counselling and genetic screening are based in the theory.


This is so true but is also the rub of the matter. At this time in history Eugenics was a very large movement in the Western world but the footage of the Nuremburg rally was used for shock value and to compare dog breeders with Nazis was inappropriate IMO. Hitler was an admirer of the US Eugenics movement and copied their teachings but this would not have had the shocking comparison than showing Hitler.

An interesting read: History News Network


----------



## Shrap

AlbertRoss said:


> As a breeder of straight backed GSDs I think one has to be very careful about the description. I have no problem with a GSD with a slope back - it's part of the breed standard. The breed standard also says that the back should be STRAIGHT. The 'German' type GSD, bred with a curved back, isn't anything like the original GSD. At Crufts last year (which was ruled by bent backs) I overheard, and agreed with, a person say that he wouldn't trust one of them to guard his outside toilet.
> 
> do you know what the croup is? Can I see a photo or video of one of your dogs gaiting? Where is the slope in your dogs' backs then? Does the person actually know any of the dogs? I didn't see the breed judging last year unfortunately but I did see Elmo in the flesh and what a beautiful dog he is. The original GSD was just that, the first one. As I've already said they were being bred even then towards the slope.
> 
> As far as temperament goes, at the same show there was an 'English' dog lying in one of the aisles being played with by passing toddlers whilst there were several instances of 'German' dogs fighting each other in the benching area. My dogs aren't 'nervy' - we specifically breed for temperament. As for drive - most of the bent back GSDs I've seen don't look as if they could run across a garden, never mind a field.
> 
> Do you work your dogs in Schutzhund then? Or should I just take your word for it. Even the working line people laugh at English line dogs.
> 
> I notice that the KC rebuttal of Jemima whatsherface was taken largely at the Richmond show - where the vast majority of the entry were 'English' type GSDs. I don't believe that was an accident. I believer it's because they want to show what a healthy GSD should look like.
> 
> The KC know bugger all about GSDs, most of the good breeders show in Germany. Are you suggesting the English know better than the breed's homeland? Typical saggy backed arrogance.
> 
> I am very aware that those of us that breed 'English' types are being very selective in terms of bloodline, hip scoring, etc. in trying to improve the breed. Unfortunately, the last lot of hip scores I saw from the KC indicated that the same wasn't true of the 'German' types. However, the unsavoury fact remains that whilst the show judges keep scoring these deformities highly then they will increase in population. There is no question that the KC can control the future of dog health, although it will take several generations to see a marked improvement. Sadly, they won't do it because it will affect the money they take.
> 
> Again a lot of the German lines are scored in Germany. Deformities? You had best be VERY careful about insulting the dogs that fit the breed standard, don't have to be propped up when they're being judged or have their heads held. There are some German dogs that have less than steady temperament, but there are a hell of a lot less of them than your English ones.
> 
> As a final note - see if you can find a photo of last year's GSD Crufts finalist where he's not sitting down. It's very, very rare. And all those photos of him sitting disguise what his back end looks like.


What does Elmo's back end look like? Correct?

What are the elbow scores of your dogs?


----------



## pod

Shrap said:


> Well I am no expert but them being developed in a different area perhaps they had different requirements, more varied terrain? Requiring a higher step?


Continental herding breeds have descended from a generic sheepdog type that is very similar to the modern day Malinois. The Terv and Groen have deviated to a certain extent by becoming 'elegant' for the showring, which has affected construction and proportions but that is minor in comparison to the massive changes that has occurred in the GSD and that is nothing to do with function other than that of the showring.



> What I do know is that I've seen straight backed GSDs gait and it is nothing on the German line dogs. Never mind the fact that English show types are bags of nerves with no working drives...


Straight backed GSDs are, by definition, correct. The back of the modern day German type is, generally speaking, incorrect as it is most often curved or hinged, and the topline excessively sloping.

One detrimental effect of the sloping topline and excessive hind angulation is the restricted extension of the hock with a possible predisposition to osteoarthritis. A very good article here -

New Page 1


----------



## Snoringbear

pod said:


> Straight backed GSDs are, by definition, correct. The back of the modern day German type is, generally speaking, incorrect as it is most often curved or hinged, and the topline excessively sloping.
> 
> One detrimental effect of the sloping topline and excessive hind angulation is the restricted extension of the hock with a possible predisposition to osteoarthritis. A very good article here -
> 
> New Page 1


Agreed. This coupled with an elongated second thigh leads to poor moving and constructed dog IMO. I would not consider extreme examples as being capable of fullfilling their original function.


----------



## Shrap

Snoringbear said:


> Agreed. This coupled with an elongated second thigh leads to poor moving and constructed dog IMO. I would not consider extreme examples as being capable of fullfilling their original function.


Of course extreme examples can't. But the normal German line dogs with a straight sloped back into the correct croup CAN. The flat backed dogs cannot do anything remotely similar.

I can't do a long reply as on my way to the lab atm. But every hip score I have seen of a German dog has had 0 in all the relevant boxes for DJD


----------



## shetlandlover

Shrap said:


> And ShetlandLover, until you've seen these dogs in the flesh I don't think you can say the sloped back is unattractive. I will grant you I'm taking personal offence because Dino has a lovely topline which matches the breed standard.


He's very beautiful. :001_tt1: However I do find like many the slope back unattractive, I am not 100% sure why because I do love all GSD's but I much like the straight back more.

I like this.









Over this.









However I do believe that's personal preference. Although your boy is longer in coat, which is something I like more than shorter coats.

I have met many slope backed GSD's in the flesh and I feel exactly the same to them as I do on here, nice dogs but the back is a turn off for me.

Sorry to have offended you.


----------



## pod

Shrap said:


> Of course extreme examples can't. But the normal German line dogs with a straight sloped back into the correct croup CAN. The flat backed dogs cannot do anything remotely similar.
> 
> I can't do a long reply as on my way to the lab atm. But every hip score I have seen of a German dog has had 0 in all the relevant boxes for DJD


The problem is Shrap, it's the extreme dogs that win in the ring and are mostly used for breeding. A correct, normal backed dog with a croup of ~23 degrees, as defined by the standard (FCI), wouldn't stand a chance in the German type showring.

DJD is defined by the total hip score. A good selection of German dogs with high progeny tests in this table.
ANIMAL
The two dogs with the highest progeny tests (both over 30) are German type and German bred.


----------



## Shrap

Not in the shows that I attend or have seen! I also don't know any breeders using dogs that produce scores like that.
Maybe I'm just lucky.
I've also checked all scores done through the BVA for dogs with the same affix as mine. The highest scores are in the 20s as far as I remember, and only inthink 2 of them?
The German dog that Shetland lover posted is closer to the standard than the English dog.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Shrap said:


> What does Elmo's back end look like? Correct?


No, Elmo's back end is curved. The exact same sort of curve that had Clare Balding spluttering the first year Crufts got moved to More4. Elmo is great from the front (and, yes, I have had an opportunity to have hands on with Elmo) - but simply awful from behind.

I'm not going to type out all your comments (and can't quote them) so my comments on your post are piecemeal.

You ignored the fact that I said - as per the KC standard - that a slope is correct, a CURVE isn't. The breeders of 'German' dogs continually harp on about slope. A slope is a straight line higher at one end - not a curve. The breed standard is quite specific about the back of a GSD and 'curve' or 'roach' back is specifically a fault. Go read the standard. (If you want to use the German standard - go and breed in Germany).

You also ignored the fact that the original GSD was straight backed - and then go on to claim that the German type is somehow 'right'. So, the first one was wrong? Your logic fails me. Either the first one was right or he wasn't. If he was right then all the banana backs are wrong. For many, many years the GSD followed exactly those lines - not a hint of a curve.

The fact is that the GSD was popularised world wide, not by Germans, but by Americans. And if you want to look at angularisation of GSDs then I suggest you look at the USA. You might also want to consider where most GSDs are to be found now. (Not Germany). The curved back has become popular only in the last 30 or so years - before that dogs from all over the world were largely straight backed. Curved backs are a fashion that has deformed one of the world's great classic dogs. (As is blindingly obvious from the picture of the banana backed dog shown in shetlandlover's post - or perhaps you'd like to argue that the back in that photo is straight?)

Using terms like 'saggy backed arrogance' just shows ignorance (and rudeness). None of my dogs are saggy backed, nor have I seen any that could be described so. If they were they would be incorrect as per the standard. I've lost count of the number of dog shows I've been to where I've been approached both by breeders of other types of dog and members of the general public who have said how it was a pleasure to see a 'proper' GSD and not one of the bent back ones.

To say that 'good breeders show in Germany' is laughable. Breeders that breed GSDs with bent backs may well show in Germany, largely because they'll be more successful there. As for your other statements, it's what I come to expect from those who uphold the continued breeding of the major fault in many dogs. [Edit - even the GSDleague have a note on their website that scoring for hip dysplasia is more lax in Germany than elsewhere. So, please, don't hold Germany up as being able to teach us about health issues in GSDs]

The GSDs in Jemima puddleducks first programme were - 'German'. Subsequently, the KC made vetting of GSDs (and 14 other breeds) who win at shows compulsory to show, amongst other things, that they are 'fit for purpose'. Why was that? And why did the 'German' based breed clubs all scream blue murder? In fact, why did those same clubs threaten to withdraw from the KC? They were only mollified when the KC agreed to drop 'Alsatian' from the breed name (and that was a close run thing). And the KC only backed down because of the potential huge loss of revenue if they put into place compulsory health testing.

There's a simple answer. If you want 'German' type dogs, shown under 'German' type rules (double handling is a speciality, I believe), including the fatuous 'Schutzhund' (a test of a dog's ability which bears absolutely no relationship AT ALL for the dog's purpose) then form a totally separate organisation and drop out of the KC altogether.


----------



## pod

Shrap said:


> Not in the shows that I attend or have seen! I also don't know any breeders using dogs that produce scores like that.
> Maybe I'm just lucky.
> I've also checked all scores done through the BVA for dogs with the same affix as mine. The highest scores are in the 20s as far as I remember, and only inthink 2 of them?
> The German dog that Shetland lover posted is closer to the standard than the English dog.


These are the most prolific breeding GSD dogs in the UK.

They are the dogs with the highest number of hip scored progeny. If you look through the names you will see numerous well known and top winning dogs of past decades, many of them German bred and German type... some German imports too.

Shrap, I'm no defender of the Alsatian type. They too have their faults and exaggerations, but in the last two decades the German type has gone through a particularly extreme development that seems to be obvious to all but those who own and breed them.


----------



## AlbertRoss

pod said:


> These are the most prolific breeding GSD dogs in the UK.
> 
> They are the dogs with the highest number of hip scored progeny. If you look through the names you will see numerous well known and top winning dogs of past decades, many of them German bred and German type... some German imports too.
> 
> Shrap, I'm no defender of the Alsatian type. They too have their faults and exaggerations, but in the last two decades the German type has gone through a particularly extreme development that seems to be obvious to all but those who own and breed them.


I believe that in the Dog World/Royal Canin Top Stud Dog competition 2011, which is scored by how well the progeny of a dog did, the best GSD was _Alkarahs All American with Strco_ which was an 'English' type imported from the USA.


----------



## Shrap

You expect there to be no break at the croup? Perhaps what's confusing you is that there isn't a dip behind the withers in German dogs. I don't like an exaggerated curve, but there are lots of dogs with a nice slope.
Where is the slope in English line dogs?
And what are the elbow scores of your dogs?

You're right though, the test that Max von Stephanitz devised shouldn't be used 

The original GSD was being bred towards a slope even back then, is what I said.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Shrap said:


> You expect there to be no break at the croup? Perhaps what's confusing you is that there isn't a dip behind the withers in German dogs. I don't like an exaggerated curve, but there are lots of dogs with a nice slope.


Let's make this really simple. Here's the web page for Elmo (supposedly the best 'German' dog in the UK currently) Elmo

Please tell me, in either of the 2 photos that actually show his back, where he is straight. Ignore your definition of 'slope' - it's wrong.

Here's the relevant bit of the standard: Overall length achieved by correct angle of well laid shoulders, correct length of croup and hindquarters. The topline runs without any visible break from the set on of the neck, over the well defined withers, falling away slightly in a straight line to the gently sloping croup. The back is firm, strong and well muscled. Loin broad, strong, well muscled. Weak, Soft and roach backs undesirable and should be heavily penalised. Croup slightly sloping and without any break in the topline, merges imperceptibly with the set on of the tail.

The croup starts at the ileum bone - which is difficult to see but can be felt. You can get a pretty good idea where it starts by looking at a dog in the normal GSD stand. It's pretty normally above the point where the front of the back leg joins the body. The croup is, with no exceptions, much shorter than the back. If you want to argue otherwise then I suggest you have seen some very strange dogs.

Also, have a look at this page. It clearly show the degeneration of the GSD since the 1970s.


----------



## pod

A quick measurement of Elmo's croup from that link - ~40 degrees. The only dog so far on this thread anywhere near the correct 23 degrees is the straight backed one in the post by Shetlandlover.

I too have seen Elmo in the flesh and agree with AR in that his topline is far from correct. He shows a definite hinge effect when pulling into the collar which can be seen slightly in the photos. The slope is exaggerated and hindquarters crouching, though he's less exaggerated than many of similar breeding. His movement is far from ideal but he does actually have good hock extension.

Shraps, about the dip behind the withers. The spinal column is S shaped and this dip is a normal part of canine construction. It's where the spinous processes of the vertebrae change direction from thoracic to lumbar. Most breeds have this dip, it can be felt most easily in breeds of relatively normal construction like Siberians, Canaan Dogs, Collies etc.


----------



## Blitz

amazing. I have ploughed through the whole thread this evening, I feel shattered 

Some very interesting points of view. I did not watch the original programme but hope to watch the one next week.

A couple of points if I may come in this late. 
Insurance - it is not pedigree v cross breed on cost. It is breed surely. My poodles are a fraction of the price to insure compared with my friends border terrier. Nowhere was I asked if my dogs were registered, it was simply that I put poodle as the breed.
Maybe I should ask for a quote for a poodle cross and see if it is any less. I think my dogs are probably as cheap as they can be though.

Another point - GSDs. I have no knowledge of modern breeding and I had always been under the misapprehension that German bred dogs were straighter and more solid. I owned one over 20 years ago, he was German breeding and he was very straight and solid with nice movement and a bold temparament but not this funny gliding walk the deformed looking ones have. He moved like a sound dog.
My sister has had several, I dont know their breeding but the first couple were straight backed and very nervous. Her current one has a sloping back and a good temperament but has developed arthritis aged 5. One of her previous ones had a sloping back and developed arthritis at a young age too.


----------



## Shrap

Since Albert isn't replying to my questions I funnily enough don't feel any inclination to reply to him anymore.

Elmo isn't my favourite dog, he could be less curved, but that is preferable to the table top GSDs that look like overgrown Corgis.

This is a nice dog VA2 Germany 2011

VA2 Quattro von der Partnachklamm - German Shepherd Dog


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Firstly, apologies to CC, still haven't gotten round to reading your post, and my brain hurts now!!



5rivers79 said:


> I can hand on heart say i dont know what tests Sammys parents had done. At the time of buying Sam i was probably like a majority of the general public and looking deep into health testing didnt cross my mind. Of course i would do things differently next time i buy a pup..but you live and learn.
> 
> I dont which health tests should qualify a pup for KC registration status as im a) not a breeder b) not a vet c) not a scientist *BUT* people buying a registered pup expect quality because the status of the KC registration is something that should reflect quality and optimum health. At the end of the day they have paid a premium for that pup.
> 
> You can say to all your hearts content that money shouldnt matter but in the real world it does. If someone is willing to pay the hundreds more for a KC pup then it really does need to be of exceptional quality imo.


Ok, so I'm guessing you know very little about health testing and/or gene pools? Firstly, just so as you know, *some* of the most influential dogs in Labs, are now pretty much known to have been affected for PRA, I can think of two famous names from before the test was developed, I'm sure there are many more. How many totally blind Labs do you see walking around?

This is what really pee's me off entirely about the whole PDE type issue. We know the status of the breed overall in a more complete way than any other breed or cross breed, I would think, judging from the number of dogs, and the number of health tests. And yet here we are being told that all pedigrees are unhealthy because of what we know, not what we don't know (and that is a helluva lot for cross breeds). Had those dogs of yesteryear that were *affected* for PRA not been used, we could well have lost out on some influential lines that have made great contributions to the breed.

I think I'm actually anti eugenics, I prefer to keep gene pools open, and accept that no animal is ever going to be 100% genetically perfect, so work with the health test results and not discard all *faulty* breeding stock.


----------



## terencesmum

I grew up in Germany where GSD's are kept as pets a lot of the time. Obviously, these are/were not show dogs, but I certainly have never seen dogs with backs like the links posted on this thread. 

And I am surprised that people think the German lines have "temperament issues". They certainly don't have that reputation at home. 

Could somebody explain this temperament thing to me, please? (Genuinely interested, by the way, I hasten to add.)


----------



## AlbertRoss

terencesmum said:


> I grew up in Germany where GSD's are kept as pets a lot of the time. Obviously, these are/were not show dogs, but I certainly have never seen dogs with backs like the links posted on this thread.
> 
> And I am surprised that people think the German lines have "temperament issues". They certainly don't have that reputation at home.
> 
> Could somebody explain this temperament thing to me, please? (Genuinely interested, by the way, I hasten to add.)


My main concern when breeding is to bred for temperament. I don't want nervous dogs or dogs that are likely to be aggressive. I could (but never would) leave any of my dogs alone with a small child and know that whatever happened they wouldn't hurt a hair on his head. (They might lick him to death with affection, though). My personal observation of 'German' dogs comes only from showing and again and again I see snappy, bad tempered German dogs. I also see the same people showing 'German' dogs that are so reluctant to go into the ring that they have to be dragged in. I have yet to see any similar behaviour from 'English' types.

To be fair, I do know of 'English' breeders who don't socialise their dogs - but they are being shunned by the majority of the rest of the 'English' type breeders now. There is a concerted effort to strengthen the 'English' breed and it is my belief that temperament means more to all the breeders involved than looks.


----------



## terencesmum

AlbertRoss said:


> My main concern when breeding is to bred for temperament. I don't want nervous dogs or dogs that are likely to be aggressive. I could (but never would) leave any of my dogs alone with a small child and know that whatever happened they wouldn't hurt a hair on his head. (They might lick him to death with affection, though). My personal observation of 'German' dogs comes only from showing and again and again I see snappy, bad tempered German dogs. I also see the same people showing 'German' dogs that are so reluctant to go into the ring that they have to be dragged in. I have yet to see any similar behaviour from 'English' types.
> 
> To be fair, I do know of 'English' breeders who don't socialise their dogs - but they are being shunned by the majority of the rest of the 'English' type breeders now. There is a concerted effort to strengthen the 'English' breed and it is my belief that temperament means more to all the breeders involved than looks.


So do you think it is mainly a socialisation problem?


----------



## AlbertRoss

Shrap said:


> Since Albert isn't replying to my questions I funnily enough don't feel any inclination to reply to him anymore.


How strange - when presented with irrefutable evidence that you lose inclination. What a surprise!


----------



## AlbertRoss

terencesmum said:


> So do you think it is mainly a socialisation problem?


No. I think it _can_ be a socialisation problem - but some dogs are naturally aggressive/nervy. This seems to be the case more on the 'German' side than the 'English' and therefore appears to be related to the build of the dog. I've never seen English types fight at shows - I've seen several instances of German dogs doing it, in one case in the ring.


----------



## terencesmum

AlbertRoss said:


> No. I think it _can_ be a socialisation problem - but some dogs are naturally aggressive/nervy. This seems to be the case more on the 'German' side than the 'English' and therefore appears to be related to the build of the dog. I've never seen English types fight at shows - I've seen several instances of German dogs doing it, in one case in the ring.


Would you not say it's to do with breeding ethics? (again, I am guessing, I know nothing about GSD breeding) If you think they breed from "undesirable" looking dogs with "undesirable" temperaments, wouldn't that point towards odd ethics?


----------



## ozrex

Sorry Shrap it's taken me a while to answer your questions due to work and time zones.

I agree with Malmum when she said that "it was for looks" when referring to some changes in "dog structure" that have not been in the best interests in the dogs.



> I would think it was for looks otherwise why would they be changing the standard for GSD's and now trying to breed with less of a slope? Some of those shepherds looked awful with their hocks knocking together - who ever thought that looked good was quite mad IMO.


I replied


> I think Malmum may have hit the nail on the head. Selection for "beauty" rather than function may not be in the best interests of our dogs. Frankly it is both wrong and cruel.


I think there have been many bad breeding decisions made in breeding/showing circles that relate to this. Most have been outside the "working dog area" and in the "showing dog area". At least working dog breeds are required to Do Their Thing but in the show ring appearance has become paramount and in some cases has over-ruled the welfare of the dogs. I really didn't want to mention breeds because there are people (like yourself) who breed dogs and I would hate to hurt anyone. Particularly people who love a breed and have spent many years doing their best for that breed.

Selection for beauty is not per se a problem but it becomes a problem when it dominates selection to the detriment of dog health and function.

Since you ask

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l514/alisonshaw/th_201187thWDCOpenBitchWinnerLashadasAmber.jpg

There are many, many, many such backs in Australian shows.

Are rough collies a working breed? I think everyone knows where that is going. Poor Avalanche paid a big price for people who wanted to breed the very pretty merles.

I'd rather not go there. BUT, breeding for extreme looks hurts dogs even as it wins trinkets.


----------



## leashedForLife

ozrex said:


> Pedigree breeders of ANY kind (including good ones) breeding from a closed gene pool will cause
> problems to that dog population. [Loss of diversity compromises] the breed's ability to survive
> environmental change. The most obvious will be the breed's response to new infectious organisms.
> If resistance to that disease is not included in the gene-pool, [those] animals will become extinct.


resistance can only exist if the disease already exists, AND the dog was exposed to it - that's resistance.

a soundly-functioning immune system that's robust but not extremely reactive isn't the same thing - 
but it's better, as NEW diseases arise constantly. Novel disease-organisms cannot trip resistance, 
as the animal was never exposed to them before - but a healthy immune-function can react, 
& hopefully responds in a way that allows the animal to survive, develop resistance, & be alert 
to any future exposures, when resistance will be triggered. 


ozrex said:


> *emphasis added - *
> 
> At the moment, *the dog gene-pool is rich & diverse*, but the belief that closed-pool breeding
> is the only "good" breeding can destroy that diversity very quickly.


sadly that's not true.

in a number of breeds, there may be MANY individuals, but the 'effective breeding popn' is small - 
in some cases, astoundingly small. The EFFECTIVE popn is the number of individuals we'd predict, 
if the gene-popn matched the # of individuals; the ACTUAL popn can differ from the EFFECTIVE popn 
by a factor of ten or more - IOW, there may be 1/10th, or even 1/100th the number of breeding 
individuals that exist, as physical dogs. :nonod:

http://tinyurl.com/87d2sw2

Evolution - A-Z - Effective population size

Population Structure and Inbreeding From Pedigree Analysis of Purebred Dogs

Random Genetic Drift

BREEDING DOGS FOR THE NEXT MILLENNIUM

Sirius Dog

Breed Information :: Swanndale Heelers Dog Kennels :: Lancashire Heeler Dogs :: Pedigree Show Dog Breeders, Exhibitors, Puppies and Club :: Wigan Manchester

BMC Evolutionary Biology | Full text | Assortative mating and fragmentation within dog breeds

Breed

http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/...cal_survey_australian_tollers_claire_wade.pdf


----------



## Mrs White

Excellent thread everyone. Really enjoying that so many people are sharing such good info. I feel I'm learning a lot. Cheers all


----------



## pod

leashedForLife said:


> resistance can only exist if the disease already exists, AND the dog was exposed to it - that's resistance.
> 
> a soundly-functioning immune system that's robust but not extremely reactive isn't the same thing -
> but it's better, as NEW diseases arise constantly. Novel disease-organisms cannot trip resistance,
> as the animal was never exposed to them before - but a healthy immune-function can react,
> & hopefully responds in a way that allows the animal to survive, develop resistance, & be alert
> to any future exposures, when resistance will be triggered.


Agree that a healthy immune system, supported by high heterozygosity of the MHC complex genes is top priority here but interestingly, there is also a simple genetic element to resistance in some cases, and sometimes located in the MHC.

The spread of the Aids virus in humans is a case in point. Populations that have gone through the bubonic plague epidemic have a higher natural immunity to HIV and this has been found to be linked to a single gene mutation, the frequency of which has increased in populations where the plague has already had effect.

Also, again in humans, carriers of the sickle cell trait have good resistance to malaria.


----------



## Spellweaver

leashedForLife said:


> Please name one of those "1,000-YO breeds"?


Still catching up with this thread, but just had to comment on this:

The Bergamasco breed is over 3000 years old

A quick google will find you many breeds that have been around for over 1000 years - here are just a few:

The Hungarian Puli The 8 Weirdest Dog Breeds Ever

The Swedish Vallhund Swedish Vallhund

The Canadian Eskimo Dog Canadian Eskimo Dog | Doggyhelp.com



leashedForLife said:


> the eugenics movement was massively popular, & very pervasive; i've read 1920s magazine articles,
> & short-stories and books as well, which included eugenics ideas in fiction. It was literally everywhere.


You have missed the point. Whatever you have read and how much you have read about eugenics, however popular the movement was, it still does not take away the deliberate sensationalism of comparing the Kennel Club and pedigree dog breeders to Nazis. In people's mid sets today there are all sorts of connotations, all sorts of feelings of horror and disgust at the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis during WW2. Mention the Nazis and all the feelings come rushing to the fore. If the program had wanted seriously discuss the eugenics movement, it could have done so without showing pictures of Nazis during WW2. But the program makers chose sensationalism over discussion. Comparing the KC and pedigree breeders to Nazis had nothing to do with eugenics - it was a deliberate, sensationalist attempt to blacken an organisation by linking it in the minds of people watching the program to a group of people universally reviled.



leashedForLife said:


> the founding of the KC was not 'happenstance'. It was 'purebred' wealthy people, establishing a registry
> for their 'purebred' dogs. It was, in point of fact, canine & human snobbery; class privileges, colonialism,
> racist bigotry, "science", money, sporting competition, ALL came into play in the KC's founding.
> 
> well-educated Britons with money to spend, set out to wall-off the undocumented dogs of the average
> citizen; if the cit's dogs could hunt, race, herd, etc, that didn't matter as much as the fact that they WEREN'T
> PUREBRED & couldn't prove their pedigrees.  Just like registries for horses, cattle, etc, even chickens,
> which became popular show-animals also - fancy pigeons were the rage during Darwin's lifetime, & fancy chickens,
> racing horses, purebred cattle, all date their registries from that period - when eugenics ruled, as a common meme
> all around the developed world.
> 
> .


What a load of utter nonsense. The KC was founded primarliy as a way of comparing breeding stock of working dogs.

_The first organised dog show was held in the Town Hall, Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 28th and 29th June 1859. The Show was organised by Messrs. Shorthouse and Page at the suggestion of Mr R Brailsford and there were sixty entries of Pointers and Setters. Only one class was held for each breed at these early shows and the dogs were unidentified except for their kennel names. Reference to the old catalogues reveals Mr Murrel's 'Spot', competing against Mr Brown's 'Venus' for a prize of 22 shillings_

History of the Kennel Club - The Kennel Club

Read and learn.


----------



## Spellweaver

Malmum said:


> Roll on the 27th!


Yeah - can't wait to say "I told you so!" when I compare what I've said the program will consist of to what it actually does!


----------



## pod

Shrap said:


> This is a nice dog VA2 Germany 2011
> 
> VA2 Quattro von der Partnachklamm - German Shepherd Dog


There are parts of the standard that are difficult to quantify. How much angulation is too much and how steep does a topline have to slope to be excessive? The measurement of the croup angle should tell you that this is excessive, this is a fault of the topline not the croup.

Also measure this dog's height/depth proportions. The standard asks for greater length of foreleg than chest depth. Even allowing for a few inches of coat, this dog is way too heavy.

And then onto the forehand construction, where the standard actually is at fault. Do we really need a dog with such extreme length and layback of upper arm?


----------



## Shrap

AlbertRoss said:


> No. I think it _can_ be a socialisation problem - but some dogs are naturally aggressive/nervy. This seems to be the case more on the 'German' side than the 'English' and therefore appears to be related to the build of the dog. I've never seen English types fight at shows - I've seen several instances of German dogs doing it, in one case in the ring.


What complete and utter pish. The trainer at my GSD class also agrees. The English show lines are as bad as any BYB dog for temperament. You don't courage test your breeding stock (Schutzhund) WHY is that?
And would you answer my question on the elbow scores of your dogs?
Temperament related to the build of the dog? How laughable. 
Why is it that when I mentioned working drives you started talking about physical capabilities? Do you even know what I mean?
I wish I could post the photos of a particular show where the judge had to use her foot to prop up one of the English dog's hocks and the handler had the dog's head held it was so scared.
Disgusting.
You think a nervy dog could cope with the German type shows?
What is it in particular you don't like about double handling? Perhaps because your dogs couldn't cope with the noise and atmosphere? 
Sure though, at the sieger show when everyone is going wild for the bitework in a stadium surrounded by thousands of people. Of course, that's nervy.



terencesmum said:


> Would you not say it's to do with breeding ethics? (again, I am guessing, I know nothing about GSD breeding) If you think they breed from "undesirable" looking dogs with "undesirable" temperaments, wouldn't that point towards odd ethics?


Undesirable temperaments? This guy thinks evaluating a GSD temperament is about how they behave around children. No wonder none of them work when the breeders either don't know or don't care how the dogs are supposed to be.
EVERY English pup I've met had been shying away from certain things. You might think that could be normal for just a pup, but it's not for a GSD. Dino was absolutely bombproof at 8 weeks, just like he should have been.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> It has been a view which the KC has done nothing to negate however. They've allowed and even encouraged the fact that "KC registered" equates to status. That's why the backlash to PDE was so severe. If KC registered didn't have that status attached many people wouldn't register, despite some advantages and it would hit their balance sheet. Only by being seen as having a status can the KC do everything they do which includes all the good they do.


The KC cannot be held responsible for ignorant public opinion. People believe all sorts of ridiculous things. People erroneously imagine all sorts of things to be true. Using your criteria, you would have to blame NASA for some people believing that man never landed on the moon, or the UK government for some people believing Princess Diana was killed by MI5.

The backlash to PDE was so severe because so many people were rightly incensed about the lies, the spin, and the unbalanced picture it painted about the show world and about the health of pedigree dogs in the show world. If it had said, "Look, there is a problem in a few breeds, this is what is being done at the moment about it but hey, let's work a bit faster on this" then the program would have been supported by just about everyone in the dog world. But instead, the program makers chose sensationalism, tried to pretend the problem was far greater than it was, and didn't recognise any work being done already. And THAT is why there was a backlash - not because some ignorant people believe KC registration to be something it isn't.


----------



## noushka05

comfortcreature said:


> Absolutely a point to note. It is worthy of considerationg but do you also wonder how many of the mutts were bred by poor breeders?
> 
> also we need to consider just how many were actually mongrels- your regular 'heinz 57'?, and how many were your 'designer' crosses?
> 
> The study I WANT to see is between well bred mutt, by weight category, to well bred pedigrees. THAT would be telling.


thats why i too would also like to see this ^^^.....

.


----------



## Spellweaver

Whew - finally got to the end of this thread! I was only having a quick look before Judge Judy came on - that was couple of hours ago and I've missed JJ completely now 

Apart from the specific threads I've replied to, I just wanted to add the following general observations:

Insurance - is different for different pedigree breeds and not just for pedigrees v mongrels (think someone has already said this) - but part of the calculation also depends upon where you live. Pet insurance (for both mongrels and pedigrees) differs greatly depending upon where you live in the UK.

Elmo the German Shepherd - irrespective of the debate on sloping backs (which I will leave to the people with more knowledge of the subject than I have), whenever I have seen this dog at a show I have to say his movement has been absolutely breathtaking, He was so stunning that I was even cheering for him against my puppy's sire in the group judging at WKC. He is a very fit and very healthy dog - and this is from someone who doesn't particularly like the GSD breed.


----------



## 5rivers79

A little question here for the GSD experts.

If you leave showlines and the ones that excel at shutzhund (for sport) aside for a minute, which type, german or english lines are actually used for *real work* e.g police work over here in the UK? Police forces cant afford to have dogs that shy away or dogs that begin to fight amongst themselves.


----------



## Snoringbear

There's a short article regarding PDE 2 content on Dog World now.

"BREEDS featured in Pedigree Dogs Exposed  Three Years On will be the Cavalier, Pug, Bulldog, Dalmatian, Boxer, and others more peripherally.
With regard to the Cavalier and Dalmatian there will be updates on what has happened since the original programme was screened in 2008."

More here:

Dog World - 08 Contents


----------



## AlbertRoss

Shrap said:


> What complete and utter pish. The trainer at my GSD class also agrees.


In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies "He would, wouldn't he?"



> The English show lines are as bad as any BYB dog for temperament.


Please do provide any instance of English type dogs fighting at shows.



> You don't courage test your breeding stock (Schutzhund) WHY is that?


Because I consider (as do most English type owners) that Schutzhund is a fabricated waste of space which has absolutely no relevance to the breed. GSDs were bred as 'shepherd' dogs with a specific aim. Schutzhund introduces loads of meaningless measurements which have nothing whatsoever to do with that.



> And would you answer my question on the elbow scores of your dogs?


Oh well - if you really want me to embarrass you:
I don't test my dogs until they are 3 years old. I only test dogs that I am thinking about breeding from. I usually only breed from dogs that have won classes at Championship shows. I only breed from dogs that have a combined score (hip and elbow) of less than 15.

I've just retired one bitch whose scores were hip:3 elbow:9

I have only one current breeding bitch hip:0 elbow:3

The next generation aren't quite old enough yet.

Perhaps you'd like to give me the hip/elbow score of your dog? Or the results of his haemophilia test? (I assume you have had that done?)



> Temperament related to the build of the dog? How laughable.


Not at all. The only snappy, bad tempered dogs I've seen have been German build - and I and my partner have, between us, over 60 years of GSD experience.



> Why is it that when I mentioned working drives you started talking about physical capabilities? Do you even know what I mean?
> I wish I could post the photos of a particular show where the judge had to use her foot to prop up one of the English dog's hocks and the handler had the dog's head held it was so scared.


And I wish I could post photos of the German dog I saw dragged into the ring in such a state that the judge asked the competitor to leave. The dog was on its stomach and obviously terrified. The same competitor later took a dog into the ring that was lame. Both dogs were being shown by a well known German breeder.



> You think a nervy dog could cope with the German type shows?


Yes - because lots of them do.



> What is it in particular you don't like about double handling? Perhaps because your dogs couldn't cope with the noise and atmosphere?


You do demonstrate your ignorance don't you? Double handling is specifically outlawed at dog shows held under KC rules. So much so that anyone doing it is immediately disqualified and may be reported for disciplinary action. The only reason German dogs are subject to it is that they won't show properly otherwise. (For the benefit of those who don't know - double handling is exemplified by someone outside the show ring getting the dog's attention so that it will lift its head to assume a correct stand. It's only required for a dog that won't perform properly otherwise. That's why 'German' dogs need it).



> Undesirable temperaments? This guy thinks evaluating a GSD temperament is about how they behave around children. No wonder none of them work when the breeders either don't know or don't care how the dogs are supposed to be.


No, you don't understand how they are 'supposed to be'. The clue is in their name. They aren't 'supposed' to be attack dogs. Yet Schutzhund training emphasises that. What do you mean by 'working'? Is that 'guard'? Is it 'defence'? Is it 'tracking'?



> EVERY English pup I've met had been shying away from certain things. You might think that could be normal for just a pup, but it's not for a GSD. Dino was absolutely bombproof at 8 weeks, just like he should have been.


I have never met any English GSD puppies that were anything other than bold, confident and playful. I don't want my dogs to be aggressive (unlike those who think that GSDs should be aggressive). I want well socialised dogs that aren't a danger to those around them. However, should anyone enter my property without invitation they swiftly discover that my amiable GSDs know exactly how to defend it. Ask the last person who attempted to burgle us.

I notice you ignore the curve on Elmo's back. And you are totally silent on the page I referenced with the degeneration of GSDs since the 1970s. But hey, let's not allow facts to get in the way of your opinions.


----------



## Spellweaver

Snoringbear said:


> There's a short article regarding PDE 2 content on Dog World now.
> 
> "BREEDS featured in Pedigree Dogs Exposed  Three Years On will be the Cavalier, Pug, Bulldog, Dalmatian, Boxer, and others more peripherally.
> With regard to the Cavalier and Dalmatian there will be updates on what has happened since the original programme was screened in 2008."
> 
> More here:
> 
> Dog World - 08 Contents


It will be interesting to see how the actual content matches up - or doesn't  - with the promotional blurb released by the production company.


----------



## Elles

The argument regarding the 2 distinct types of German Shepherd makes Jemima's programme seem quite mild and reserved.

It would appear that the German types of GSD can barely walk let alone fight, the English types are vicious, nervous brutes and only those bred for police work and not showing are worth looking at. 

And that's from reading posts from breeders of pure bred GSD's who show them.


----------



## terencesmum

Shrap said:


> Undesirable temperaments? This guy thinks evaluating a GSD temperament is about how they behave around children. No wonder none of them work when the breeders either don't know or don't care how the dogs are supposed to be.
> EVERY English pup I've met had been shying away from certain things. You might think that could be normal for just a pup, but it's not for a GSD. Dino was absolutely bombproof at 8 weeks, just like he should have been.


Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offense. 
As I said before, I grew up around "german" gsds and have never come across the notion they don't have stable temperaments. Again, this is just an observation of pets, though.


----------



## Blondie

Spellweaver said:


> Whew - finally got to the end of this thread! I was only having a quick look before Judge Judy came on - that was couple of hours ago and I've missed JJ completely now
> 
> PMSL!!!! I am a JJ fan too!! :w00t:
> 
> Just catching up, wow!
> 
> Yes, we all know some breeds have more problems than others, solving genetic disease by health testing and good strong breeding programs isnt gonna happen in my lifetime, unless there is a huge, major breakthrough in genetic research - in dogs! We humans cant get rid of genetic disease in ourselves for a start, So how the hell can we be expected to rid our dogs of it???????
> 
> The breeds with exaggerated points, yes, its bad, and people who are sensible and care for the breed are doing something about it and again, its not gonna change overnight - people still dont realise this, it will take years and years of breeding programs. Hell, the best breeder in the world, doing all the health testing they can still produce dogs with genetic disease - are they to be hung drawn and quartered along with the breeders who couldnt give a flying wotnot??
> 
> Oh gosh, I have lost count of the times I have had to say this amd similar since PDE!!


----------



## Spellweaver

Ceearott said:


> Just catching up, wow!
> 
> Yes, we all know some breeds have more problems than others, solving genetic disease by health testing and good strong breeding programs isnt gonna happen in my lifetime, unless there is a huge, major breakthrough in genetic research - in dogs! We humans cant get rid of genetic disease in ourselves for a start, So how the hell can we be expected to rid our dogs of it???????


A very good point. Research into genetics in pedigree dogs has been going on for many years - but it is, of necessity, a slow process. This was one of my beefs with PDE. There was no mention of all the genetic research that has been done over the last 20 years by the AHT (paid for by the KC) - no acknowledgement that if it hadn't been for that, a lot of the genetic health tests that we can now do would not be available. Instead (and you only have to look at posts on here to realise it) the program gave the impression that nothing had been done at all except breed for more and more exaggerations.



Ceearott said:


> The breeds with exaggerated points, yes, its bad, and people who are sensible and care for the breed are doing something about it and again, its not gonna change overnight - people still dont realise this, it will take years and years of breeding programs.


But what's betting in _Carry on Jemima_ JH takes credit on behalf of her her program for all the work done so far, irrespective of whether or not the work was being done before she had even thought of PDE?



Ceearott said:


> Hell, the best breeder in the world, doing all the health testing they can still produce dogs with genetic disease - are they to be hung drawn and quartered along with the breeders who couldnt give a flying wotnot??


Of course - (puts tongue firmly in cheek) everybody knows  the only good breeders are those who let two mongrels mate without health testing, give the resulting pups a spanking brand new hybrid name such as a Cock-a-doodle-doo-poo-jug and charge ridiculous amounts for them. (Takes tongue out of cheek and runs for cover)


----------



## Shrap

AlbertRoss said:


> In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies "He would, wouldn't he?"
> 
> She deals with English line dogs for the most part. That's why.
> 
> Please do provide any instance of English type dogs fighting at shows.
> 
> What has fighting got to do with anything? That is normally a socialisation issue, however I've never seen any dog fights in the ring.
> 
> Because I consider (as do most English type owners) that Schutzhund is a fabricated waste of space which has absolutely no relevance to the breed. GSDs were bred as 'shepherd' dogs with a specific aim. Schutzhund introduces loads of meaningless measurements which have nothing whatsoever to do with that.
> 
> Why did Max von Stephanitz devise it then? As I said the most important part to me is the courage testing. How is courage testing a waste of space?
> And why don't you herd then? You really should be showing that your dog is capable of doing something. How exactly DO you temperament test?
> Oh well - if you really want me to embarrass you:
> I don't test my dogs until they are 3 years old. I only test dogs that I am thinking about breeding from. I usually only breed from dogs that have won classes at Championship shows. I only breed from dogs that have a combined score (hip and elbow) of less than 15.
> 
> That must significantly reduce the non epilepsy carrying gene pool.
> 
> I've just retired one bitch whose scores were hip:3 elbow:9
> 
> I have only one current breeding bitch hip:0 elbow:3 (was this one the wrong way around too?)
> 
> The next generation aren't quite old enough yet.
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to give me the hip/elbow score of your dog? Or the results of his haemophilia test? (I assume you have had that done?)
> 
> will do once he's old enough, although I'm not breeding him
> 
> Not at all. The only snappy, bad tempered dogs I've seen have been German build - and I and my partner have, between us, over 60 years of GSD experience.
> 
> what are your thought on the long coat English "obedience" lines?
> 
> And I wish I could post photos of the German dog I saw dragged into the ring in such a state that the judge asked the competitor to leave. The dog was on its stomach and obviously terrified. The same competitor later took a dog into the ring that was lame. Both dogs were being shown by a well known German breeder.
> 
> Disgusting behaviour that I've yet to see (could you pm me the name of the handler+breeder?)
> 
> Yes - because lots of them do.
> 
> You do demonstrate your ignorance don't you? Double handling is specifically outlawed at dog shows held under KC rules. So much so that anyone doing it is immediately disqualified and may be reported for disciplinary action. The only reason German dogs are subject to it is that they won't show properly otherwise. (For the benefit of those who don't know - double handling is exemplified by someone outside the show ring getting the dog's attention so that it will lift its head to assume a correct stand. It's only required for a dog that won't perform properly otherwise. That's why 'German' dogs need it).
> 
> which is why the breed club open shows are the best to watch  they put on a great show and get the dogs going. I have trained my dog to stand properly. As have many others. There are lots of people who are incapable of running with the dogs and handling their own and get the young'ns to do it for them. At the point this dog maybe wonder where its owner is. That really is a minimal part of double handling though. It's not needed, it exciting.
> 
> No, you don't understand how they are 'supposed to be'. The clue is in their name. They aren't 'supposed' to be attack dogs. Yet Schutzhund training emphasises that. What do you mean by 'working'? Is that 'guard'? Is it 'defence'? Is it 'tracking'?
> 
> you think schutzhund is about the dogs learning to attack people? Run away from a schutzhund dog and it wont latch onto your arm
> Prey drive, defence drive, thresholds....
> Do you not think it's important to prove they are capable of working in one of the fields that Max von Stephanitz used them for?
> 
> I have never met any English GSD puppies that were anything other than bold, confident and playful. I don't want my dogs to be aggressive (unlike those who think that GSDs should be aggressive). I want well socialised dogs that aren't a danger to those around them. However, should anyone enter my property without invitation they swiftly discover that my amiable GSDs know exactly how to defend it. Ask the last person who attempted to burgle us.
> 
> Who thinks GSDs should be aggressive?
> 
> I notice you ignore the curve on Elmo's back. And you are totally silent on the page I referenced with the degeneration of GSDs since the 1970s. But hey, let's not allow facts to get in the way of your opinions.


I didn't read it sorry, I've seen them all. So Elmo is a bit curved? He's far from roached. Do you even know what a roach is? People normally call these dogs roached when their own sag behind the withers.


----------



## Devil-Dogz

Oh good - Glad I just saw this, would have forgot it was on otherwise. Of course I shall be watching..For a giggle if not anything else


----------



## Shrap

5rivers79 said:


> A little question here for the GSD experts.
> 
> If you leave showlines and the ones that excel at shutzhund (for sport) aside for a minute, which type, german or english lines are actually used for *real work* e.g police work over here in the UK? Police forces cant afford to have dogs that shy away or dogs that begin to fight amongst themselves.


They don't use show line dogs (as I said working line people even laugh at English dogs, they're incapable of work) my boy's sire trained to SchH 3 at a working dog club though. And when I can finally get back hopefully before Dino is 1 he will be training at a working line club.

They use East German/DDR/Czech line dogs. Bred specifically for work, now some of these dogs are being bred towards the breed standard as well. How's this for a working dog?

V Neck von den Wölfen - German Shepherd Dog

Bet he couldn't do a day's work in his life eh?


----------



## 5rivers79

Shrap said:


> They don't use show line dogs (as I said working line people even laugh at English dogs, they're incapable of work) my boy's sire trained to SchH 3 at a working dog club though. And when I can finally get back hopefully before Dino is 1 he will be training at a working line club.
> 
> They use East German/DDR/Czech line dogs. Bred specifically for work, now some of these dogs are being bred towards the breed standard as well. How's this for a working dog?
> 
> V Neck von den Wölfen - German Shepherd Dog
> 
> Bet he couldn't do a day's work in his life eh?


Id love to take Sam to some kind of working group even though he isnt a GSD. I love playing tracking games with him. Envy the people that have these type of classes nearby..in Brum there is nothing! :crying:


----------



## Shrap

5rivers79 said:


> Id love to take Sam to some kind of working group even though he isnt a GSD. I love playing tracking games with him. Envy the people that have these type of classes nearby..in Brum there is nothing! :crying:


If you want to track then get this book

Tracking Dog 1997: Theory and Method: Amazon.co.uk: Glen R. Johnson: 9780914124047: Books

I haven't read it but it comes highly recommended.


----------



## Set_Nights

AlbertRoss said:


> I've just retired one bitch whose scores were hip:3 *elbow:9*
> 
> I have only one current breeding bitch hip:0 elbow:3


Staying out of the argument but I thought the highest elbow score you can get is 3 (so 6 max for an individual dog)? Did you put them the wrong way round?

Edit: Or is the score averaged across the hips so 3 is the max?

I'm confused now .


----------



## Snoringbear

Some good information and illustrations on the slope and roach in GSD on Linda Shaw's site: Shawlein Fine Art & Purebred German Shepherd Dogs


----------



## noushka05

Set_Nights said:


> Staying out of the argument but I thought the highest elbow score you can get is 3 (so 6 max for an individual dog)? Did you put them the wrong way round?
> 
> Edit: Or is the score averaged across the hips so 3 is the max?
> 
> just noticed this, no the hips and elbows scores shouldnt be combined....if thats what you meant lol
> 
> I'm confused now .


yes me too

i thought the scoring was out of 6 aswell, also i thought you should only breed if the score was either 0 or 1? so even 3 would be too high...i think

.


----------



## Set_Nights

noushka05 said:


> yes me too
> 
> i thought the scoring was out of 6 aswell, also i thought you should only breed if the score was either 0 or 1? so even 3 would be too high...i think
> 
> .


I thought it would be 6 (going by the hips which are measured for each leg) but I haven't ever actually seen a score over 3 and the leaflet I just read mentioned scores of 0-3 so I don't know if it is an average score across both elbows?


----------



## noushka05

Set_Nights said:


> I thought it would be 6 (going by the hips which are measured for each leg) but I haven't ever actually seen a score over 3 and the leaflet I just read mentioned scores of 0-3 so I don't know if it is an average score across both elbows?


i thought the combined score for the hips was 3....and the combined score for the elbows 9....but that maybe Albert got mixed up because the maximum score combined for elbows can only be 6?.....bet im as clear as mud arnt i


----------



## Shrap

Elbows are graded out of 3 and only the highest number is taken as the score. Elbows 1/1 would just be 1. 2/1 would be 2. Etc. No-one should be breeding from 2 or 3.

The roach back in that article isn't a roach back.


----------



## Set_Nights

Shrap said:


> Elbows are graded out of 3 and only the highest number is taken as the score. Elbows 1/1 would just be 1. 2/1 would be 2. Etc. No-one should be breeding from 2 or 3.
> 
> The roach back in that article isn't a roach back.


I see, that makes more sense then  I was half right!


----------



## pod

Shrap said:


> I didn't read it sorry, I've seen them all. So Elmo is a bit curved? He's far from roached. Do you even know what a roach is? People normally call these dogs roached when their own sag behind the withers.


I hope you haven't fallen into the trap of believing the 'new' definition of a roached back, invented by GSD breeders; that the topline is roached only if the level behind the withers rises above the withers.

That's not correct, and this becomes obvious when you stand the dog facing uphill. The slope is more exaggerated (in relation to the horizontal) but the withers are then highest.

The reason why there are so many dogs with roached backs that don't rise above withers level, is because the crouching hindquarters have dropped the topline so dramatically. If these dogs had normal level or slightly sloping toplines, they would indeed rise over the loins to a level above wither height.

A roached back is a curved back, simple as that. Please read the link provided by Snoringbear.


----------



## Snoringbear

Shrap said:


> Elbows are graded out of 3 and only the highest number is taken as the score. Elbows 1/1 would just be 1. 2/1 would be 2. Etc. No-one should be breeding from 2 or 3.
> 
> The roach back in that article isn't a roach back.


Yes it is. The Kennel Club definition of a roach back is "Convex curvature of the back toward the loin". The degree is irrelevant. In it's extreme form it is also referred to as wheel backed.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Shrap said:


> I didn't read it sorry, I've seen them all. So Elmo is a bit curved? He's far from roached. Do you even know what a roach is? People normally call these dogs roached when their own sag behind the withers.


You obviously don't know what roached means. It comes from 'cockroach'. Google 'roach back german shepherd'. It's got nothing to do with 'sagging behind the withers'. Get over it. It's an upward curve in the back - which is WRONG. As I said before - read the standard for the breed.

I can't be bothered to go through and answer all the irrelevancies in your post but you carp on about Schutzhund so let me explain it to everyone else so they get an accurate picture. Schutzhund, directly translated, literally means "Protection Dog". Dogs that are involved in this sport are easily adaptable to police work, search & rescue, drug & bomb searching, and any number of other different jobs.

It is wise to also note that the temperament of a Shepherd bred for Schutzhund will be "harder". That is to say that they will be more wary of stranger's who enter the home and will be less "friendly" (based on obedience training) with strangers. (these aren't my words, they come from the American Kennel Club).

von Stephanitz did indeed start Schutzhund - but he did it simply because there was a decline in the need for shepherds. But he only started it. It was further developed and changed beyond recognition in the 1920s (30 years later) by the Deutsches Shaeferhund Verein (German Shepherd Dog Club).

You said "_you think schutzhund is about the dogs learning to attack people? Run away from a schutzhund dog and it wont latch onto your arm_". Well that's going to come as a surprise to all those people who are Schutzhund training their dogs. Here's a picture of the 'protection' phase of Schutzhund







it comes from the Wikipedia article on Schutzhund. That dog looks pretty well latched on to the helper's arm to me.

All this is BTW irrelevant to the main thrust of this thread - which is the upcoming 'Exposed' programme. The facts speak for themselves - the frog's legged GSDs in programme 1 were 'German'. The KC's recent film putting their side of the story shows 'English' types. The German type dogs invariably have roach/banana backs, i.e. should be heavily penalised by judges. (But the KC doesn't police GSD judging so the majority of GSD judges now are breeders of 'German' dogs).

The German type breed clubs threatened to withdraw from the Kennel Club when it made an issue of health testing. The Kennel Club statement on this:

_A vocal minority in the GSD community seems to continue to attempt to distract attention from the Kennel Clubs main concerns about the soundness of the German Shepherd Dog breed. The Kennel Club remains in no doubt that currently the single biggest threat to the reputation and interest of the breed is the lack of soundness in hindquarters, particularly the hocks.

The presence of this unsoundness in GSDs is generally recognised by most people in dogs except by some with vested interests in the GSD breed who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem in this area. The Kennel Club remains frustrated that something so patently obvious to many dog people - even those with a limited knowledge of dogs - is being ignored and denied by some people in the breed. Indeed the recent Bateson Inquiry singled out the GSD as an example of a breed where drastic action is required to address conformation and movement._ The whole statement is here.

The German Breed clubs resolutely opposed this - but the 'English' clubs were all in favour. Why was that? Could it be that the 'German' breed type actually condemns dogs to poor hindquarters?

You are right that Police etc don't use show dogs. But wrong when you suggest that the all have Eastern European backgrounds. Some forces breed their own. Some take aggressive dogs that their owners can't control - irrespective of breeding/pedigree. (A Police dog must be capable of aggression or it's thrown out - usually to the military). Long-haired GSDs aren't eligible for GSD classes at Champ or Open shows and quite a few service dogs are long-haired.

Finally - in the heat of the moment I did indeed reverse my dog hip/elbow scores. Sorry about that. And, yes, 3 is a high elbow score. Which is why mates were only used if they had a 0 elbow score. OTOH no dog I've ever bred has had any kind of hip or elbow problem.


----------



## 5rivers79

AlbertRoss said:


> You are right that Police etc don't use show dogs. But wrong when you suggest that the all have Eastern European backgrounds. Some forces breed their own. *Some take aggressive dogs that their owners can't contro*l - irrespective of breeding/pedigree. (A Police dog must be capable of aggression or it's thrown out - usually to the military). Long-haired GSDs aren't eligible for GSD classes at Champ or Open shows and quite a few service dogs are long-haired.


Thats very interesting. But are police dogs also not pets when the handler goes home? Wouldnt these aggressive dogs be dangerous in a home environment? I saw an episode of K9 Cops or something and the police dog that was used for crowd control and taking down thugs was a very friendly pet when it was home, lovingly mingling with the policeman's young children.


----------



## leashedForLife

BlueBeagle said:


> ...the Thai Ridgeback is believed to be a spontaneous mutation of early Thai dogs who accompanied hunters
> & were depicted in rock art dating back 2k years. They were Pariah dogs & are one of the most primitive breeds...
> I do not believe that Thai people have recreated this breed as some street dogs have this ridge too.
> I saw about 6 new dogs brought into the local shelter all with ridges. The isolation of the villages
> where they originate mean they breed naturally & so breed true.


there have been many ridged-breeds of primitive types, & the Rhodesian Ridgeback is a descendant 
of an African dog-breed, a village dog which is sadly extinct; Europeans saw no value in preserving 
a degenerate pariah-dog, it was trash to them - like their attitude as colonialists to native people, 
who were depicted as uneducable, sullen, rebellious, childlike, etc.


BlueBeagle said:


> The Kennel Club was founded in 1873 but the Eugenics movement was most active in the early 1900s -
> so did the KC predate the Eugenics movement or is it just my google only shows 1920/30s related stuff?
> The only one I can find mentioned is the Eugenics Education Movement founded in 1907, 34 years
> after the KC. How can the KC be founded on the basis of a movement started after its own conception?


Social Origins of Eugenics

the TERM 'eugenics' wasn't created until 1883; the CONCEPT of thoroughbreds vs mongrels, however, 
was a popular meme, which had begun as a scientific belief, then it was popularized.

thoroughbreds was the term used to describe any high-quality stock, whether human or nonhuman, 
before 'purebred' or 'pedigreed' became the accepted standard for nonhumans, & "thoroughbred"
as a descriptor of people was dropped from popular parlance.


----------



## AlbertRoss

5rivers79 said:


> Thats very interesting. But are police dogs also not pets when the handler goes home? Wouldnt these aggressive dogs be dangerous in a home environment? I saw an episode of K9 Cops or something and the police dog that was used for crowd control and taking down thugs was a very friendly pet when it was home, lovingly mingling with the policeman's young children.


And did you see a similar programme where the dog had attacked the policeman's daughter? Normally, in the UK, the dogs do live with their handler - but not always. The point is that what is normally thought of as a 'police dog' is a dog which is used for control purposes. It's expected to bark and look dangerous when the situation demands it. It's also expected to attack on command.

I should point out that although Schutzhund training teaches attack this goes against the initial teaching of the GSD breed founder (Max von Stephanitz) who said "in regard to duties we must not use our protection dog , *who must never be trained to attack men*." That they are taught to do so now is because, like so many other things, the German SV club has altered the original dog and purpose out of all recognition. Jemima Harrison would have a field day with GSDs if she concentrated on them.


----------



## Shrap

Schutzhund dogs are trained to bite the sleeve, not attack men. Of course they bite the helper. If you are not wearing a sleeve and padded overalls and run away.... They haven't been charged with guarding you.

Cockroach has its highest point somewhere in the middle. GSD highest point is the withers.

Using a dog with an elbow score of 3 is exactly the kind of attitude to health testing I'd expect from an English breeder. But of course elbows aren't as important eh?


----------



## Moobli

5rivers79 said:


> A little question here for the GSD experts.
> 
> If you leave showlines and the ones that excel at shutzhund (for sport) aside for a minute, which type, german or english lines are actually used for *real work* e.g police work over here in the UK? Police forces cant afford to have dogs that shy away or dogs that begin to fight amongst themselves.


I haven't yet had a chance to go right back to the beginning of this thread and read all the posts - but will try to at some point :wink: However, most UK police forces now use working line GSDs imported from the continent. Some forces do have their own breeding programmes but most of their foundation stock will also be working line shepherds rather than show lines (whether West German or English :wink


----------



## Moobli

AlbertRoss said:


> Schutzhund, directly translated, literally means "Protection Dog". Dogs that are involved in this sport are easily adaptable to police work, search & rescue, drug & bomb searching, and any number of other different jobs.
> 
> It is wise to also note that the temperament of a Shepherd bred for Schutzhund will be "harder". That is to say that they will be more wary of stranger's who enter the home and will be less "friendly" (based on obedience training) with strangers. (these aren't my words, they come from the American Kennel Club).
> 
> von Stephanitz did indeed start Schutzhund - but he did it simply because there was a decline in the need for shepherds. But he only started it. It was further developed and changed beyond recognition in the 1920s (30 years later) by the Deutsches Shaeferhund Verein (German Shepherd Dog Club).
> 
> You said "_you think schutzhund is about the dogs learning to attack people? Run away from a schutzhund dog and it wont latch onto your arm_". Well that's going to come as a surprise to all those people who are Schutzhund training their dogs. Here's a picture of the 'protection' phase of Schutzhund
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it comes from the Wikipedia article on Schutzhund. That dog looks pretty well latched on to the helper's arm to me.


Sorry to be off (the original) topic but Schutzhund was originally started to assess the working ability of the German shepherd.

Schutzhund is a dog training and breeding sport developed originally in the 1920's by the Deutsches Shaeferhund Verein (German Shepherd Dog Club), or SV, in order to maintain the working ability and the quality of the breed. Schutzhund means literally "protection dog", however the training involves tracking, obedience and protection. In order to get a Schutzhund degree a dog must pass all three phases of the work.

It must also be of sound temperament and be under complete control - so, where you see the dog in the photograph "latched on" to the helper's arm, that is part of the controlled training. It does not equal an aggressive and out of control dog.


----------



## Moobli

5rivers79 said:


> Thats very interesting. But are police dogs also not pets when the handler goes home? Wouldnt these aggressive dogs be dangerous in a home environment? I saw an episode of K9 Cops or something and the police dog that was used for crowd control and taking down thugs was a very friendly pet when it was home, lovingly mingling with the policeman's young children.


Very few "gift dogs" (as they are known) pass the initial assessment to become police dogs. The police are not interested in over aggressive dogs - they can't afford to be! They may take on an overly boisterous young dog, but overly aggressive dogs are no use whatsoever.

UK police dogs all live with their handlers (and families) at home, most often in a kennel provided by whichever force, and are most often treated as the family pet when away from work.


----------



## Moobli

AlbertRoss said:


> And did you see a similar programme where the dog had attacked the policeman's daughter? Normally, in the UK, the dogs do live with their handler - but not always. The point is that what is normally thought of as a 'police dog' is a dog which is used for control purposes. It's expected to bark and look dangerous when the situation demands it. It's also expected to attack on command.


Well, in that case, what is "normally thought of as a police dog" is completely wrong. The police dog has many strings to his bow :smile5:


----------



## Werehorse

Somewhere on this thread someone posted a link to the KC's defence of dog breeds??? Or something like that?

Can anyone post the link again? I can't find it and would be really interested to watch it. Thanks.


----------



## Spellweaver

Werehorse said:


> Somewhere on this thread someone posted a link to the KC's defence of dog breeds??? Or something like that?
> 
> Can anyone post the link again? I can't find it and would be really interested to watch it. Thanks.


Do you mean their video "Dogs - a Healthy Future"?

Follow this link, scroll down a bit and click on the video:

The home for dog owners and those working with dogs - The Kennel Club


----------



## Werehorse

Spellweaver said:


> Do you mean their video "Dogs - a Healthy Future"?
> 
> Follow this link, scroll down a bit and click on the video:
> 
> The home for dog owners and those working with dogs - The Kennel Club


That's the one, well de-crypted. I was a bit vague, sorry!


----------



## AlbertRoss

Moobli said:


> Sorry to be off (the original) topic but Schutzhund was originally started to assess the working ability of the German shepherd.


Not according to the history of Schutzhund. It was started because the number of shepherds was decreasing and they needed to find something else for the dogs to do. As a result they used the inate abilities of the dog to 'protect'.



> Schutzhund is a dog training and breeding sport developed originally in the 1920's by the Deutsches Shaeferhund Verein (German Shepherd Dog Club), or SV, in order to maintain the working ability and the quality of the breed. Schutzhund means literally "protection dog", however the training involves tracking, obedience and protection. In order to get a Schutzhund degree a dog must pass all three phases of the work.


No, it was originally developed in the 1890's and the first club was formed in 1901 - by von Stephanitz himself. It was bastardised later by the DSV to become a 'sport'. It has nothing to do with what the GSD was originally intended to be and, over its history, has got further and further away from it.



> It must also be of sound temperament and be under complete control - so, where you see the dog in the photograph "latched on" to the helper's arm, that is part of the controlled training. It does not equal an aggressive and out of control dog.


No - but it does show that the dog, as part of the training, is trained to attack - which is not what was previously claimed.



Moobli said:


> Very few "gift dogs" (as they are known) pass the initial assessment to become police dogs. The police are not interested in over aggressive dogs - they can't afford to be! They may take on an overly boisterous young dog, but overly aggressive dogs are no use whatsoever.


But the fact is that they DO take gift dogs and they don't buy in Eastern European stock. They have large breeding programmes in some forces.



> UK police dogs all live with their handlers (and families) at home, most often in a kennel provided by whichever force, and are most often treated as the family pet when away from work.


Most do. Not all of them do.



Moobli said:


> Well, in that case, what is "normally thought of as a police dog" is completely wrong. The police dog has many strings to his bow :smile5:


There are many different types of job a police dog may do. Sniffer dogs, for example, are police dogs but aren't trained for crowd control. German (and, increasingly, Belgian) Shepherd dogs are used in that role. Their training specifically includes tracking, attack and barking on command to produce intimidation. I have no examples of police spaniels doing the same.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Shrap said:


> Schutzhund dogs are trained to bite the sleeve, not attack men. Of course they bite the helper. If you are not wearing a sleeve and padded overalls and run away.... They haven't been charged with guarding you.


ROFL. They bite the sleeve! Yes, when it's wrapped round an arm! How stupid. The dog is trained to attack. It's specifically trained to attack by pulling on the arm - not the sleeve.



> Cockroach has its highest point somewhere in the middle. GSD highest point is the withers.


You really are flogging a dead horse. Read all the other posts which explain to you what a roach back GSD is and stop trying to defend the ridiculous position you put yourself in. The German shape is roach. Call it banana if you prefer. But do stop trying to pretend that it's straight or correct. It isn't. It's an abomination.



> Using a dog with an elbow score of 3 is exactly the kind of attitude to health testing I'd expect from an English breeder. But of course elbows aren't as important eh?


Nothing like as important as hips that turn dogs into frogs. Have you looked at the table of hip scores published on one of youre German friendly sites? Have you seen how many of those dogs have scores miles above the normal average? Don't preach to me about joint scores when the fact is that the average score of the top 100 German dogs far exceed my dog's scores.

And, as I said, I only use mates with a 0 score.


----------



## Werehorse

Impressed by the bulldog breeder on the video.


----------



## ozrex

Me too Werehorse.

He's a BREEDER! He obviously looked at his loved breed, saw the problems and bred away from them. 

I think it must be terribly hard to look at a breed that you love and see the flaws. It must be like looking at your own child and seeing the flaws. It's hard to do and it hurts. 

When you've put years and years of effort, skill and care into a particular breed it must hurt like hell when outsiders come along and say "That's unhealthy. That dog has health issues just due to the way it's been bred." It would be more than devastating. Most people will just become defensive in such a situation. Look at the majority of parents when a "stranger" points out that their child is being a little piggy....

This man has the courage to look at his loved bulldogs dispassionately. He is a show breeder; he has show dogs that win BUT he can see the problems and having seen the problems he has bred away from them. Talk about GUTS.

I hope other breeders copy him and his dogs start to win in shows. They are moving in the right direction although he clearly has some way to go.


----------



## Shrap

AlbertRoss said:


> ROFL. They bite the sleeve! Yes, when it's wrapped round an arm! How stupid. The dog is trained to attack. It's specifically trained to attack by pulling on the arm - not the sleeve.
> You really are flogging a dead horse. Read all the other posts which explain to you what a roach back GSD is and stop trying to defend the ridiculous position you put yourself in. The German shape is roach. Call it banana if you prefer. But do stop trying to pretend that it's straight or correct. It isn't. It's an abomination.Nothing like as important as hips that turn dogs into frogs. Have you looked at the table of hip scores published on one of youre German friendly sites? Have you seen how many of those dogs have scores miles above the normal average? Don't preach to me about joint scores when the fact is that the average score of the top 100 German dogs far exceed my dog's scores. And, as I said, I only use mates with a 0 score.


The dog is trained to the sleeve not the arm. Present a dog with a helper with no sleeve and it will probably just be confused. Nowadays SchH is trained more or less in prey drive rather than defence drive, unfortunately.
You already explained that a roach is an upward curve, like that of a cockroach, which is different to the GSD shape. 
Hips that turn dogs into frogs? Do explain? All the dogs owned and bred by my dog's breeders' kennels have excellent hips. The frog walk is caused by cow hocks, nothing to do with hips.
I would be only using a dog with a 0 score on a bitch with a 1. Using a 3 is utterly disgraceful.
Let's be clear on one thing here, the topline has NOTHING to do with hip scores.


----------



## Megan_M

Sorry for off topic, haven't read the whole thread but saw these posts and had to comment...



AlbertRoss said:


> I can't be bothered to go through and answer all the irrelevancies in your post but you carp on about Schutzhund so let me explain it to everyone else so they get an accurate picture. Schutzhund, directly translated, literally means "Protection Dog". Dogs that are involved in this sport are easily adaptable to police work, search & rescue, drug & bomb searching, and any number of other different jobs.
> 
> It is wise to also note that the temperament of a Shepherd bred for Schutzhund will be "harder". That is to say that they will be more wary of stranger's who enter the home and will be less "friendly" (based on obedience training) with strangers. (these aren't my words, they come from the American Kennel Club).
> 
> von Stephanitz did indeed start Schutzhund - but he did it simply because there was a decline in the need for shepherds. But he only started it. It was further developed and changed beyond recognition in the 1920s (30 years later) by the Deutsches Shaeferhund Verein (German Shepherd Dog Club).
> 
> You said "_you think schutzhund is about the dogs learning to attack people? Run away from a schutzhund dog and it wont latch onto your arm_". Well that's going to come as a surprise to all those people who are Schutzhund training their dogs. Here's a picture of the 'protection' phase of Schutzhund
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it comes from the Wikipedia article on Schutzhund. That dog looks pretty well latched on to the helper's arm to me.





AlbertRoss said:


> ROFL. They bite the sleeve! Yes, when it's wrapped round an arm! How stupid. The dog is trained to attack. It's specifically trained to attack by pulling on the arm - not the sleeve.


Just wondering, 
How many Schutzhund dogs do you have? Have you trained? Met? 
How many Schutzhund clubs have you been to? How many Schutzhund trials have you been to?
How many times have you watched Schutzhund training in person? In particular the protection aspect? Adult dogs and from puppy upwards?

But to point out to anyone else reading this and possibly getting put off Schutzhund... Schutzhund dogs are trained to bite the sleeve NOT the helper as Shrap said no sleeve no bite.

How do I know this... been going to Schutzhund club for over 2 years now, pretty much every weekend and have watched puppies being started on a leather rag all the way up to the sleeve (including our own gsd - trained/handled by my mum), aswell as all the adult dogs. One of our helpers(the guys that wear the sleeves) is also one of our trainers and he can go from being in the hide/blind (take off or give the dog the sleeve) and be the trainer and handle the dog (ie. show the handler how to hold lead/position themselves/dog properly, pet dog etc) with no issues, once the sleeve is off he is just another person.


----------



## Shrap

You have the rottie pup Quinn? Though not much of a pup anymore lol. You don't happen to have Brian's number do you? Or email?


----------



## Megan_M

Shrap said:


> You have the rottie pup Quinn? Though not much of a pup anymore lol. You don't happen to have Brian's number do you? Or email?


Yup, and nope he's not much of a pup anymore at 41kg and the same height as my 4 yr(almost 5yr old) rottie Kodi and is only going to be 1 yr on the 28th:huh: lol

Going to message ya on facebook, only just saw your post on there, never use it


----------



## 5rivers79

I envy you two above me for having what seems such a good sport nearby to you guys! My Sammy feels left out! :crying:


----------



## Shrap

5rivers79 said:


> I envy you two above me for having what seems such a good sport nearby to you guys! My Sammy feels left out! :crying:


It's 30 miles away from me lol. And I don't drive. Hence why I haven't been in a while but been reading up and doing as much of the groundwork as poss. He's still a baby so plenty of time to do the bitework, I know he loves it. As long as I get the obedience done now the rest will follow. Trying to make progress tracking but don't want to do anything wrong...
Hopefully going to get back ASAP 

Why don't you try some tracking yourself? You can end up taking him out and laying trails for him. You don't need a club x


----------



## Jenny Olley

5rivers79 said:


> I envy you two above me for having what seems such a good sport nearby to you guys! My Sammy feels left out! :crying:


Get the Glen Johnson tracking book that shrap suggested earlier, so you can have a better understanding of nose work and get Sammy started tracking, dogs enjoy tracking. 
i would have thought the dog scene quite active in birmingham, i know you said you had contacted someone a while back did it not come to anything.


----------



## Jenny Olley

Shrap said:


> It's 30 miles away from me lol. And I don't drive. Hence why I haven't been in a while but been reading up and doing as much of the groundwork as poss. He's still a baby so plenty of time to do the bitework, I know he loves it. As long as I get the obedience done now the rest will follow. Trying to make progress tracking but don't want to do anything wrong...
> Hopefully going to get back ASAP
> 
> Why don't you try some tracking yourself? You can end up taking him out and laying trails for him. You don't need a club x


i love the bite work too and so do our dogs, luckily enough my husband is pretty nifty with a sleeve so I don't need to travel far, he's also trained 3 other guys at our training in the criminal/helper role, who also all work their own dogs in Working trials,


----------



## Burrowzig

Spellweaver said:


> Her name is mud throughout the dog world, except for her few cronies and the odd one or two people and organisations who are using her to further their own agendas against pedigree dogs and the KC.


What statistics have you to back up this sweeping claim? I also think it's grossly unfair to denigrate people who agree with her as 'cronies'. And 'organisations with agendas against pedigree dogs' - such as whom? There may be organisations against the exaggerated features bred into some pedigree breeds, which clearly need to be amended for the good of the dogs.


----------



## DoodlesRule

ozrex said:


> Me too Werehorse.
> 
> He's a BREEDER! He obviously looked at his loved breed, saw the problems and bred away from them.
> 
> I think it must be terribly hard to look at a breed that you love and see the flaws. It must be like looking at your own child and seeing the flaws. It's hard to do and it hurts.
> 
> When you've put years and years of effort, skill and care into a particular breed it must hurt like hell when outsiders come along and say "That's unhealthy. That dog has health issues just due to the way it's been bred." It would be more than devastating. Most people will just become defensive in such a situation. Look at the majority of parents when a "stranger" points out that their child is being a little piggy....
> 
> This man has the courage to look at his loved bulldogs dispassionately. He is a show breeder; he has show dogs that win BUT he can see the problems and having seen the problems he has bred away from them. Talk about GUTS.
> 
> I hope other breeders copy him and his dogs start to win in shows. They are moving in the right direction although he clearly has some way to go.


Isn't that the whole problem though if you do not acknowledge that something is a flaw or unhealthy you would not do anything to change it - look at the two opposing views just on GSD in this thread as an example


----------



## Spellweaver

Burrowzig said:


> What statistics have you to back up this sweeping claim? I also think it's grossly unfair to denigrate people who agree with her as 'cronies'. And 'organisations with agendas against pedigree dogs' - such as whom? There may be organisations against the exaggerated features bred into some pedigree breeds, which clearly need to be amended for the good of the dogs.


No sweeping claim - all anyone has to do is to do is read articles in the dog press and see how she is supported/not supported - _Dogs Today_ supports her and that's about it. Read any of the quality dog press and you will find no support for her and her gutter style journalism anywhere - quite the opposite, in fact. She is regularly denigrated in the two bastions of the dog press, _Dog World_ and _Our Dogs_. As for organisations with agendas against pedigree dogs _and the KC_ (I notice you conveniently left the bit about the KC out because it didn't fit in with your rant  )- well, look no further than the RSPCA.


----------



## Spellweaver

ozrex said:


> Me too Werehorse.
> 
> He's a BREEDER! He obviously looked at his loved breed, saw the problems and bred away from them.
> 
> I think it must be terribly hard to look at a breed that you love and see the flaws. It must be like looking at your own child and seeing the flaws. It's hard to do and it hurts.
> 
> When you've put years and years of effort, skill and care into a particular breed it must hurt like hell when outsiders come along and say "That's unhealthy. That dog has health issues just due to the way it's been bred." It would be more than devastating. Most people will just become defensive in such a situation. Look at the majority of parents when a "stranger" points out that their child is being a little piggy....
> 
> This man has the courage to look at his loved bulldogs dispassionately. He is a show breeder; he has show dogs that win BUT he can see the problems and having seen the problems he has bred away from them. Talk about GUTS.
> 
> I hope other breeders copy him and his dogs start to win in shows. They are moving in the right direction although he clearly has some way to go.


I agree - I am full of admiration for this breeder. And when you think of how many years it must have taken him to breed out the bad things and breed in the good things, this is one more item of proof that these sorts of things were happening well before JH ever conceived PDE. What a pity that in all her "extensive research"  she didn't come across breeders like this and report in her program about the good _already_ being done.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Shrap said:


> The dog is trained to the sleeve not the arm. Present a dog with a helper with no sleeve and it will probably just be confused.


What utter rubbish. They are trained on a padded sleeve for protection of the helper. Do you seriously think that a dog trained in this way will look at someone with bare arms and think "Oh Gosh - no sleeve - I'll leave him alone"? Here you go - next time you are training you go out as a helper - with bare arms and get the dog to attack you. Let's see if he stops and asks you to get dressed or simply latches on to your arm.



> You already explained that a roach is an upward curve, like that of a cockroach, which is different to the GSD shape.


We've done this to death. German GSDs have an upward curve in their backs. End of. It's commonly described as 'roach' or 'banana'. The evidence is plain to see in every photo of every German dog (when they are allowed to be photgraphed from the side - unlike Elmo, whose owners try and avoid it)



> The frog walk is caused by cow hocks, nothing to do with hips.


 I really think you know nothing at all about dog physiology.



> Let's be clear on one thing here, the topline has NOTHING to do with hip scores.


Indeed, let's be absolutely clear - the displacement of the pelvis caused by excessive angle of the lumbar vertebrae which lead down to it puts sideways pressure on the head of the femur where it enters the hip joint. Get hold of a dog skeleton, hold the pelvis and head of femur in a normal position and then turn the pelvis into a more vertical position. It pushes the femur head outwards. That displacement is EXACTLY what is scored for. The pelvis being in a more vertical position is a natural result of roach backs. Go ask a vet. Open a text book with a picture of a dog skeleton. Work it out for yourself.

You keep trotting out all the lame stuff that I've come to expect from German breeders - and it's precisely the sort of thing that Pedigree Dogs Exposed takes issue with. You are in denial that the 'German' breeding has ruined the GSD, denial that they have roached backs, denial that the German shape bears no resemblance to the original straight backed GSDs, and denial that your dogs deviate from the breed standard. Unfortunately, the evidence is clear. All the photos I've posted here show that, in every instance, you are wrong.



Megan_M said:


> But to point out to anyone else reading this and possibly getting put off Schutzhund... Schutzhund dogs are trained to bite the sleeve NOT the helper as Shrap said no sleeve no bite.
> 
> How do I know this... been going to Schutzhund club for over 2 years now, pretty much every weekend and have watched puppies being started on a leather rag all the way up to the sleeve (including our own gsd - trained/handled by my mum), aswell as all the adult dogs. One of our helpers(the guys that wear the sleeves) is also one of our trainers and he can go from being in the hide/blind (take off or give the dog the sleeve) and be the trainer and handle the dog (ie. show the handler how to hold lead/position themselves/dog properly, pet dog etc) with no issues, once the sleeve is off he is just another person.


And that's all well and good in a controlled training session. Now, take the dog away from such a session and get him to attack a helper. He'll bite the arm. Every time.

How do I know this - my partner spent 10 years training security dogs in exactly this way. They were trained to attack a padded sleeve, in the full knowledge that people, in the real world, don't wear padded sleeves. Her boss - a Schutzhund trainer. He, and she, used exactly the same training as Schutzhund employ for 'protection'. (They didn't use the rest of the Schutzhund training because it was irrelevant to what the dogs were being used for). He used to do demonstrations all over the country - and, on several occasions, couldn't get the dog to release.

Of course a trainer should be able show a trainee what to do. It's different to your trainer going coming out of a blind and attacking the dog without protective clothing. Ask him if he's willing to do that. Get him to wear shirt sleeves. I bet he won't.

The basics for the sleeve attack for Schutzhund come from "_Neue Wege der Polizeihundeausbildung_" ("New ways of training police dogs"). I have yet to hear of any police dog being trained solely to bite a sleeve.


----------



## Shrap

As I have already said. Schutzhund is basically trained in prey drive now. Security dogs that are badly trained, like the one you mentioned, are done using their defence drives. A dog trained in prey drive only wants the sleeve. A dog trained in defence drive will want to bite.

Don't try and pretend as if you know what you're talking about.


----------



## 5rivers79

Jenny Olley said:


> Get the Glen Johnson tracking book that shrap suggested earlier, so you can have a better understanding of nose work and get Sammy started tracking, dogs enjoy tracking.
> i would have thought the dog scene quite active in birmingham, i know you said you had contacted someone a while back did it not come to anything.


The class i was hoping to go to ended up being full and not taking on anymore dogs  and that seemed to be the only class around these sides. The internet is sh**e for looking for these kind of clubs!

There are a few lads around here with GSDs that do bitework but from what they tell me they seem like the sort of classes i wouldnt want Sam to take part in. Especially Sam being an Akita, id only want expert guidance.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Shrap said:


> As I have already said. Schutzhund is basically trained in prey drive now. Security dogs that are badly trained, like the one you mentioned, are done using their defence drives. A dog trained in prey drive only wants the sleeve. A dog trained in defence drive will want to bite.
> 
> Don't try and pretend as if you know what you're talking about.


I can't stop laughing at the more preposterous and silly things you come up with.

"You are judged in the sport of Schutzhund in three areas: tracking, obedience and *protection* "

"The actual fighting phases are escape, defense, *attack and re-attack*."

Those quotes come from Schutzhund-Schutzhund Training - that would be a site devoted to Schutzhund training which clearly and explicitly tells you what the training is.

Go away, read the rule book,and try again. Don't you feel embarrassed that you are trying to defend the indefensible? That you are consistently proved to not know what you are talking about?

As I've said before - if you want to follow German SV rules (the control of which, by the way has been taken away from the DSV) then go and register your dog in Germany. Better yet, remove all 'German' dogs from the KC register and set up your own branch of the WUSV.

No, hang on, the 25 German Breed clubs all threatened to do that in 2010 when the KC wanted to improve breed health. And what happened - less than half of them turned up to a meeting with the KC. Why? Because they wanted to keep KC registration and to be able to show under KC rules.

You have pitifully little knowledge of dog physiology and continually try and weasel out of commenting on FACTS presented. Why is that? What are you trying to hide? The FACT that it wasn't 'English' type GSDs Jemima H picked on - it was 'German'? That the KC used English types in their rebuttal film?

Your stance is typical of the 'German' breeder/owner. Have you ever looked at the South Devon Club's website? It contains a long diatribe about 'Alsatians' - including the totally untrue statement that the Crufts judges for 2011 and 2012 are 'Alsatianists'. In FACT both years have 'German' judges. It's true that Gary Gray (2011) used to be on the 'English' side but hasn't been for some years. And I don't think you'll see any 'English' dogs at Crufts this year because the judge is pro-German. (And there are many of us who have dogs qualified to enter - but won't waste the entry fee).

But that's the problem - the 'German' owner/breeders won't admit the facts but continue on regardless in a world which is playing right into the hands of people like Harrison.

[Side note: thank you to all the people who have 'liked' my posts here or sent me PM messages of support. Do feel free to join in and air your own views - just to let the rest of the people reading this that there are people out there that want to support GSDs with the proper build.]


----------



## pickle

5rivers79 said:


> I can hand on heart say i dont know what tests Sammys parents had done. At the time of buying Sam i was probably like a majority of the general public and looking deep into health testing didnt cross my mind. Of course i would do things differently next time i buy a pup..but you live and learn.
> 
> I dont which health tests should qualify a pup for KC registration status as im a) not a breeder b) not a vet c) not a scientist *BUT* people buying a registered pup expect quality *because the status of the KC registration is something that should reflect quality and optimum health.* At the end of the day they have paid a premium for that pup.
> 
> You can say to all your hearts content that money shouldnt matter but in the real world it does. If someone is willing to pay the hundreds more for a KC pup then it really does need to be of exceptional quality imo.


So your birth certificate means you are in optimum health and quality condition I presume?


----------



## Shrap

You know literally nothing about SchH training then.

I wonder why some judges have gone from English to German?

I wonder if you would reply on a thread on PDB? You would be put in your place rather quickly I should imagine.


----------



## 5rivers79

pickle said:


> So your birth certificate means you are in optimum health and quality condition I presume?


You cant compare it to a birth certificate. All people here in the UK get a birth certificate but not all dogs get a kc registration therefore it fails at even being that.

So i take it english show breeders dont like SchH training at all?


----------



## Megan_M

AlbertRoss said:


> What utter rubbish. They are trained on a padded sleeve for protection of the helper. Do you seriously think that a dog trained in this way will look at someone with bare arms and think "Oh Gosh - no sleeve - I'll leave him alone"? Here you go - next time you are training you go out as a helper - with bare arms and get the dog to attack you. Let's see if he stops and asks you to get dressed or simply latches on to your arm.
> 
> .......
> 
> And that's all well and good in a controlled training session. Now, take the dog away from such a session and get him to attack a helper. He'll bite the arm. Every time.
> 
> How do I know this - my partner spent 10 years training security dogs in exactly this way. They were trained to attack a padded sleeve, in the full knowledge that people, in the real world, don't wear padded sleeves. Her boss - a Schutzhund trainer. He, and she, used exactly the same training as Schutzhund employ for 'protection'. (They didn't use the rest of the Schutzhund training because it was irrelevant to what the dogs were being used for). He used to do demonstrations all over the country - and, on several occasions, couldn't get the dog to release.
> 
> Of course a trainer should be able show a trainee what to do. It's different to your trainer going coming out of a blind and attacking the dog without protective clothing. Ask him if he's willing to do that. Get him to wear shirt sleeves. I bet he won't.
> 
> The basics for the sleeve attack for Schutzhund come from "_Neue Wege der Polizeihundeausbildung_" ("New ways of training police dogs"). I have yet to hear of any police dog being trained solely to bite a sleeve.


Again, How many Schutzhund dogs do you have? Have you trained? Met? 
How many Schutzhund clubs have you been to? How many Schutzhund trials have you been to?
How many times have you watched Schutzhund training in person? In particular the protection aspect? Adult dogs and from puppy upwards?

Not talking about security dogs or police dogs... Schutzhund dogs are trained to bite the sleeve not the person, I know this as I see it every weekend.


----------



## Spellweaver

5rivers79 said:


> You cant compare it to a birth certificate. All people here in the UK get a birth certificate but not all dogs get a kc registration therefore it fails at even being that.


You are wrong. Haven't you read the posts in which I've given you this info already? ANY dog - including yours - can be registered with the KC. Non-pedigrees can be registered on the activity register. The KC is not just for pedigrees!


----------



## pickle

5rivers79 said:


> You cant compare it to a birth certificate. All people here in the UK get a birth certificate but not all dogs get a kc registration therefore it fails at even being that.
> 
> So i take it english show breeders dont like SchH training at all?


The point I am making is that KC reg is just a certificate of birth, a recording of family history as is a human birth certificate. A system only works when people use it. I think the point you make rather indicates that KC reg is a good thing as a dog's ancestry is then traceable, and those who don't use it are in the wrong. 
Sorry, you *can* compare it to a birth certificate, it is just that and only that.


----------



## Shrap

5rivers79 said:


> The class i was hoping to go to ended up being full and not taking on anymore dogs  and that seemed to be the only class around these sides. The internet is sh**e for looking for these kind of clubs!
> 
> There are a few lads around here with GSDs that do bitework but from what they tell me they seem like the sort of classes i wouldnt want Sam to take part in. Especially Sam being an Akita, id only want expert guidance.


The only bitework you should be doing with Sam on your own is getting him to work for a bite tug. No protection work whatsoever. But tbh I doubt an Akita would really want to do Schutzhund type work lol. 
You're best concentrating on tracking with him  he'll really enjoy it


----------



## 5rivers79

Shrap said:


> The only bitework you should be doing with Sam on your own is getting him to work for a bite tug. No protection work whatsoever. But tbh I doubt an Akita would really want to do Schutzhund type work lol.
> You're best concentrating on tracking with him  he'll really enjoy it


He does quite enjoy grabbing my arm and flinging me around the house lol

He doesnt bite me but loves to mouth my arm like that. He only does it to me though and has done since he was a pup. Id never try to teach protection work myself..far too dangerous as i have no idea about it at all. What i would love though is to speak to an expert who could meet Sammy and see if he would enjoy it or not.

Iv read online that some police department in the USA did infact use an Akita and he was very successful at the training.

I try and do abit of tracking with him at home by hiding his treats or whatever he is playing with and loves trying to sniff it out  Il deffo be getting that book.

Back on topic, even though Sam can be reg'd on that activity register it still doesnt hide the fact that having a KC registered pedigree pup is great advert to sell a pup as the ordinary person will think KC registration means top quality. KC registration should have health tests tied to it so puppy farms and deceptive breeders cant get away with selling poor health KC pups.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

5rivers79 said:


> He does quite enjoy grabbing my arm and flinging me around the house lol
> 
> He doesnt bite me but loves to mouth my arm like that. He only does it to me though and has done since he was a pup. Id never try to teach protection work myself..far too dangerous as i have no idea about it at all. What i would love though is to speak to an expert who could meet Sammy and see if he would enjoy it or not.
> 
> Iv read online that some police department in the USA did infact use an Akita and he was very successful at the training.
> 
> I try and do abit of tracking with him at home by hiding his treats or whatever he is playing with and loves trying to sniff it out  Il deffo be getting that book.
> 
> Back on topic, even though Sam can be reg'd on that activity register it still doesnt hide the fact that having a KC registered pedigree pup is great advert to sell a pup as the ordinary person will think KC registration means top quality. KC registration should have health tests tied to it so puppy farms and deceptive breeders cant get away with selling poor health KC pups.


I really think you need to find good classes, you know that yourself, but teaching a dog to mouth you just isn't a good thing. Tau mouths me, she's a retriever, so bred to use her mouth, I don't encourage that as such, but I do encourage her to use her mouth to *hold* items, such as her lead. But that sort of thing can't really be shown on a thread on a forum, it has to be taught one to one.

Tracking is quite complex, again, you need to get to a class so you understand the basics of this, and how scent works to be able to effectively teach Sammy.

You've still not answered my question, as to how the KC can do any more re health tests. They have the assured breeder scheme which stipulates a minimum number of pertinent health tests, with advice from the breed clubs. What more should they do? They are just a registry after all.


----------



## 5rivers79

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I really think you need to find good classes, you know that yourself, but teaching a dog to mouth you just isn't a good thing. Tau mouths me, she's a retriever, so bred to use her mouth, I don't encourage that as such, but I do encourage her to use her mouth to *hold* items, such as her lead. But that sort of thing can't really be shown on a thread on a forum, it has to be taught one to one.
> 
> Tracking is quite complex, again, you need to get to a class so you understand the basics of this, and how scent works to be able to effectively teach Sammy.
> 
> You've still not answered my question, as to how the KC can do any more re health tests. They have the assured breeder scheme which stipulates a minimum number of pertinent health tests, with advice from the breed clubs. What more should they do? They are just a registry after all.


I have not 'taught' Sam to mouth me, i didnt set out to teach that to him. I play with him, i let him mouth me when we play, i wrestle with him, i tickle him and run around the house letting him chase me. I honestly dont think there is anything wrong with playing with my dog the way i do.

Wheres the fun when teaching hold is just a command? Your telling your dog to hold an item so it holds it? Where is its independent nature to want to roll around playing? Have you seen wild pups mouthing each other rolling around playing? Or wild cat cubs doing the same? Its fun for them, its not taught and its not command orientated. Well thats my opinion anyway and it works for us.

Seeing health test certificates of parents for various tests would be great imo. I just dont see how it is *just * a registry when have KC registration gives the pups such highly perceived status. You as an expert may not think so, but the general public do think status is attached to KC registration and its the general public who buy these dogs that end up having problems.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

5rivers79 said:


> I have not 'taught' Sam to mouth me, i didnt set out to teach that to him. I play with him, i let him mouth me when we play, i wrestle with him, i tickle him and run around the house letting him chase me. I honestly dont think there is anything wrong with playing with my dog the way i do.
> 
> Wheres the fun when teaching hold is just a command? Your telling your dog to hold an item so it holds it? Where is its independent nature to want to roll around playing? Have you seen wild pups mouthing each other rolling around playing? Or wild cat cubs doing the same? Its fun for them, its not taught and its not command orientated. Well thats my opinion anyway and it works for us.
> 
> Seeing health test certificates of parents for various tests would be great imo. I just dont see how it is *just * a registry when have KC registration gives the pups such highly perceived status. You as an expert may not think so, but the general public do think status is attached to KC registration and its the general public who buy these dogs that end up having problems.


If you wrestle with him, and encourage him to mouth you, that is teaching him to mouth you 

Your dog is not a wild dog, its behaviour is nothing like a wild dog, it doesn't live in the wild. Your dog uses it's mouth to explore, yes, but it wouldn't do much good if you've encouraged your dog to do this, and it explored when you didn't want it to, even if it didn't *do* anything wrong, you've got a large breed with a poor reputation as far as the public goes, so encouraging him to mouth you which IS in effect teaching him this behaviour is acceptable, is not imho a good idea. I would honestly suggest you go to classes and have him and you taught in formal surroundings so he doesn't get confused about when is appropriate.

I'm not an expert at all, although it's nice of you to think so. 

There isn't any way health tests could, or should, be made compulsory; personally, I think as long as the KC record health test results, and these are available for puppy buyers to see, and the KC educates the public, as they try to do, then it should be left up to the breed clubs, along with the KC to monitor and recommend health testing for individual breeds.

How would you, for example, apply a cut off point for hip scores? This is an average across the number of dogs *tested* for a breed, so probably quite a small representative overall, so how would you say a dog one, or two points above a BMS can't be used? That's madness tbh. To cut out dogs like that when there's no evidence it will improve the health of the breed overall, would be more detrimental. And what about a genetic status that you can breed clear from, such as gPRA, all it takes is *knowing* the status of your dog, and then you can breed using a dog with a status you know won't produce affected pups. And yet already, the stigma attached to a dog that is a carrier for this condition, is having a detrimental effect on the gene pool, in that many just won't use them, they want a dog that is 100% clear of everything. That just isn't a good idea at all, knowing the status, and knowing how to use the status of a dog in a breeding plan are two different things, and I think we're on a downward spiral of losing genetic diversity if we continue to breed with a clear tick list in our heads.


----------



## Burrowzig

Spellweaver said:


> Her name is mud throughout the dog world, except for her few cronies and the odd one or two people and organisations who are using her to further their own agendas against pedigree dogs and the KC.





Spellweaver said:


> No sweeping claim - all anyone has to do is to do is read articles in the dog press and see how she is supported/not supported - _Dogs Today_ supports her and that's about it. Read any of the quality dog press and you will find no support for her and her gutter style journalism anywhere - quite the opposite, in fact. She is regularly denigrated in the two bastions of the dog press, _Dog World_ and _Our Dogs_. As for organisations with agendas against pedigree dogs _and the KC_ (I notice you conveniently left the bit about the KC out because it didn't fit in with your rant  )- well, look no further than the RSPCA.


So the 'dog world' in your terms is the show dog crowd, and the minority within it who write to magazines. Hardly representitive! I take it as wider than that, people who own and love dogs. 
It appears the 'quality' dog press is the ones that you agree with!

And I left out any reference to the KC because I know it is the breed clubs and not they who are responsible for the breed standards and what has gone wrong with some breeds on account of them. The KC are merely a registration organisation - I'm not slating them for that which they aren't repsonsible in my 'rant'.


----------



## Burrowzig

Spellweaver said:


> In all my posts on here I have answered people's opininons with arguments and opinions of my own. I have attacked no-one personally. Yet here you are, the third person on this thread who has felt the need to resort to a personal attack on me. Hmmm - and all three of you are people who disagree with my opinion. Speaks volumes does that.
> 
> Anyone who has to resort to personal attacks has lost their argument before they even begin.
> 
> Now, if you want to have a sensible grown up discussion I will debate with you until the cows come home. But I'm not playing these sorts of silly games.


Well, you decribed my post as a 'rant'. If that's not an attack, I'd like to know what is. You choose words that dismiss, belittle and denigrate the opininions of people who don't agree with you. Speaks volumes.....


----------



## Burrowzig

Spellweaver said:


> Nah - you won't get flamed - thankfully there are only one or two on here who will try personal attacks
> 
> Your opinion may be challenged, however.
> 
> I think dogs should be bred for health and conformation, and conformation brings looks into it - for example, a border collie's tail should be carried low in order for it to move properly when herding sheep, so good breeders will look for breeding stock with low carried tails.
> 
> I don't know anyone other than puppy farmers and designer dog breeders who breed for looks alone.


Just wondering - *why* should the tail be carried low so the dog can move properly when herding? A Welsh Sheepdog's tail should be carried high when doing exactly the same thing.


----------



## Spellweaver

Burrowzig said:


> Well, you decribed my post as a 'rant'. If that's not an attack, I'd like to know what is. You choose words that dismiss, belittle and denigrate the opininions of people who don't agree with you. Speaks volumes.....


Yet another unwarranted personal attack and totally against forum rules. I refuse to debate with you on any subject when you resort to such tactics. There is absolutely no need for this kind of thing. I would report your post, but I prefer to see it stay on the thread so that people can see the kind of tactics you use.


----------



## Burrowzig

Spellweaver said:


> Yet another unwarranted personal attack and totally against forum rules. I refuse to debate with you on any subject when you resort to such tactics. There is absolutely no need for this kind of thing. I would report your post, but I prefer to see it stay on the thread so that people can see the kind of tactics you use.


What need was there to describe this

"What statistics have you to back up this sweeping claim? I also think it's grossly unfair to denigrate people who agree with her as 'cronies'. And 'organisations with agendas against pedigree dogs' - such as whom? There may be organisations against the exaggerated features bred into some pedigree breeds, which clearly need to be amended for the good of the dogs."

as a "rant"?


----------



## Spellweaver

Burrowzig said:


> What need was there to describe this
> 
> "What statistics have you to back up this sweeping claim? I also think it's grossly unfair to denigrate people who agree with her as 'cronies'. And 'organisations with agendas against pedigree dogs' - such as whom? There may be organisations against the exaggerated features bred into some pedigree breeds, which clearly need to be amended for the good of the dogs."
> 
> as a "rant"?


definition of "rant"

to speak or shout in a loud, uncontrolled or angry way, often saying confused or silly things

rant verb - definition in British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionary Online

The tone of your post was angry. Your words were silly and confused - mainly because you totally missed out the fact that my original post (which you were replying to) spoke about _"organisations with *agendas against the KC* and pedigree dogs" _ and you amended that to "organisations with agendas against pedigree dogs", so that it would fit in with whatever point you were trying to make. However, by doing that, your reply was not relevant to what I had said, which made your post silly and confusing.

Therefore, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, to describe your post as a rant was quite literally correct and not a personal attack at all - unlike the personal attacks you have made on me.


----------



## Goblin

Lets not forget the phrase used "Carry on Jemima" to describe PDE2 and the personal attacks on her... 

Something to remember is those who voice support for PDE are frequently outside the enclosed group which accepted the very practices PDE sought to expose. Says a lot. The only people supporting the anti PDE sentiment are those who feel they have been penalized by the program, not those who look at the program without a vested interest.


----------



## 5rivers79

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Your dog is not a wild dog, its behaviour is nothing like a wild dog, it doesn't live in the wild.


I know he isnt wild, but dont litter mates play fight with each other? They are not taught to play, they just do it and it teaches them bite inhibition. Sam plays with me but has never bitten me very hard so i let him play with me. If it does get too much then i say ouch or tell him no. Maybe i just find it fun to have a nice rumble with my dog lol

As for health tests, like i said i dont know as im not an expert or anything...but at the moment i dont see anything differentiating a pup bred by someone like yourself who does all health tests or by someone who has KC reg pups but without the health tests in the mind of joe public. Yes they should have researched etc etc but many people dont have the knowledge or know how of how to do so. I only found out about health tests once i looked online and read a few forums including this one.

Are you denying the fact that KC reg holds a certain amount of status that the bad breeders out there use to sell there pups?


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> Lets not forget the phrase used "Carry on Jemima" to describe PDE2


The Carry on films were a farce - describes PDE rather well!



Goblin said:


> and the personal attacks on her...


I presume you mean the criticism of her work and her unprofessional conduct. If she does not want her work criticised she should take more care to be accurate. If she does not want her unprofessionalism criticised she should strive to be more professional. She chose to put herself into the public eye and now she has to put up with what the public think of her. If the opinion the public has of her is less than complimentary, then she has only herself to blame.



Goblin said:


> Something to remember is those who voice support for PDE are frequently outside the enclosed group which accepted the very practices PDE sought to expose.


I would ask you to furnish proof of this. In fact I challenge you to, because I know you will fail. The members I know of the closed group of which you speak would never accept any practices detrimental to the health of dogs.



Goblin said:


> The only people supporting the anti PDE sentiment are those who feel they have been penalized by the program


Funny how you believe stating things like this somehow makes them true. (That is so like the tactics used by PDE -are you sure you are not JH in an alter-ego?  ) I know many, many people who "support the anti-PDE sentiment" who do not feel they have been penalized by the program. They just feel that the program was biased and unnecessary. Generally, these are people who have not been taken in by the spin, but who have looked at the true facts and assessed the truth of the situation for themselves.


----------



## leashedForLife

terencesmum said:


> ...I find... mentioning... eugenics & Nazis in a thread about dog breeding & PDE2 highly distasteful
> & [it is IMO] disrespectful to the millions of people who suffered immeasurable pain during the years of WW2.
> Completely inappropriate. :nonod:


whether U find it apropos or grotesque is immaterial to the facts - 
as Comfort-Creature was at pains to explain, the *facts are* that eugenics was a popular meme 
in everyday culture for decades, & was a founding premise of the National Socialist Party of Germany.

FWIW my mother at one point, had 14 relatives fighting on various fronts during WW2. 
a telegram was greeted with sheer terror, at that time - but i don't think discussing eugenics 
is disrespectful to the memory or service of my uncles, great-uncles, & other relatives, 
nor to the millions upon millions of those murdered by the Nazis, or Stalin, Tito, Franco, or the other 
various demigods of the WW1 / WW2 & post-world-war eras. Eugenics was a fact - so was Stalinization. 
pretending they did not exist by NOT talking about them, IMO, is far more disrespectful - part of the reason 
that so many soldiers, sailors, aviators & marines were willing to die was to PREVENT this happening again.

we cannot prevent any historical event from recurring, if we cannot even talk about the causes of it.

like it or lump it, eugenics was a founding premise of the KC - & for that matter, the AKC. 
the UKC was sufficiently later that they were founded *after* eugenics theory was repudiated.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Goblin said:


> Lets not forget the phrase used "Carry on Jemima" to describe PDE2 and the personal attacks on her...
> 
> Something to remember is those who voice support for PDE are frequently outside the enclosed group which accepted the very practices PDE sought to expose. Says a lot. The only people supporting the anti PDE sentiment are those who feel they have been penalized by the program, not those who look at the program without a vested interest.


I hardly think that's fair? I am completely against what Jemima Harrison did with the PDE programme, but would hope not to be included in the little pigeon holes you've created there. I'm pro ethical breeding, but do not accept that all breeders of pedigree dogs are unethical because they're out to do it for their own interests and not that of their dogs. I will accept some are, but that's going to be the same for any activity people are interested in.



5rivers79 said:


> I know he isnt wild, but dont litter mates play fight with each other? They are not taught to play, they just do it and it teaches them bite inhibition. Sam plays with me but has never bitten me very hard so i let him play with me. If it does get too much then i say ouch or tell him no. Maybe i just find it fun to have a nice rumble with my dog lol
> 
> As for health tests, like i said i dont know as im not an expert or anything...but at the moment i dont see anything differentiating a pup bred by someone like yourself who does all health tests or by someone who has KC reg pups but without the health tests in the mind of joe public. Yes they should have researched etc etc but many people dont have the knowledge or know how of how to do so. I only found out about health tests once i looked online and read a few forums including this one.
> 
> Are you denying the fact that KC reg holds a certain amount of status that the bad breeders out there use to sell there pups?


Everyone enjoys interacting with their dogs, well, those who care about their dogs do, I'm just wary that you might be inadvertently teaching something you may later regret, hence the caution. Why don't you ask some of the working trials folk on here for a recommendation for a trainer near you, I'm sure they'd be able to point you in the right direction, it really is good fun, I need to dig out Indie's tracking harness at some point as she loves it and I never do enough with her!

I agree with you to some extent about the KC, but there is the ABS that does differentiate, or has tried to, it's not perfect, but it is difficult to create something completely foolproof that *some* people wouldn't be able to take advantage of in some way. Unfortunately though, although the KC does hold some sort of *status* in the minds of part of the Joe Publilc, many others out there believe that because of what the PDE programme *exposed* that KC registered breeds are all unhealthy and inbred mutants.

And that's why a lot of people involved with KC pedigree dogs are pretty pee'd off with the programme Jemima created, it was a completely unfair, unbalanced view of a minority of breeders, which led to many folk walking away from waiting lists for pedigree dogs, and straight to puppy farmers in the belief that non-KC registered equalled a healthy well bred pup. I STILL come across people who believe Labradors all suffer with joint problems and have a terrible reputation health wise because of the number of tests available for them, and yet are willing to believe a cross bred pup out of the small ads is going to be healthier even with no health tests in place. In fact I know of someone who bought such a cross bred pup believing it would be healthier because of the stigma now attached to KC pedigree dogs following PDE, and their pup has ended up with severe hip dysplasia, guess what, no health tests on either parent. It doesn't take much googling to find out what you need to know as regards the health issues within a breed, and what you need to ask. I hope I live to see the day where large steps are made to wipe out puppy farmers and commercial breeders just churning out litter after litter for sale, and also those who are willing to put the health and wellbeing of a breed they love to one side, to win at any sort of competition. But that won't just take legislation, it will take the market to dry up, and PDE did nothing to help towards that, in fact it made the situation much, much worse as regards actually informing the public, it just scared them away from all KC breeds and breeders.


----------



## Burrowzig

Spellweaver said:


> definition of "rant"
> 
> to speak or shout in a loud, uncontrolled or angry way, often saying confused or silly things
> 
> rant verb - definition in British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionary Online
> 
> The tone of your post was angry. Your words were silly and confused - mainly because you totally missed out the fact that my original post (which you were replying to) spoke about _"organisations with *agendas against the KC* and pedigree dogs" _ and you amended that to "organisations with agendas against pedigree dogs", so that it would fit in with whatever point you were trying to make. However, by doing that, your reply was not relevant to what I had said, which made your post silly and confusing.
> 
> Therefore, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, to describe your post as a rant was quite literally correct and not a personal attack at all - unlike the personal attacks you have made on me.


I was not angry; what you choose to read into my 'tone' is entirely a matter for you. I asked you to substantiate your claim which you have failed to do. My words may appear silly and confused to someone of opposing views; you may note that I have not denigrated or belittled any of your opinions, only pointed out the way you have made them. I gave my reasons for missing out the reference to the KC. If you prefer to avoid future silliness, you can always put me on 'ignore'.


----------



## leashedForLife

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If you [5Rivers79] wrestle with [Samson] & encourage him to mouth you, that [teaches] him to mouth you
> 
> Your dog is not a wild dog, his behaviour is nothing like a wild dog's, he doesn't live in the wild.
> Your dog uses his mouth to explore, yes, but it wouldn't do much good if you've encouraged your dog
> to [mouth people], and he explored when you didn't want him to, even if he didn't *do* anything wrong;
> you've got a large breed with a poor reputation as far as the public goes, so encouraging him to mouth you,
> which IS in effect teaching him this behaviour is acceptable, is not IMHO a good idea.
> 
> I would honestly suggest you go to classes & have him and you taught in formal surroundings,
> so he doesn't get confused about when [mouth-play] is appropriate.


*click! * An EXCELLENT post, & very good advice.

however, a slew of folks on PF-uk have already made these suggestions repeatedly, & Rivers has 
ignored, belittled, & shrugged-off every post. In fact, he has said that our criticisms implied 
that we were all Anti-Akita or prejudiced against Akitas, which is beyond belief, since several posters 
who have ALL given this advice are current Akita-owners, past Akita-owners, or volunteers in Akita rescue.

good luck, but i fear this sane advice is another seed fallen upon stony ground, & doomed to die.

_now back to our regularly scheduled program, 'As the World Churns'..._ 
all of the drama & emotion, little of the science or logic.


----------



## Spellweaver

leashedForLife said:


> whether U find it apropos or grotesque is immaterial to the facts -
> as Comfort-Creature was at pains to explain, the *facts are* that eugenics was a popular meme
> in everyday culture for decades, & was a founding premise of the National Socialist Party of Germany.
> 
> FWIW my mother at one point, had 14 relatives fighting on various fronts during WW2.
> a telegram was greeted with sheer terror, at that time - but i don't think discussing eugenics
> is disrespectful to the memory or service of my uncles, great-uncles, & other relatives,
> nor to the millions upon millions of those murdered by the Nazis, or Stalin, Tito, Franco, or the other
> various demigods of the WW1 / WW2 & post-world-war eras. Eugenics was a fact - so was Stalinization.
> pretending they did not exist by NOT talking about them, IMO, is far more disrespectful - part of the reason
> that so many soldiers, sailors, aviators & marines were willing to die was to PREVENT this happening again.
> 
> we cannot prevent any historical event from recurring, if we cannot even talk about the causes of it.
> 
> like it or lump it, eugenics was a founding premise of the KC - & for that matter, the AKC.
> the UKC was sufficiently later that they were founded *after* eugenics theory was repudiated.


If the program had merely discussed eugenics I don't think anyone would have objected. What people are objecting to is the linking of the KC and breeders of pedigree dogs to the Nazis, which the program did. As I have said already on this thread - and which you have ignored - by mentioning the Nazis the program invoked all the horror, disgust, and revulsion people feel for what they did - as so eloquently expressed by your own words outlined in red. Not only that, however, it also engaged people's feelings that it is right to fight against things the Nazis did - again, so eloquently expressed by your words outlined in green. By linking eugenics to to the Nazis, and in the same footage linking the KC to eugenics, in one fell swoop this program linked the KC and pedigree breeders with the Nazis; it put the idea of revulsion against them in the minds of the viewers, and also engendered a feeling that they needed to be fought against. Very clever gutter press journalistic tactics - but very unprofessional in a program that purported to be a serious documentary.

In a balanced documentary it would have been perfectly possible to discuss eugenics without showing pictures of Nazis and the Nuremburg rallies, without manipulating the viewing audience to link the KC and pedigree breeders with Nazis. However, this was not a balanced documentary; it went for the shock horror tactics of linking the KC and pedigree breeders to Nazis. And THAT was the part that was unnecessary in a program about dog breeding. THAT is the part people are objecting to.


----------



## terencesmum

leashedForLife said:


> whether U find it apropos or grotesque is immaterial to the facts -
> as Comfort-Creature was at pains to explain, the *facts are* that eugenics was a popular meme
> in everyday culture for decades, & was a founding premise of the National Socialist Party of Germany.
> 
> FWIW my mother at one point, had 14 relatives fighting on various fronts during WW2.
> a telegram was greeted with sheer terror, at that time - but i don't think discussing eugenics
> is disrespectful to the memory or service of my uncles, great-uncles, & other relatives,
> nor to the millions upon millions of those murdered by the Nazis, or Stalin, Tito, Franco, or the other
> various demigods of the WW1 / WW2 & post-world-war eras. Eugenics was a fact - so was Stalinization.
> pretending they did not exist by NOT talking about them, IMO, is far more disrespectful - part of the reason
> that so many soldiers, sailors, aviators & marines were willing to die was to PREVENT this happening again.
> 
> we cannot prevent any historical event from recurring, if we cannot even talk about the causes of it.
> 
> like it or lump it, eugenics was a founding premise of the KC - & for that matter, the AKC.
> the UKC was sufficiently later that they were founded *after* eugenics theory was repudiated.


If you had bothered to read my next post, you would have noticed that I said discussing Eugenics with respect to breeding is perfectly fine, but referring to breeders as Nazis and comparing breeding programs to the ideas of the Nazis IS inappropriate.
I would refer you back to the Wikipedia article on WW2 and you will see that Eugenics had very little to do with the reasons behind the war.
I too had many relatives who fought and died in WW2, like so many other people, so please don't try to legitimise your point of view because of that.


----------



## Spellweaver

Burrowzig said:


> I I asked you to substantiate your claim which you have failed to do.[


If you have found no substantiation then I suggest you re-read my post and follow the link to the meaning of the word "rant". I have done nothing other than use a word which accurately described your post.

You, on the other hand, have flouted forum rules and made personal attacks and are _still_ making personal attacks. Pretend all you want - the posts are there for all to see.


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> The Carry on films were a farce - describes PDE rather well!


No it was just as informational as the latest KC video.



Spellweaver said:


> If she does not want her unprofessionalism criticised she should strive to be more professional. She chose to put herself into the public eye and now she has to put up with what the public think of her. If the opinion the public has of her is less than complimentary, then she has only herself to blame.


You could say you and I are both in the public eye being in an open forum and so are open to criticism. The same rules and etiquette should apply to everyone.

It's only within certain circles the "opinion" is tarnished. You only have to look on the "sides" on this forum to realize this. It does tend to be breeders = anti, non breeders = pro. Shame as there is a lot of common ground of wanting the best for dogs.



> I would ask you to furnish proof of this. In fact I challenge you to, because I know you will fail. The members I know of the closed group of which you speak would never accept any practices detrimental to the health of dogs.


In general the closed group attack those who pointed out flaws so are directly supporting those very flaws. Those flaws existed. It's not the fact you oppose the program, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's the manner in which it's done. Rather than admit the program is right in some aspects, the whole program is dismissed as being lies until you are called on it. "All lies" cannot be correct when the KC were doing something about it. In some threads the KC is just a database, then it's said that it was capable of changing things in a timely manner.

You do not promote constructive discussion as to how to move forward from what the situation is at the moment and let's face it a lot of progress has been made in 4 years (since PDE). Again, not concentrating on what flaws still need to change is actively supporting those flaws. I've said before, this attitude of closing ranks and denial is one of the things which most annoyed me about PDE. Admitting the problems, even highlighting them and what was being done to fix them would have meant little room for a PDE2 to be made.



> I know many, many people who "support the anti-PDE sentiment" who do not feel they have been penalized by the program. They just feel that the program was biased and unnecessary. Generally, these are people who have not been taken in by the spin, but who have looked at the true facts and assessed the truth of the situation for themselves.


I know breeders who think the program was necessary. They may not like the way it was done and agree with everything but recognize that the program served as a much needed wake up call. Bias has nothing to do with the necessity of informing the public about what was happening and is probably still happening in certain circles.


----------



## ozrex

It's always possible to pick holes in any article or TV programme or book or whatever...

I used to review articles, in my area, for the Medical Journal of Australia donkeys' years ago and it was my job to pick holes in serious scholarly research articles; never mind a TV programme - which would be child's play in comparison.

I don't think it matters whether "mistakes were made" or "it was sensationalised" or it made "inappropriate comparisons" compared to the FACT that it pointed out some glaring problems in dog breeding. If it used some entertainment techniques to point out some quite terrible problems at least it pointed out those problems.

It got a lot of us talking and thinking. While the cognoscenti may have known about syringomyelia in cavs. or the problems of being a bulldog etc I had NO idea. I'd only ever known about syringomyelia in humans and had no idea it was an issue for dogs. While I knew pugs struggled to breathe on hot days or if they exerted themselves..... well you get the picture.

I don't think that it's fair to say that because Joe Public "doesn't understand" he shouldn't know... Sometimes Joe may not understand and will turn from pedigree dogs to puppy farmers or crossbreeds or even cats! Sometimes Joe will understand very well and will do some serious research before buying a dog. I think that informing Joe that there ARE issues will result in Joe being better informed and more careful. As for him turning to puppy farms; well he may but there has been HEAPS in the media here about their horrors.

The good thing about this programme is that people who matter in the dog world appear to have increased their discussions of certain aspects of dog breeding and more is being said to condemn the few abominable breeders. I doubt that the Wyndlair people have remained in ignorance of the public backlash about their breeding of Wyndlair Avalanche.

I can see show judging changing ONLY in response to severe public criticism, in most areas. I think that the majority of judges would be so welded to their ideas of a perfect dog of breed X that only severe criticism will change things. I would like to see (for example) the less extreme bulldogs have a chance of winning in the show ring for that lovely bulldog breeder in the KC film.

Unfortunately I think things like PDE have a better chance of effecting change than self-regulation EVER had.

Can we all please agree that we all care about the welfare of dogs? PDE has helped to make some changes for the better even if it wasn't perfect. Joe Public may be dumb but now he knows to look for dog health issues, however clumsily he may do it. Breeders who breed away from some health faults may find their dogs become the new standard and start winning. Breeders who select for health problems may find that Joe Public is seriously annoyed with them. 

PDE may be a single shot in a battle, perhaps not perfectly aimed but at least it was fired in the right direction.


----------



## pickle

5rivers79 said:


> I have not 'taught' Sam to mouth me, i didnt set out to teach that to him. I play with him, i let him mouth me when we play, i wrestle with him, i tickle him and run around the house letting him chase me. I honestly dont think there is anything wrong with playing with my dog the way i do.
> 
> Wheres the fun when teaching hold is just a command? Your telling your dog to hold an item so it holds it? Where is its independent nature to want to roll around playing? Have you seen wild pups mouthing each other rolling around playing? Or wild cat cubs doing the same? Its fun for them, its not taught and its not command orientated. Well thats my opinion anyway and it works for us.
> 
> Seeing health test certificates of parents for various tests would be great imo. I just dont see how it is *just * a registry when have KC registration gives the pups such highly perceived status. You as an expert may not think so, but the general public do think status is attached to KC registration and its the *general public* who buy these dogs that end up having problems.


Please tell me how we can get it across to the general public when several of us on here are trying to explain it to you and *you *are not getting it.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> No it was just as informational as the latest KC video.


There is one main difference - the KC promotional video told the truth.



Goblin said:


> In general the closed group attack those who pointed out flaws so are directly supporting those very flaws.


What utter rubbish. I am a member of that group, as are several other people on this forum, and have seen nothing of what you write about here. All I have seen is people fighting for the truth.

Strange how you know so much about what is being said in a closed group. If you were a member of the group, you would know what you are writing here is rubbish. As you are writing things that are blatantly not true about the group, I can only presume you are not a member of the group, So, if you are not a member of the group, where are you getting your information from - and how have you "verified" your information before you post it here as truth, as fact? (Again, this is so like the tactics used by PDE - the more you post, the more I am beginning to wonder if you are not JH in another guise!)

You were criticising people for personal attacks against JH on other threads - don't you think it's a bit two-faced of you to launch personal attacks at members of a closed group?



Goblin said:


> "All lies" cannot be correct when the KC were doing something about it. In some threads the KC is just a database, then it's said that it was capable of changing things in a timely manner.


Of course it can be true. The main lie was the KC was doing nothing about it, when clearly they were. There has been ample proof given to you by me and others that this is the case - proof which you have chosen to ignore because it would mean you could no longer sustain your tenuous position. And no-where on this or any other thread will you find anyone saying that the KC is just a database. You _will_ find it said many times that *KC Registration *is just a database. That is different from saying the KC is just a database. You will also find it said many times that the KC as an organisation has done much to promote and change the health of dogs, and has been doing for many, many years before PDE. But you already know that - you are just choosing to ignore it.



Goblin said:


> You do not promote constructive discussion as to how to move forward from what the situation is at the moment and let's face it a lot of progress has been made in 4 years (since PDE). Again, not concentrating on what flaws still need to change is actively supporting those flaws. I've said before, this attitude of closing ranks and denial is one of the things which most annoyed me about PDE. Admitting the problems, even highlighting them and what was being done to fix them would have meant little room for a PDE2 to be made.


Again, not true. I have posted on this and other threads about the work that the KC has done, is doing, and is intending to do. Just because you ignore those doesn't mean it has not been done. The attitude of closing ranks and denial that you talk about just does not exist except in your mind. Look again - you will find many posts on here by people (including breeders) who are against PDE but who are supporting the KC in their efforts to promote good breeding and healthy dogs.


----------



## Talli

Sleeping Lion.

You have such a passion about dogs and breeding. Your working history is apparent and ethical breeding practices appear to be your focus but why are you are in bed with a Cockapoo Lover and her puppet ?

With all the hype about Jemima why are so many forging links with self called Designer Dog brigade ?

These cross breeds (and I have one in the family too) are on the increase with little policing.

T


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> There is one main difference - the KC promotional video told the truth.





> Again, not true. I have posted on this and other threads about the work that the KC has done, is doing, and is intending to do. Just because you ignore those doesn't mean it has not been done.


One question you still haven't answered satisfactorily. If PDE did not tell the truth, that certain breeds had health issues due to the way they were being bred to look.. what were the KC doing? As far as the two video go, PDE used bias to get it's point across, KC does it by omission. And I thought you said the KC video wasn't an advert but simply my spin. A promotional video is an advert.

You are also wrong when you say I and others do not note what the KC has done and is continuing to do. I actively support those who try to inform about what the KC is doing and progress made. One of the main flaws in the KC is that they do not reach out to the wider public sufficiently. This is another area where progress has been made recently.



> In general the closed group attack those who pointed out flaws so are directly supporting those very flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> What utter rubbish. I am a member of that group, as are several other people on this forum, and have seen nothing of what you write about here. All I have seen is people fighting for the truth.
Click to expand...

What is the truth we are really discussing... Certain breeds and breed clubs were breeding in such a way that they raised the potential for health issues. No matter what feathers where ruffled, this is fact and all you have done is diverted and skirted around that fundamental issue. Do you support this as your arguments suggest you do. This is the truth that PDE gave out and yet you call it lies. The KC may have made progress without PDE but I very much doubt if as much progress would have been made. They don't have the power to enforce anything and have to balance what they do with the desire to keep breed clubs on board. If they didn't breed clubs would simply say go away. It takes pressure and what better pressure than Joe Public being made aware of issues.



> You were criticising people for personal attacks against JH on other threads - don't you think it's a bit two-faced of you to launch personal attacks at members of a closed group?


Personal attacks on a group.. either it's a group or it's personal as an individual. When criticizing a group it doesn't mean I'm attacking the individuals. For all I know individuals are actively campaigning for the correct things even if the group policy is at fault.



> ...because it would mean you could no longer sustain your tenuous position.


My tenuous position and the main focus of PDE was that there were health issues with certain breeds and still are. Sorry if you don't agree with that fact but even the KC healthy future indicates this as does the checks for certain breeds at crufts. I don't feel it's a tenuous position at all.



> And no-where on this or any other thread will you find anyone saying that the KC is just a database. You _will_ find it said many times that *KC Registration *is just a database. That is different from saying the KC is just a database. You will also find it said many times that the KC as an organisation has done much to promote and change the health of dogs, and has been doing for many, many years before PDE.


I really can't be bothered to go through all the threads to find examples so will simply say it is important to make that differentiation. However, putting things plainly and simply. What enforcement powers does the KC have and actively uses to ensure breed clubs do what should be done? As far as I am aware they have to walk a tightrope, influencing while not alienating a breed club into simply walking out. Once a breed club has walked out it cannot be influenced at all which is something nobody who wishes corrections to be made wants to see happen.

We could of course discuss this for days and you certainly will not change my viewpoint. What I will point out is potentially the different approaches to the PDE issue we are both taking.

Trying to gauge your position by getting past the whole anti PDE rhetoric: 
PDE was unfair to those breeders who were trying to do the right thing. _It should not be shocking to those who know me that I can agree to that, as can any sensible person who knows you can't judge everyone within a group the same. I've actually said this frequently._
The KC were already making progress. _As an outsider you can only judge from by what is visible at a fixed point of time. After problems are highlighted, arguing that nothing is really wrong or appearing to divert attention from the core issue is a bad move. Admit faults, say what corrections are in place and move on._

My position: 
PDE highlighted problems with the health of certain breeds which increased pressure for change considerably.
Why were the issues allowed to get so far and who is ultimately at fault for allowing it do do so? As far as I'm aware fault lies with the individual breed clubs but ultimate responsibility has to lie in the "top body", the KC.


----------



## 5rivers79

leashedForLife said:


> *click! * An EXCELLENT post, & very good advice.
> 
> however, a slew of folks on PF-uk have already made these suggestions repeatedly, & Rivers has
> ignored, belittled, & shrugged-off every post. In fact, he has said that our criticisms implied
> that we were all Anti-Akita or prejudiced against Akitas, which is beyond belief, since several posters
> who have ALL given this advice are current Akita-owners, past Akita-owners, or volunteers in Akita rescue.
> 
> good luck, but i fear this sane advice is another seed fallen upon stony ground, & doomed to die.
> 
> _now back to our regularly scheduled program, 'As the World Churns'..._
> all of the drama & emotion, little of the science or logic.


My dogs arent doomed at all, in fact both lead very happy lives. I dont ignore advice from those on here that give good advice to me, as given by some on this very thread. But what i will do is ignore know it alls like you because to be honest i choose to ignore people who have their heads up their own behinds (figuratively speaking of course). Sorry, i hope i didnt offend you


----------



## ozrex

Talli, I don't mean to respond on behalf of Sleeping_Lion as I am sure she can do that for herself.

Perhaps you have been misinformed. SL is a very ethical person and cares very deeply for the health and well-being of dogs. She wants all dogs to be bred for the best of reasons and to the highest health and welfare standards. That hardly puts her "in bed", revolting phrase, with anyone.

One does not _have_ to support the breeding of any type or breed of animal to want to see the breeding done correctly when it _is _done.

I hope this clarifies things. Sleeping_Lion is dedicated to the welfare of dogs and that shines through all her posts. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding somewhere.


----------



## Mrs White

Again, I'd like to say how much I am enjoying this thread; all sides are putting their points across and I am learning a lot

I didn't see PDE for a long time after it was released and as a Regular Joe type dude it did hit me hard in the sense that I could not believe that some breeders could breed from such unsuitable dogs, knowing full well the health problems etc. I have to say though that it made me want to research "proper" breeders much more thoroughly rather than go off to a BYB. 

Since then I have studied canine genetics (bought a few books off Amazon like Padgett, for example) even though I have no intention to breed a litter ever in my life; however, I like to have a grounding in things I am interested in.

I would never have dreamed of reading up on such things if it weren't for PDE, not in a million years, so in my own case it has driven me to look for further knowledge and funnily enough I've ended up informing myself to such an extent that I can barely meet a breeder of my type of dog that meets my demands so I'll probably keep rescuing little trampuses from the pound(basically local hunting dogs discarded for one reason or another)

Having said this, though, I can see how a knee-jerk reaction could lead less critically minded people towards badly bred lines of dogs, believing that all show breeders are bereft of morality in their breeding practises.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Talli said:


> Sleeping Lion.
> 
> You have such a passion about dogs and breeding. Your working history is apparent and ethical breeding practices appear to be your focus but why are you are in bed with a Cockapoo Lover and her puppet ?
> 
> With all the hype about Jemima why are so many forging links with self called Designer Dog brigade ?
> 
> These cross breeds (and I have one in the family too) are on the increase with little policing.
> 
> T


If I know you why can't you just be honest and tell me who you are?

I'm not *in bed* with a Cockapoo Lover and her puppet, and I think the way you've posted it is perhaps to appear intriguing, but it just comes across as being rude of you to make a suggestion like that! Cockapoo lover on this forum, who I *assume* you're referring to, alongside Karen (Sezra) have set up the ONLY cross breed website I would recommend anyone look at to be perfectly honest. It's a helluva lot better than many pedigree dog owners bother to do, informative and factual, a breath of fresh air following the rubbish posted by a certain cockapoo breeder who posts alongside on the forum CL and Sezra are members of. I too was/am a member on there, and it's pretty well known why I no longer post. And I can assure you my being online friends with CL and Sezra is NOTHING to do with Jemima Harrison, she seems to take the credit for a helluva lot of things by what people post on here and elsewhere, but that one takes the biscuit!

I think you've got your facts wrong about me, I'm fairly new to dogs, Indie is my first dog and she's six and a half, I'm newer to the working dog world, so I've not really got any history at all as far as that's concerned, I'm just starting to get involved and promote it with a passion because I believe in it, and enjoy the interaction you get from working a dog.


----------



## DoodlesRule

Talli said:


> Sleeping Lion.
> 
> You have such a passion about dogs and breeding. Your working history is apparent and ethical breeding practices appear to be your focus but why are you are in bed with a Cockapoo Lover and her puppet ?
> 
> With all the hype about Jemima why are so many forging links with self called Designer Dog brigade ?
> 
> These cross breeds (and I have one in the family too) are on the increase with little policing.
> 
> T


How rude - says more about you than sleeping lion.

Ah, see you have a personal axe to grind about Cockerpoo Lover


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> One question you still haven't answered satisfactorily. If PDE did not tell the truth, that certain breeds had health issues due to the way they were being bred to look.. what were the KC doing?


I've said this so many times on this thread already, and on so many other threads on here, that's its repetition must be as tedious for people reading as it is for me to type it. However, as you are either deliberately missing the point, or you are not reading my answers, here we go _again_. (deep sigh)

If PDE_ had _said that certain breeds had health issues due to the way they were being bred to look, and the KC were working to try to eradicate the problems in these few (15!) breeds, then there would have been no problem, either for me or the countless others who objected to this program - in fact JH and her program would have been supported throughout the dog world. However, the program did not do that. What it _did_ do was:

a) It led viewers to believe that ALL pedigrees - especially pedigrees bred by show breeders - were ill, crippled, unhealthy. (Remember the chief vet from the RSPCA stating that ALL pedigrees in the show ring were a parade of mutants?) Lie number 1

b) It led viewers to believe the KC were doing nothing about the few breeds that did have a problem. Lie number 2.

To summarise:

A few certain breeds had health problems which the KC was (and had been for a long time) working to eradicate. PDE lied about that - gave viewers to understand ALL breeds were unhealthy and that nothing was being done about it. I really don't know how I can answer your question any more plainly than that. I suspect I can't, because you are not really interested in what I actually write or you would have realised that I have said the above countless times already.



Goblin said:


> As far as the two video go, PDE used bias to get it's point across, KC does it by omission.


You have said this several times, but not come up with any concrete evidence. What do you think they omitted from the video? It spoke of the good and the bad.



Goblin said:


> You are also wrong when you say I and others do not note what the KC has done and is continuing to do. I actively support those who try to inform about what the KC is doing and progress made. One of the main flaws in the KC is that they do not reach out to the wider public sufficiently. This is another area where progress has been made recently.


Now that really did make me :lol: I bet you could not even type that with a straight face. If you really believed what you have just written here, you would be applauding the KC for their video, not trying to pretend it is an advert, not trying to pretend that it was biased and omitted "things"! You would be applauding them for their video on puppy farming, instead of trying to put it down on that thread.



Goblin said:


> What is the truth we are really discussing... Certain breeds and breed clubs were breeding in such a way that they raised the potential for health issues. No matter what feathers where ruffled, this is fact and all you have done is diverted and skirted around that fundamental issue.


Not true. I have stated time and time again that there are issues and that the KC are working towards eradicating them, and have been doing for many years - for many years, in fact, before PDE was even a glint in JH's eye. How is that skirting around the fundamental issue?



Goblin said:


> This is the truth that PDE gave out and yet you call it lies.


And this is where we differ. PDE did not say "Certain breeds and breed clubs were breeding in such a way that they raised the potential for health issues". As I have said :Yawn: soooooooo many times already (wonder how you have managed to miss all that?) PDE gave viewers to understand ALL breeds were unhealthy and that the KC were doing nothing. And that is a lie. No getting away from that fact.



Goblin said:


> Personal attacks on a group.. either it's a group or it's personal as an individual. When criticizing a group it doesn't mean I'm attacking the individuals. For all I know individuals are actively campaigning for the correct things even if the group policy is at fault.


A group is made up of individuals. Attack a group and you attack the individuals. You are now backtracking and trying to say that for all you know the individuals within the group are actively campaigning to correct things. The operative words there are "For all I know" - because that proves you *didn't* know. Yet that didn't stop you posting on an open forum that the group was actively supporting flaws in the dog world, did it? In other words, you posted something you didn't know - something you made up ?  ? - as a fact.



Goblin said:


> My tenuous position and the main focus of PDE was that there were health issues with certain breeds and still are.


Your position is tenous because that was not the main focus of PDE at all.



Goblin said:


> I really can't be bothered to go through all the threads to find examples so will simply say it is important to make that differentiation.


But that doesn't seem to have stopped you from saying they are not there. Hmmm.



Goblin said:


> What I will point out is potentially the different approaches to the PDE issue we are both taking.
> 
> My position:
> PDE highlighted problems with the health of certain breeds which increased pressure for change considerably.
> Why were the issues allowed to get so far and who is ultimately at fault for allowing it do do so? As far as I'm aware fault lies with the individual breed clubs but ultimate responsibility has to lie in the "top body", the KC.
> 
> Trying to gauge your position by getting past the whole anti PDE rhetoric:
> PDE was unfair to those breeders who were trying to do the right thing. It should not be shocking to those who know me that I can agree to that, as can any sensible person who knows you can't judge everyone within a group the same. I've actually said this frequently.
> The KC were already making progress. As an outsider you can only judge from by what is visible at a fixed point of time. After problems are highlighted, arguing that nothing is really wrong or appearing to divert attention from the core issue is a bad move. Admit faults, say what corrections are in place and move on.


I wouldn't presume to tell you your position is any different. However, if you think what you have printed is in any way indicative of my position on the subject, then you either you cannot have read any of my posts properly, or you are merely trying to pretend that is what you think my position is in order to have yet more digs at the KC. Just so there cannot be any doubt, I'll repeat my position here. Now you can no longer pretend you don't know where I'm coming from.


A few certain breeds have developed problems over the years due to various factors such as bad breeding, breeding for looks, puppy farming etc etc
This has been recognised for several years now and the KC have been working towards eradicating this kind of thing for a long time before PDE was even conceived
The KC has funded the major part of the work that has been done over the past 20/30 years on genetics, developing genetic tests that are enabling breeders to breed more healthily.
 KC Registration is merely a database of dog ancestry and if some people think otherwise, that is no more the KC's fault than it is Passionate Production's fault that some people think PDE was made by Panorama. 
 The KC do a lot of work in the dog world that has nothing to do with showing and breeding - work that often goes unnoticed and unsung.
PDE tried to intimate that none of the above was happening. It tried to say that no-one, no organisation, knew or cared about the problem and was doing anything about it. This is blatantly false - ie a lie.
 PDE tried to make out that all pedigrees are mutants because of the way they were bred purely for showing. That led puppy buyers to avoid pedigree show breeders, who are breeding some of the healthiest dogs in the country, and made them think it was better to go to non-show breeders - ie the BYBs and puppy farmer, who are breeding some of the unhealthiest dogs in the country and keeping breeding bitches and puppies in appalling conditions.
 If PDE had reported the issue correctly - ie that there was a problem in a small number of breeds, that work was being done to eradicate this, but that the program maker felt it wasn't being done fast enough, then the program would have had the support of everyone in the dog world. But it didn't, so it hasn't. What a lost opportunity.


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If I know you why can't you just be honest and tell me who you are?
> 
> I'm not *in bed* with a Cockapoo Lover and her puppet, and I think the way you've posted it is perhaps to appear intriguing, but it just comes across as being rude of you to make a suggestion like that! Cockapoo lover on this forum, who I *assume* you're referring to, alongside Karen (Sezra) have set up the ONLY cross breed website I would recommend anyone look at to be perfectly honest. It's a helluva lot better than many pedigree dog owners bother to do, informative and factual, a breath of fresh air following the rubbish posted by a certain cockapoo breeder who posts alongside on the forum CL and Sezra are members of. I too was/am a member on there, and it's pretty well known why I no longer post. And I can assure you my being online friends with CL and Sezra is NOTHING to do with Jemima Harrison, she seems to take the credit for a helluva lot of things by what people post on here and elsewhere, but that one takes the biscuit!
> 
> I think you've got your facts wrong about me, I'm fairly new to dogs, Indie is my first dog and she's six and a half, I'm newer to the working dog world, so I've not really got any history at all as far as that's concerned, I'm just starting to get involved and promote it with a passion because I believe in it, and enjoy the interaction you get from working a dog.


Well said. I agree totally about Cocker-poo lover and Sezra - their website is excellent. Methinks this poster is a troll with some sort of axe to grind!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> Well said. I agree totally about Cocker-poo lover and Sezra - their website is excellent. Methinks this poster is a troll with some sort of axe to grind!


They're friends with certain *commercial breeders* who are actually pretty much the sort of person we're referring to in many of the posts on this thread, telling lies to sell their cross bred dogs and people fall for it, because all them pedigrees have to be unhealthy, that programme said so. 

I'm not naming the breeders they're obviously friends with, as that just gets them free advertising. They pretty much have a whole forum wrapped up into thinking they're the best breeders going, and know what they're talking about; I did join to try and promote ethical breeding, but stopped posting when I received anonymous phone calls to my mobile from someone, as I strongly suspected it was a member on there trying to be vindictive from what I could make out.

I have to say, it's a shame the forum has closed the breeding section to browsers, it was quite good going on to read a bit of fiction/comedy every now and again! I did get asked to go back again and post, because there was support for ethical breeding, but I felt as headway was being made with pushing for more health tests - one breeder had started to test their bitches for the relevant eye condition, not just their stud dogs - I didn't want to rock the boat further, nor did I want to expose myself to any further random phone calls. But I have to say, the ignorance and sheer lack of knowledge of some of the members over there, who were willing to stand up and defend puppy farmers was appalling, and they should be ashamed of themselves for helping to perpetuate this vile trade. Thank God for people like Sarah and Shirley who are willing to stand up to them on behalf of the dogs involved!!

Rant over, I may need another sugary cup of tea though


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> I've said this so many times on this thread already, and on so many other threads on here, that's its repetition must be as tedious for people reading as it is for me to type it. However, as you are either delibrately missing the point, or you are not reading my answers, here we go _again_. (deep sigh)


No you simply are hiding the issue as I see it.



> If PDE_ had _said that certain breeds had health issues due to the way they were being bred to look, and the KC were working to try to eradicate the problems in these few (15!) breeds, then there would have been no problem, either for me or the countless others who objected to this program - in fact JH and her program would have been supported throughout the dog world. However, the program did not do that.


How many years did the KC allow the progressive degeneration of health for certain breeds? Why wasn't it stopped before it became so severe? What you are saying by "we were doing things" is the same as closing the gate after the horse has bolted. Too little too late and the KC was brought up on it. As an "elite group" in the eyes of many, a position enforced by higher prices etc for a simple database entry is it really a shock people felt betrayed. Rather than admitting the problem and moving on people didn't. This was needed to repair public perception.



> a) It led viewers to believe that ALL pedigrees - especially pedigrees bred by show breeders - were ill, crippled, unhealthy. (Remember the chief vet from the RSPCA stating that ALL pedigrees were a parade of mutants?) Lie number 1


Didn't make me or anyone I know feel that. Made me feel research was necessary when buying a puppy. Avoid breeders who said "no health problems" and look for ones who state things like "possible HD, but that's common with most breeds". I knew this before PDE and it simply reenforced the need for breeders to be more open in my mind. Maybe the response of the KC and breed clubs complaining about bias, denying the problem even existed had more to do with public reaction than that of the program itself. It certainly didn't help and it's ongoing.



> b) It led viewers to believe the KC were doing nothing about the few breeds that did have a problem. Lie number 2.


I didn't get the impression that the KC weren't doing anything. Only that they were caught flatfooted and were not doing ENOUGH. And all this talk of "lies" wasn't upheld by OFCOM despite complaints being raised. Why couldn't the KC produce the equivalent of "Healthy Future" even 3 years ago?



> You have said this several times, but not come up with any concrete evidence. What do you think they omitted from the video? It spoke of the good and the bad.


How about the simple line of "we mucked up and we let things go too far for too long". How about showing the difference between working breeds and show breeds and letting people make their own mind up. How about showing the current state of the 15 breeds etc at a show?



> I bet you could not even type that with a straight face. If you really believed what you have just written here, you would be applauding the KC for their video, not trying to pretend it is an advert, not trying to pretend that it was biased and omitted "things"!


 I want the KC produce a truthful program, not an advert. Only by producing a truthful program can the KC really restore my confidence in them. How you can say it wasn't biased is beyond me. It would have been more useful if it was made just after PDE rather than produced to preempt some of the possible criticism within PDE2. It's not pretending if it's simply not something you are not prepared to see or admit.



> You would be applauding them for their video on puppy farming, instead of trying to put it down on that thread.


As I mentioned I'm cynical. Timing is wrong though and it smacks of being marketing ploy which I tend to hate just as I hated spin doctors recommending releasing bad governmental news on a certain September 11th. It may not be the case but I do wonder. One of the arguments raised about PDE is "puppy farming is more important". It should also be noted that the BBC has produced several programs about puppy farming, none with the reaction caused by PDE. Not being in the UK how well supported where these by the KC? Why wasn't the reaction as strong as it has been when it comes to PDE?



> Not true. I have stated time and time again that there are issues and that the KC are working towards eradicating them, and have been doing for many years. How is that skirting around the fundamental issue?


Answer.. why wasn't it stopped before it got to the stage where the KC was called on it? KC hasn't only just be formed to enable changes.



> And this is where we differ. PDE did not say "Certain breeds and breed clubs were breeding in such a way that they raised the potential for health issues".
> As I have said :Yawn: soooooooo many times already (wonder how you have managed to miss all that?) PDE gave viewers to understand ALL breeds were unhealthy and that the KC were doing nothing. And that is a lie. No getting away from that fact.


You read into it what you want to as an person who feels "attacked" by the program especially when looking at your next comment about groups. I look at it as an individual who isn't effected and after watching it I come up with a different perception. I'm simply an average member of Joe Public without influence by a group.



> A group is made up of individuals. Attack a group and you attack the individuals. You are now backtracking and trying to say that for all you know the individuals within the group are actively campaigning to correct things.


I feel sorry for you. Even within a group I can be an individual with my own agenda, feelings etc and can differentiate between the two. The attitude in the above quote is the attitude which I feel led to a lot of the problems in the first place. Criticism of groups were simply not allowed and it's a matter of internal politics, not being able to accept outside criticism. Those who do not follow the group line are to be shunned etc. Doesn't make it easy to make necessary changes. Can understand why the KC walks on eggshells when it comes to the breed clubs.



> The operative words there are "For all I know" - because that proves you *didn't* know. Yet that didn't stop you posting on an open forum that the group was actively supporting flaws in the dog world, did it? In other words, you posted something you didn't know - something you made up ?  ? - as a fact.


No I don't know.. what I do know is what is seen. That is what the group is judged by. Not focusing on the key flaw issues and changing the subject is supporting those flaws even if not done deliberately. Moaning that what is seen is incorrect is only the fault of the group.

As I said You will not convince me that PDE said anything but what I read into it as an unbiased individual watching it. I'll keep an open mind about PDE2 until I can see it (by which time the discussion about it will probably be dead anyway).


----------



## rocco33

> It should also be noted that the BBC has produced several programs about puppy farming, none with the reaction caused by PDE. Not being in the UK how well supported where these by the KC? Why wasn't the reaction as strong as it has been when it comes to PDE?


Because they have not been put on at prime viewing time. At best they have been short 10 minute slots on a early evening/late afternoon daily magazine type program.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> No you simply are hiding the issue as I see it.


As you see it. Well, there are none so blind as those who will not see, as the saying goes. I have done you the honour of giving you a detailed description of what I believe, which clearly shows I am hiding nothing (just what, exactly, do you think it is I have to hide?  ), and I don't intend to do so again. I have better things to do with my time than keep rehashing the same things for someone who is determined not to take off his (or should I say her?  ) blinkers. Believe exactly what you want. All the posts are there for anyone to see - and what they will see are my honest answers and your slipping and sliding and backtracking whilst refusing to acknowledge what has been written in black and white.

For me, you shot your credibility to pieces when you started to malign a closed group, of which you are not a member, and of which you admit you know nothing. If you can post things about them that are not true as if they were facts, then unfortunately when I look at the other things you write I find myelf automatically wondering whether these "facts" are also untrue. And I rather suspect many other posters will be wondering the same thing. After all, if you can post things about this group as if you have knowledge about them (which you have admitted you haven't) then how much of the rest of what you have posted actually has the knowledge you purport to have? How many of the other "facts" you've posted have been as untrue as the "facts" you have posted about this closed group? How can anyone believe a word you write?

Sorry, but I can no longer trust a word you say, and as such find it very difficult to hold any sort of reasonable and meaningful discussion with you.


----------



## DoodlesRule

I can only speak from my own experience, having lost a dog at a very young age I did a great deal of research and was saddened that the same stud/lines appeared repeatedly. I thought I had at last found an ethical breeder & one who thought it would be healthier to diversify only for it to come out in conversation that the dams father was also her grandfather - whatever name its given to me its in-breeding. 

I was assured it was "different" for dogs and that only very experienced breeders with a knowledge of genetics should undertake such a mating and the breeder was being mentored by the "top show breeder in the country". Many people may feel there was nothing wrong in that mating and I do not slate anyone who feels comfortable with that, I didn't so chose not to go ahead. 

That was less than two years ago & its not one of the 15 breeds.


----------



## Guest

Talli said:


> Sleeping Lion.
> 
> You have such a passion about dogs and breeding. Your working history is apparent and ethical breeding practices appear to be your focus but why are you are in bed with a Cockapoo Lover and her puppet ?
> 
> With all the hype about Jemima why are so many forging links with self called Designer Dog brigade ?
> 
> These cross breeds (and I have one in the family too) are on the increase with little policing.
> 
> T


oops oh dear talli you seem to have gone a little quiet!!!! :biggrin5: TFFT now don`t forget to take yer red blobs with ya!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

DoodlesRule said:


> I can only speak from my own experience, having lost a dog at a very young age I did a great deal of research and was saddened that the same stud/lines appeared repeatedly. I thought I had at last found an ethical breeder & one who thought it would be healthier to diversify only for it to come out in conversation that the dams father was also her grandfather - whatever name its given to me its in-breeding.
> 
> I was assured it was "different" for dogs and that only very experienced breeders with a knowledge of genetics should undertake such a mating and the breeder was being mentored by the "top show breeder in the country". Many people may feel there was nothing wrong in that mating and I do not slate anyone who feels comfortable with that, I didn't so chose not to go ahead.
> 
> That was less than two years ago & its not one of the 15 breeds.


Do you know for certain the issue was related to the stud dog?

I too know of instances where I thought people were ethical, and found out unfortunately they simply don't have the standard of morals I initially thought. It's sad, but fortunately I know a lot more that are the very opposite! Which gives me hope there is some light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to the mess dog breeding and rescue is in.


----------



## leashedForLife

Snoringbear said:


> The Kennel Club definition of a roach back is *"Convex curvature of the back toward the loin"*.
> The degree is irrelevant.
> 
> In its extreme form it is also referred to as wheel-backed.


sadly, "wheel-backed" is part of the standard for English Bulldogs, & is part of the source of their 
*rolling* AKA drunken-sailor gait, which moves side-to-side in a swaying motion as the dog walks.

AKC champion - 








an AKC champ offered as a sire - 
LOOK at that toadlike skinny rear, vs his elbows-out massive forehand - 
also his face / head: a pronounced facial-fold, stenotic nares, & constricted ear-canals: 








the ad for the above dog - 
A KC ENGLISH BULLDOG FOR STUD SERVICE | Nuevo | eBay Classifieds (Kijiji) | 15258387 
listed Jan-19, 2012. *note* he's *not* a "KC" champ - the person who wrote the copy 
inserted a space between _A_ & _KC in _AKC champ.

the 2012 Westminster line-up of Brit bullies from the rear: 








a SLIDE-show of 53 photos from the 2012 WKC show can be seen here
Texas dog set to compete for best in show at Westminster Dog Show | Newswatch | a Chron.com blog

UK champs - 
listed as a stud: *look where his rump is, in relation to his withers*








a 2005 Crufts KC-champ offered at stud, side-on:


----------



## DoodlesRule

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Do you know for certain the issue was related to the stud dog?
> 
> I too know of instances where I thought people were ethical, and found out unfortunately they simply don't have the standard of morals I initially thought. It's sad, but fortunately I know a lot more that are the very opposite! Which gives me hope there is some light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to the mess dog breeding and rescue is in.


No I don't know definitely just wanted to try and eliminate as many risks as I possible could, its devastating to lose a dog so young. The over used stud did die quite young though, 6 years from memory, and it was not widely published just came across a report by chance. By no way I am saying its the same in all pedigrees as only looked into the one I wanted and it seemed nigh on impossible to get away from a particular line


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

DoodlesRule said:


> No I don't know definitely just wanted to try and eliminate as many risks as I possible could, its devastating to lose a dog so young. The over used stud did die quite young though, 6 years from memory, and it was not widely published just came across a report by chance. By no way I am saying its the same in all pedigrees as only looked into the one I wanted and it seemed nigh on impossible to get away from a particular line


But that's the same with many breeds, even Labradors, it's difficult to get away from a popular sire even within what many would think is a *large* gene pool, but there are still many healthy individuals. I know with chocolate Labs it's difficult to get away from a dog called Boothgates Headliner, and within working lines there are certain names that crop up again and again, Pocklea Remus is the first one that springs to mind. And even though we now know some of these dogs did definitely carry defects we can test for in the current day, many of their progeny are still very fit and healthy.

I think the concept that dogs that are related must be unhealthy is wrong, and that's something the PDE programme pretty much got into the heads of those who understand nothing about dog breeding. I'll try and find a link for a study that proved that closely related matings *could* be viable, not for dogs, but for guinea pigs I think, from memory


----------



## leashedForLife

5rivers79 said:


> My dogs arent doomed at all, in fact both lead very happy lives.


what i said, Rivers, was _*not*_ that Ur *dogs* were doomed, but that Sleeping-Lion's advice was - 
as see 


> originally posted by *leashedForLife* -
> 
> _...i fear *this sane advice is* another seed fallen upon stony ground, & *doomed* to die._





5rivers79 said:


> I don't ignore advice from those on here that give good advice to me, as given by some on this very thread.


at least 4 persons in 6 posts on another thread, all suggested that U *stop* encouraging mouthing 
in play, with both dogs - based on the video posted in that thread. i was only one of them.

in other threads, other posters have made suggestions which U belittled - including an Akita-rescuer 
in the UK who has massive experience with the breed, Akita behavior, & their problems in pet-homes. 
she can hardly be described as anti-Akita, as she lives with 2, both adoptees, a M & a F, 
& she works very diligently on the behalf of Akitas in the UK - in part, by advising Akita owners 
so that they avoid future problem behaviors, dogs being surrendered, dogs being charged 
as 'dangerous', & similar disasters.

no-one wants to see Ur dogs get in trouble with the law - & one innocent mouthing event in play 
with another person, is all that would take.

i'm sorry for detouring the thread,  but a novice owner who wants his large guarding breed 
to get into bite-sports, when he is already installing poor bite-inhibition & promoting casual 
tooth-contact with humans, is an immediate concern.

Rivers, i promise not to give U any more advice - wanted or unwanted. 
Good luck to the dogs.


----------



## cavmad

I know that the original programme was very on sided but it bought to the publics notice health problems in certain breeds. I can only really say about the cavs as they are the breed that i am interesteted in. Not many people knew about SM and most owners with dogs showing minor symptoms just thought that it was there dogs little quirks. Like scratching when you put the lead on as after a few minutes the symptoms stoped. Alot of vets didnt know much about SM i had to push my own vet to send me to a specialist as Pip used to air scratch abit and rubbed his face on furniture and sit and lick at his legs nothing major but enough to make me wonder why. After the 1st programme alot of cav owners went to the vets and sort help and alot of dogs were put on treatment which ment they didnt have to live a life of discomfort.I wish that the kennel club would only accept registrations of pups were the parent had up to date health checks and these were printed on the regisration forms which the owners get.The arguement that it would stop breeders from registering doesnt hold water because the breeders that show have to have their dogs registered to show them so they cant go else where. I know that the ethical breeders already do all the tests but it is very hard to find cav breeders that MRIscan the parents because alot of the breeders still wont admit there is a problem and even if the dogs are scanned will still use them because they can ignore the results and register the pups


----------



## Spellweaver

cavmad said:


> I know that the original programme was very on sided but it bought to the publics notice health problems in certain breeds. I can only really say about the cavs as they are the breed that i am interesteted in. Not many people knew about SM and most owners with dogs showing minor symptoms just thought that it was there dogs little quirks. Like scratching when you put the lead on as after a few minutes the symptoms stoped. Alot of vets didnt know much about SM i had to push my own vet to send me to a specialist as Pip used to air scratch abit and rubbed his face on furniture and sit and lick at his legs nothing major but enough to make me wonder why. After the 1st programme alot of cav owners went to the vets and sort help and alot of dogs were put on treatment which ment they didnt have to live a life of discomfort.I wish that the kennel club would only accept registrations of pups were the parent had up to date health checks and these were printed on the regisration forms which the owners get.The arguement that it would stop breeders from registering doesnt hold water because the breeders that show have to have their dogs registered to show them so they cant go else where. I know that the ethical breeders already do all the tests but it is very hard to find cav breeders that MRIscan the parents because alot of the breeders still wont admit there is a problem and even if the dogs are scanned will still use them because they can ignore the results and register the pups


Do you know, yours is the only post I have read that has made me think that PDE might actually have done a little good! If owners of cavs were unaware of SM, and it made them go to their vet and get help for their dogs, then at least a little bit of good came out of the program.

But I'd just like to add a couple of points:

Health checks of dam and sire (including hip scores and DNA screenings)_ are_ now printed on the registration forms. For example, on Xia's registration form it states their hip scores, the DNA tests they have had, and the conditions they are unaffected by because there are none in their lines.

This might actually stop breeders from registering. I understand what you mean about show breeders, but as with most pedigree breeds, show breeders of cavs are in the minority. Most breeders do not show and so the fact that they could not show if not registered would be immaterial to them.


----------



## pod

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But that's the same with many breeds, even Labradors, it's difficult to get away from a popular sire even within what many would think is a *large* gene pool, but there are still many healthy individuals. I know with chocolate Labs it's difficult to get away from a dog called Boothgates Headliner, and within working lines there are certain names that crop up again and again, Pocklea Remus is the first one that springs to mind. And even though we now know some of these dogs did definitely carry defects we can test for in the current day, many of their progeny are still very fit and healthy.
> 
> I think the concept that dogs that are related must be unhealthy is wrong, and that's something the PDE programme pretty much got into the heads of those who understand nothing about dog breeding. I'll try and find a link for a study that proved that closely related matings *could* be viable, not for dogs, but for guinea pigs I think, from memory


I don't think anyone is saying that all inbred dogs/animals are unhealthy, just that increased COI correlates with increasing ill health and shortened lifespan.

There have been instances of prolonged inbreeding of rodents over many generation where rigorous selection has whittled away all unhealthy stock to leave pure, almost totally homozygous breeding stock suited only to very specific living conditions. But this could hardly be interpreted as 'healthy breeding' when you consider all of the culled stock, and certainly not something that would be considered ethical in dog breeding.

I think that with breeds like the Labrador with such a massive population worldwide there are probably many possibilities of outcross breeding that are never considered because of 'type.' Show breeders tend only to look within the show scene. It just needs a few influential breeders to see the working type in a new light.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

DoodlesRule said:


> No I don't know definitely just wanted to try and eliminate as many risks as I possible could, its devastating to lose a dog so young. The over used stud did die quite young though, 6 years from memory, and it was not widely published just came across a report by chance. By no way I am saying its the same in all pedigrees as only looked into the one I wanted and it seemed nigh on impossible to get away from a particular line


I've searched and searched for that blinkin' link and I cannot for the life of me see it, I will try and find it, I may have to phone a friend!


----------



## emmaviolet

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think the concept that dogs that are related must be unhealthy is wrong, and that's something the PDE programme pretty much got into the heads of those who understand nothing about dog breeding. I'll try and find a link for a study that proved that closely related matings *could* be viable, not for dogs, but for guinea pigs I think, from memory


i have not been involved with this great debate but will say to this that you are right.

of course if you mate dogs that are closely related with health problems in the line it will produce dogs with this to a larger degree, if however you mate two dogs who are closely related but are a great example of the breed and perfect health etc you will be enhancing these features.

it depends on the quality of the sire and bitch and their gene pool.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Found the link!

Cynologist » The importance and development of the Prepotent Sire


----------



## cavmad

Sorry spellweaver showing my ignorence again but its a good thing that the results are on show for everyone can see.As i said i know the original programme did alot of damage but it did do a bit of good as the vets had to read up on SM as well and now it seems that most are aware off all the latest treatments and that alot of research has been done. I hope that they can reduce the numbers getting SM as although i love the breed i will think rwice about getting another one until i can be sure that i wont lose another one aged only 6yrs it has really devastatd me


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> As you see it. Well, there are none so blind as those who will not see, as the saying goes.


On that we can definately agree. 



> For me, you shot your credibility to pieces when you started to malign a closed group, of which you are not a member, and of which you admit you know nothing.


No I said I judge by what was visible at the time to the outside world. A group is judged not normally by the best examples but the worst, even if those worst elements are shunned within the group. Don't like criticism, don't let problems develop in the first place. When criticized make sure you acknowledge faults and highlight what you will do to correct them. The response "We were doing something..." is meaningless as it's too late.

Please post where I am inaccurate:
FACT: Certain breeds have health problems linked to showing and/or "standards".
FACT: The KC as the overall "overseer" allowed health problems to develop over time. 
FACT: PDE pointed out these faults to the general public. 
FACT: By calling the entire program a farce you are dismissing all the issues raised, thereby supporting the idea that there was nothing wrong in the first place.

By all means criticize the issues which you feel important about and misrepresented. I may be able to agree with this line of thought but do not dismiss the entire program.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Goblin said:


> On that we can definately agree.
> 
> No I said I judge by what was visible at the time to the outside world. A group is judged not normally by the best examples but the worst, even if those worst elements are shunned within the group. Don't like criticism, don't let problems develop in the first place. When criticized make sure you acknowledge faults and highlight what you will do to correct them. The response "We were doing something..." is meaningless as it's too late.
> 
> Please post where I am inaccurate:
> FACT: Certain breeds have health problems linked to showing and/or "standards".
> FACT: The KC as the overall "overseer" allowed health problems to develop over time.
> FACT: PDE pointed out these faults to the general public.
> FACT: By calling the entire program a farce you are dismissing all the issues raised, thereby supporting the idea that there was nothing wrong in the first place.
> 
> By all means criticize the issues which you feel important about and misrepresented. I may be able to agree with this line of thought but do not dismiss the entire program.


Sorry, just about to dish tea out for me and the OH, but I just had to say, the programme didn't point these issues out to the general public first, the information was there, what they did was shove it under the nose of the general public in a way that would create complete prejudice against all pedigree breeds and breeders, and that is the crux of the whole thing. The KC with the AHT had been working on health problems for many years prior, but none of that is/was known.

And that one programme in isolation, with no other information about cross breeds, puppy farmers, byb's etc, etc, etc, has done such a lot of damage. Yes, there have been issues raised about health conditions, but for me, unfortunately, not in the right way, no matter what small amount of good they've done.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> Please post where I am inaccurate:


Oh, I'll be glad to! I'll put my comments in red:



Goblin said:


> FACT: The KC as the overall "overseer" allowed health problems to develop over time.
> 
> Inaccurate in that your statement does not tell the whole truth and hence gives an incorrect picture (much the same as PDE did) In order for your statement to be accurate you need to add "however, the KC noticed the problem several years ago and has been working with the breed clubs to eradicate them since well before PDE was conceived."
> 
> FACT: PDE pointed out these faults to the general public.
> 
> Inaccurate. PDE pointed out faults in a boxer who had epilepsy and a CKC who couldn't walk and was in dreadful pain because it was suffering with SM - neither of whom were show bred (and so had not been bred to breed standards for showing) It then showed one show bred GSD. On this flimsy evidence it then went on to lead the public to believe that ALL pedigree show dogs were unhealthy.
> 
> FACT: By calling the entire program a farce who are dismissing all the issues raised, thereby supporting the idea that there was nothing wrong in the first place.
> 
> Inaccurate on two counts. Firstly, the program misled people and so was indeed a farce. Secondly, the viewpoint that PDE did not raise any issues which were not already known does not imply the pretence that nothing was wrong in the first place. Rather, it shows a knowledge that things were wrong and things were already being done to put them right.


There you go. Now you can see your inaccuracies. Just ask if you have any more that you want straightening out. Always glad to help!


----------



## simplysardonic

Article from the Daily Mail, not sure if it's been posted already so apologies if it has
Leading vet calls for pugs and bulldogs ban because the pedigree dogs often struggle to breathe | Mail Online


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> Oh, I'll be glad to! I'll put my comments in red:


I think I'll simply let people decide what they believe. My facts as an outside observer or your interpretation of them to match what you want people to believe.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> I think I'll simply let people decide what they believe. My facts as an outside observer or your interpretation of them to match what you want people to believe.


Oh, I'm more than happy for you to leave things exactly as they are so that people can compare my truth to your your spin.


----------



## Goblin

I have no need for spin unlike those who have a vested interest and this is where the crux of the matter lies.


----------



## Shrap

Goblin said:


> I have no need for spin unlike those who have a vested interest and this is where the crux of the matter lies.


What does a vested interest actually entail? I'm with Sleeping Lion on this one and my only "interest" is owning a pedigree dog.
Then again I do have interest in stopping BYBs and PFs, and this programme pushed puppy buyers into their arms.


----------



## Starlite

my havent you all been busy! 

PDE2 i will need to watch, if gonna badmouth it i'll do it in detail (joke!)

Tis amasing what the masses fall for IMO, think we should petition the BBC to show it on a prime time slot like they did last time!!


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> I have no need for spin unlike those who have a vested interest and this is where the crux of the matter lies.


:lol: :lol: And what sort of vested interest do you imagine I have? :lol: :lol: I own and show two breeds - bergamaschi and border collies - neither of which were featured in the program. Scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to find excuses now, aren't you? :lol: :lol:

Oh, - wait - did you mean my "vested interest" was the fact that my friend's bergamasco was pictured in the opening part of the show with JH's voice over decrying what "man" had done to dogs - despite the fact that the bergamasco is untouched by man, has NO health problems whatsoever, and has looked the way it looks now for over 3000 years. Is that what you mean by my vested interest?

ETA just by the by, I've noticed that every time I reply to one of your posts, you have to go offline before you can come back with an answer. It's a good job I'm not paranoid otherwise I might be thinking you are going elsewhere for someone else to come up with your answers for you .................


----------



## Shrap

Whoops I meant Spellweaver not Sleeping Lion! Sorry Spellweaver lol!!


----------



## shetlandlover

What sort of vested interest might that be?

The pedigree breeders who have taken part on this thread fully health test and do their up-most to promote healthy pedigree dogs. None work for the kennel club. So why would they be against a program promoting health in pedigree dogs?

Oh.................


Maybe because it was not fair in viewpoint. It was one sided, sensationalist and misleading. I watched it, before I had my dogs and was left feeling that ALL show pedigree dogs were sick and unhealthy. If it was honest instead of just sensationalist then many pedigree breeders would promote the program.


----------



## Spellweaver

Starlite said:


> my havent you all been busy!
> 
> PDE2 i will need to watch, if gonna badmouth it i'll do it in detail (joke!)
> 
> Tis amasing what the masses fall for IMO, think we should petition the BBC to show it on a prime time slot like they did last time!!


I think the fact that it's not on prime time TV like the last one, that this time it's shoved away on a minor channel on a Monday night - and in addition scheduled against a popular drama on ITV and a popular series on BBC1 - speaks volumes.  It's not likely to catch many casual viewers, is it? It's almost as if the BBC are ashamed of it and don't really want it to be seen!


----------



## Spellweaver

Ah well folks - can't wait for Goblin to get back from whatever oracle he's been to this time for his replies - got to go to bed cos I'm at work tomorrow. Probably won't have time to be on here before PDE2, so enjoy rolleyes the program and no doubt we'll be on here discussing it afterwards.


----------



## leashedForLife

i only wish i could see the program... No doubt it will get to UTube eventually, but that might be months away. 
 BBC is not user-friendly to overseas folks.


----------



## 5rivers79

Apologies for derailing this thread



leashedForLife said:


> at least 4 persons in 6 posts on another thread, all suggested that U *stop* encouraging mouthing
> in play, with both dogs - based on the video posted in that thread. i was only one of them.
> 
> Why cant i play with my dogs how *i want*?
> 
> in other threads, other posters have made suggestions which U belittled - including an Akita-rescuer
> in the UK who has massive experience with the breed, Akita behavior, & their problems in pet-homes.
> she can hardly be described as anti-Akita, as she lives with 2, both adoptees, a M & a F,
> & she works very diligently on the behalf of Akitas in the UK - in part, by advising Akita owners
> 
> Please show me that post and how i *belittled* her
> 
> so that they avoid future problem behaviors, dogs being surrendered, dogs being charged
> as 'dangerous', & similar disasters.
> 
> no-one wants to see Ur dogs get in trouble with the law - & one innocent mouthing event in play
> with another person, is all that would take.
> 
> How would that even occur? I dont let strangers come up to my dogs and handle them unless i give them permission. Sam is always onlead unless im perfectly sure a) no one is nearby b) he wont run away from me.
> 
> i'm sorry for detouring the thread,  but a novice owner who wants his large guarding breed
> to get into bite-sports, when he is already installing poor bite-inhibition & promoting casual
> tooth-contact with humans, is an immediate concern.
> 
> If i *wanted *to get him into bite work i could easily take him to any less than reputable trainer and get Sam biting.
> 
> Poor bite inhibition? Really?? You can judge that from a couple of videos iv got on youtube? Promoting tooth contact on 'humans'? You can actually tell that i teach Sam to use his teeth on *other* people without even being here and observing his behaviour around other people?
> 
> Rivers, i promise not to give U any more advice - wanted or unwanted.
> Good luck to the dogs.


Look, i dont mind advice from anyone on here, that is why at times i ask for it. I dont personally know anyone on here to belittle or ridicule them. BUT what i wont have is people that dont know me, people that have never met my dogs, people that have never met me and watched how i interact with my dogs, apart from a couple 30 second videos, ridicule how i train, play and raise my dogs. 

Anyway...



leashedForLife said:


> i only wish i could see the program... No doubt it will get to UTube eventually, but that might be months away.
> BBC is not user-friendly to overseas folks.


You can probably watch it on BBC iPlayer - iPlayer TV Home after it has aired on tv.


----------



## Mrs White

leashedForLife said:


> i only wish i could see the program... No doubt it will get to UTube eventually, but that might be months away.
> BBC is not user-friendly to overseas folks.


Same here

What's worse is I'm sure it's floating about the 'net (like all docus) but tucked away somewhere the unsavvy likes of me will never find


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

5rivers79 I've seen two videos and haven't looked for them I might add, of different people and Sammy jumping up and mouthing them, one of them could have been you, I wouldn't like to second guess tbh. What would you do if you gave permission for someone to approach Sammy, and he jumped up and tried to *play* with them in the way you have encouraged him to do, and that person then accused your dog of attacking them, and perhaps had a witness to corroborate what they were saying. If someone saw your dog jumping up at their friend and mouthing them, it could look very different to how you interpret it, and it's your dog that's at risk. So teaching him to mouth you and your friends/family is just not a good idea. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to get involved with bite work, ask for recommendations on here from the working trials folk for good classes so he knows there is a time and a place. I will say the worrying thing about the two short videos I saw were they were completely informal and in different surroundings (looked to be a garden and a park), which could well mean your dog has no concept of when and where it's not ok for that behaviour. That is why people on here are worried that you don't grasp what a dangerous situation you could have placed your dog in by inadvertently teaching him this behaviour. Yes, he's your dog, but do you not think it's a bit selfish to teach a breed with such a poor reputation that sort of behaviour? After all, it's not your life at risk if something goes wrong, all the negative consequences are going to be to Sammy should anything happen, and I don't mean that to sound nasty in any way, I know you *care* very much about Sammy but you really need to think what's best for him and not just what you get out of the relationship


----------



## Snoringbear

leashedForLife said:


> i only wish i could see the program... No doubt it will get to UTube eventually, but that might be months away.
> BBC is not user-friendly to overseas folks.





Mrs White said:


> Same here
> 
> What's worse is I'm sure it's floating about the 'net (like all docus) but tucked away somewhere the unsavvy likes of me will never find


You can watch iPlayer outside of the UK by using a proxy server situated in the UK. Plenty of info on Google.


----------



## Snoringbear

Telegraph article:

Crufts hit by row over health of pedigree dogs - Telegraph

Express:

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/304550/In-pursuit-of-beauty


----------



## Goblin

Shrap said:


> What does a vested interest actually entail? I'm with Sleeping Lion on this one and my only "interest" is owning a pedigree dog.
> Then again I do have interest in stopping BYBs and PFs, and this programme pushed puppy buyers into their arms.


Why is that? Could it be that the KC didn't inform the public as they should have done before and after the program? Even now years later the impression is one of trying to close ranks and hide facts. It's this attitude which pushes people away. If the KC and breed clubs came out with "We messed up but are fixing it" trust would have been restored a lot quicker. If the "Dogs a healthy future" video was made and released 6 months after PDE it would have restored confidence. What impression does taking 3-4 years make? It's not necessarily the KC, in fact I feel they are now trying to be more open but it's probably a minority of those who fail to take on board that they are ambassadors for the KC on the internet be it on things like facebook or forums.



Spellweaver said:


> :lol: :lol: And what sort of vested interest do you imagine I have? :lol: :lol:* I own and show* two breeds - bergamaschi and border collies - neither of which were featured in the program. Scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to find excuses now, aren't you? :lol: :lol:


However you do have a vested interest as you feel your image was tarnished. You infer you are in the "closed group" being tarnished. If that is not vested interest I do not know what is.

On the other hand I do not have a pedigree dog, even if I have a pedigree breed (although a rescue). PDE didn't influence any acquisition of my dogs. I can answer and post as someone not affected personally by the program. Who is less biased? If you want to reach out to Joe Public if anything I am the sort of person the KC needs to convince that they are the right people to sort the problems out.



> ETA just by the by, I've noticed that every time I reply to one of your posts, you have to go offline before you can come back with an answer. It's a good job I'm not paranoid otherwise I might be thinking you are going elsewhere for someone else to come up with your answers for you


Some people have a life outside petforums and comments like that, along with others I haven't responded to, trying to belittle people simply harms any chance of meaningful discussion and lessens my opinion of you and therefore your discussion points.


----------



## Shrap

I'll see if I can download a programme that lets me take a video screenshot of my laptop and record BBC iplayer's video then upload it somewhere online for everyone. Might not be able to though. (Anyone that knows how please feel free to PM me!)


----------



## Goblin

Shrap said:


> I'll see if I can download a programme that lets me take a video screenshot of my laptop and record BBC iplayer's video then upload it somewhere online for everyone. Might not be able to though. (Anyone that knows how please feel free to PM me!)


I think many of us outside the UK would appreciate it although I expect other copies will float around the web quite quickly. You can get browser extensions for firefox which will allow you to download videos from youtube etc but I expect they will not work with the BBC iplayer. Would make life too easy


----------



## Mrs White

Shrap said:


> I'll see if I can download a programme that lets me take a video screenshot of my laptop and record BBC iplayer's video then upload it somewhere online for everyone. Might not be able to though. (Anyone that knows how please feel free to PM me!)


That would be excellent! Very kind of you to do such a thing


----------



## 5rivers79

Sleeping_Lion said:


> 5rivers79 I've seen two videos and haven't looked for them I might add, of different people and Sammy jumping up and mouthing them, one of them could have been you, I wouldn't like to second guess tbh.
> 
> Im the family camerman so all videos would include me lol im assuming the second vid is my dad with Sam up on him lol?
> 
> What would you do if you gave permission for someone to approach Sammy, and he jumped up and tried to *play* with them in the way you have encouraged him to do
> 
> Sam has not played with strangers in such a way so far and has shown no intention of mouthing anyone else so far either. He has met a whole host of people including vets, who have had to open his mouth and put their hands inside. He has met my friends who have had to walk him on first meetings, within a couple mins of knowing him and he has not mouthed them either.
> 
> and that person then accused your dog of attacking them, and perhaps had a witness to corroborate what they were saying. If someone saw your dog jumping up at their friend and mouthing them, it could look very different to how you interpret it, and it's your dog that's at risk.
> 
> Sam doesnt jump up and greet people he doesnt know and besides, since the day he got attacked by the pitt he doesnt want people approaching him anyway so i dont let them unless i know them and what they are like.
> 
> He will let strangers walk past us, but the minute any stranger begins talking to me Sam starts barking and woo wooing at them so i just dont let him get near to anyone that doesnt know us anymore
> 
> That is why people on here are worried that you don't grasp what a dangerous situation you could have placed your dog in by inadvertently teaching him this behaviour.
> 
> Honeslty Sleeping Lion, i know you are advising me because we like and care about each other's dogs on here, after all we are all dog/pet lovers on here. So i really appreciate your concern
> 
> After all, it's not your life at risk if something goes wrong
> 
> He is a part of my family and a part of my life and if i thought there was anything of concern i would put a stop to it immediately
> 
> I know you *care* very much about Sammy but you really need to think what's best for him and not just what you get out of the relationship
> 
> If i stop wrestling with him it would be like telling a retriever not to retrieve imo. He enjoys it! But honestly he doesnt go around doing it with strangers and id never put him in a position where he would do that either
> 
> I will look further into classes to exercise him as i think his body is strong and mature enough to handle it.


I appreciate very much the advice you are giving me, but honestly if you see another video of me playing with my dogs it doesnt mean im ignoring your advice or throwing it back in your face..it just means me and my dogs are enjoying each other's company at that particular moment in time.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

It's good to hear he doesn't try the mouthing with strangers, only those he's familiar with, and I'm glad you've taken my post in the right way, it is out of concern as you have admitted yourself that you're a novice dog owner and would like to learn. That's not to say that his behaviour might change unexpectedly, as I've posted elsewhere, dogs aren't robots (well mine aren't). I hope at least the concerns that people have raised about the mouthing has sort of given you a perspective as to how it *could* go wrong if that behaviour spills over to another person or dog he doesn't really know, at the very least you can bear that in mind 

Right, must go get fires started and work done! Might even watch the PDE programme tonight, just so I can comment on it having actually seen it! Anyone know what time it's one exactly?


----------



## Guest

it`s on at 9pm


----------



## Shrap

Right I've got my software and i've tested it out. You guys will just need to wait until it's on BBC iplayer and then I'll record it and..... either upload it to a website or I can email it to anyone. It's .mpg file type.


----------



## SpringerHusky

Shrap said:


> Right I've got my software and i've tested it out. You guys will just need to wait until it's on BBC iplayer and then I'll record it and..... either upload it to a website or I can email it to anyone. It's .mpg file type.


Put my name on that list my husband in usa and friend in canada both want to see it.

Youtube is usually your best bet-make a new account or something as it may get removed.


----------



## Spellweaver

Spellweaver said:


> ETA just by the by, I've noticed that every time I reply to one of your posts, you have to go offline before you can come back with an answer. It's a good job I'm not paranoid otherwise I might be thinking you are going elsewhere for someone else to come up with your answers for you .................





Goblin said:


> Some people have a life outside petforums and comments like that, along with others I haven't responded to, trying to belittle people simply harms any chance of meaningful discussion and lessens my opinion of you and therefore your discussion points.


And some people obviously have no sense of humour :lol:



Goblin said:


> However you do have a vested interest as you feel your image was tarnished. You infer you are in the "closed group" being tarnished. If that is not vested interest I do not know what is.


Just for the record, I did not *infer* I was in the closed group - I stated quite clearly that I *was* in the closed group. And so are quite a few other people on this forum. That's how I (and others) know you were writing nonsense and were merely making things up when you were maligning them. But what has any of that got to do with a vested interest in the KC, which was what you were talking about?



Goblin said:


> On the other hand I do not have a pedigree dog, even if I have a pedigree breed (although a rescue). PDE didn't influence any acquisition of my dogs. I can answer and post as someone not affected personally by the program. Who is less biased? If you want to reach out to Joe Public if anything I am the sort of person the KC needs to convince that they are the right people to sort the problems out.


Well, you say all this - but how can we know that is true? You have already shown that you post things that are not true when you tried to pretend you knew what the members of a closed group on the internet said/felt/thought/supported. As I said when you first posted, having been caught out pretending you know things that you don't, how can you expect anyone to believe anything else you say?

Sorry, would love to stay and chat but I've got to dash - I'm at work and my dinner half hour is finshed.


----------



## majortom

pickle said:


> Let's just see in a few years time what problems these so called "designer breeds" and deliberate breed crosses have, after all aren't those who breed them doing exactly what the pedigree breeders are being accused of!!!!


you are so right, but ofcourse JH is not interested in all the backyard and puppy farmers who are breeding these so called designer dogs
,its because of the first programme, so many have jumped on the breeding bandwagon, and charging the earth for these crossbreeds.
why would you cross say a chinese crested with a sharpei, or a staffy or a boxer ,yet some one did and sprouted off that they had no health problems,and charging more for pups than even the pure pups were sold at,
same as so many of the crosses being bred, 
most pedigree breeders i know health test for what is required for that breed, and endorse pups not to be breed from, tho lifting endorsements if certain critira met, heath tests and showing ,
hoping this will stop the puppy farmers .
there are rouges in any breed and mostly in the designer cross breeds ,cos their breeders do not have a clue, all are in it for 1 reason, cash ,
i dont expect anything dif in this 2nd programme to the first, she will just try to cause a sensation in what ever she does,
pity she does not consentrate on the designer cross breeders she encoureged to flood the uk with lots of unwanted dogs and fill up the rescue centres, cos these type of breeders never take back once they got their cash.
pity joe public have been taken in by her crap,


----------



## Shrap

majortom said:


> you are so right, but ofcourse JH is not interested in all the backyard and puppy farmers who are breeding these so called designer dogs
> ,its because of the first programme, so many have jumped on the breeding bandwagon, and charging the earth for these crossbreeds.
> why would you cross say a chinese crested with a sharpei, or a staffy or a boxer ,yet some one did and sprouted off that they had no health problems,and charging more for pups than even the pure pups were sold at,
> same as so many of the crosses being bred,
> most pedigree breeders i know health test for what is required for that breed, and endorse pups not to be breed from, tho lifting endorsements if certain critira met, heath tests and showing ,
> hoping this will stop the puppy farmers .
> there are rouges in any breed and mostly in the designer cross breeds ,cos their breeders do not have a clue, all are in it for 1 reason, cash ,
> i dont expect anything dif in this 2nd programme to the first, she will just try to cause a sensation in what ever she does,
> pity she does not consentrate on the designer cross breeders she encoureged to flood the uk with lots of unwanted dogs and fill up the rescue centres, cos these type of breeders never take back once they got their cash.
> pity joe public have been taken in by her crap,


Yup I see labradoodle puppies from un health tested parents going for £700+ all the time. That's more than I paid for my west german showline GSD pup from 5 gens of low hip scores, parents breed surveyed, and both have working qualifications. How on earth can they justify that price for pet bred dogs, no matter what the breed?


----------



## Bijou

> If the KC and breed clubs came out with "We messed up but are fixing it" trust would have been restored a lot quicker.


ummm...define 'messed up ' ? - if it were not for dedicated show breeders we would not have most of the over 200 individual breeds of dogs we currently enjoy, who else out there is breeding Borzois, Gordon Setters or Deerhounds - who else is ensuring we still have our rare native breeds such as the Dandie Dinmont or the Glen of Imaal ? - who else is collating data and doing most of the health testing , who else is importing new lines and using frozen semen to widen gene pools and who else is sitting on helath committees and investing millions of pounds on research ? - .....certainly not Jemima Harrison and her cronies at the RSPCA !.

I take offence at the implication that because I breed pedigree dogs , KC register them and am proud enough of what I breed to have them assessed by others ( shown ) that I have 'messed up' and should now 'confess' - Hell No !! - without breeders such as mysalf you simply would'nt HAVE individual breeds at all :


----------



## rocco33

> He will let strangers walk past us, but the minute any stranger begins talking to me Sam starts barking and woo wooing at them so i just dont let him get near to anyone that doesnt know us anymore


This is a cause for concern. What happens if you are not in the position to stop people coming near him?

I think the worry is that you do not seem to understand the implications of what you are allowing regarding behaviour.

Your dog is a breed that is not the easiest, is not yet an adult dog so will still display puppylike behaviours and is entire. I'm not familiar with Akitas but my breed don't fully mentally mature until around 2 - 3 years of age and it is not until he is much older that you will see the true effects of the behaviours you are allowing. Is Sam your first dog? If so, then he may look adult now, but he is far from it mentally, and an adult dog can be quite different from a puppy/adolescent. It's worth mentioning too, that many 'adult' dogs are neutered so don't display adult male behaviours, but you plan to leave him entire, so I think it will still be a year or two before you see the real effects of what you are allowing him to do and the fact he is already barking at strangers is alarming.


----------



## DoodlesRule

majortom said:


> you are so right, but ofcourse JH is not interested in all the backyard and puppy farmers who are breeding these so called designer dogs
> ,its because of the first programme, so many have jumped on the breeding bandwagon, and charging the earth for these crossbreeds.
> why would you cross say a chinese crested with a sharpei, or a staffy or a boxer ,yet some one did and sprouted off that they had no health problems,and charging more for pups than even the pure pups were sold at,
> same as so many of the crosses being bred,
> most pedigree breeders i know health test for what is required for that breed, and endorse pups not to be breed from, tho lifting endorsements if certain critira met, heath tests and showing ,
> hoping this will stop the puppy farmers .
> there are rouges in any breed and mostly in the designer cross breeds ,cos their breeders do not have a clue, all are in it for 1 reason, cash ,
> i dont expect anything dif in this 2nd programme to the first, she will just try to cause a sensation in what ever she does,
> pity she does not consentrate on the designer cross breeders she encoureged to flood the uk with lots of unwanted dogs and fill up the rescue centres, cos these type of breeders never take back once they got their cash.
> pity joe public have been taken in by her crap,


I think you will find that crossbreeds, "designer" or otherwise, have been around a lot longer than PDE. There are both good and downright awful breeders in both crosses AND pedigrees its not exclusive to either.

I fail to see your point anway, you may as well moan that the programme made no mention of cat breeders or the treatment of elderly people in care homes - the programme was about pedigree show breeding practises.

I believe if you do a tiny bit of research the general consensus is that rescues are "flooded" with Staffies.



Shrap said:


> Yup I see labradoodle puppies from un health tested parents going for £700+ all the time. That's more than I paid for my west german showline GSD pup from 5 gens of low hip scores, parents breed surveyed, and both have working qualifications. How on earth can they justify that price for pet bred dogs, no matter what the breed?


How many pedigree puppies from un-health tested parents are sold too at similar prices? As above its not exclusive to either side. Presumably they sell for the amount people are willing to pay, I have seen a lot of british bulldogs being advertised at £1500 to £2000 I would not pay that but who I am to criticise anyone or does.

So are you saying that whether its a suitable breed or not people should buy a german showline GSD simply because its cheaper? I doubt you are, so the constant reference to crosses and their prices looks as though money is the main beef - it comes across to the general public that show breeders/owners are miffed because they feel people are buying crosses instead of the show bred pups. Constantly trying to deflect like this does little to further your cause.

There are a handful of people who are swayed by the media but I don't believe most are - if you were going to buy a pedigree you still would, it may have encouraged people to ask more questions and research more but surely that is not a bad thing


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> Just for the record, I did not *infer* I was in the closed group
> ...
> But what has any of that got to do with a vested interest in the KC, which was what you were talking about?


Have you actually thought about what you are saying. You've stated criticism leveled at the group you belong to is a personal attack on the individuals within the group. And you don't see that as a vested interest? Criticism wasn't just levelled at the KC.



> Well, you say all this - but how can we know that is true? You have already shown that you post things that are not true when you tried to pretend you knew what the members of a closed group on the internet said/felt/thought/supported.


Another sideline attempt to discredit either myself or simply what I am posting as you simply don't want to hear what I have stated. A lot of people know my dogs on this forum and I make no qualms about them, one is a cross (beagle/cocker), the others are rescues, 2 bulldogs, an Old English and American and recently a Hovawart. The American Bulldog and the Hovawart we had after PDE. I'm not fanatical about specific breeds although wanted a Hovawart at some point. I'm not anti "pedigree" although, personally I don't care about certificates as I don't intend to ever breed. I feel strongly about PDE only as I feel and have stated I believe it pushed the pace of change.

I've also stated those outside the closed group can only judge by what is shown to those on the outside. How is this knowing what is happening inside the group. This is what the group is judged by and normally the worst parts. I never said I knew what was happening on the inside of closed groups. In fact that's why I called them closed groups. Instead you complain "we were doing something" and expect everyone to say "that's ok then". Love to know what would have happened in regards to politicians expenses if they said that. Do you think the issue would have been left alone and politicians would have been allowed to carry on as normal? People don't trust closed groups and for good reasons unless they are open about what they do behind closed doors.

Edit: Actually I lie, all our dogs were after the initial airing of PDE. What I have stated is true to when I first became aware of PDE.


----------



## comfortcreature

Snoringbear said:


> You can watch iPlayer outside of the UK by using a proxy server situated in the UK. Plenty of info on Google.


What is a proxy server and how do I access one situated in the UK? I am in Canada.

Is it like a youtube site? If so could someone link to a UK proxy server site?

I googled Iplayer and finally know what that is.

I googled and found this about proxy servers but it makes no sense to me. http://www.anonymous-proxies.org/2009/02/using-iplayer-abroad-viewing-bbc-via.html

CC


----------



## Shrap

DoodlesRule said:


> I think you will find that crossbreeds, "designer" or otherwise, have been around a lot longer than PDE. There are both good and downright awful breeders in both crosses AND pedigrees its not exclusive to either.
> 
> I fail to see your point anway, you may as well moan that the programme made no mention of cat breeders or the treatment of elderly people in care homes - the programme was about pedigree show breeding practises.
> 
> I believe if you do a tiny bit of research the general consensus is that rescues are "flooded" with Staffies.
> 
> How many pedigree puppies from un-health tested parents are sold too at similar prices? As above its not exclusive to either side. Presumably they sell for the amount people are willing to pay, I have seen a lot of british bulldogs being advertised at £1500 to £2000 I would not pay that but who I am to criticise anyone or does.
> 
> So are you saying that whether its a suitable breed or not people should buy a german showline GSD simply because its cheaper? I doubt you are, so the constant reference to crosses and their prices looks as though money is the main beef - it comes across to the general public that show breeders/owners are miffed because they feel people are buying crosses instead of the show bred pups. Constantly trying to deflect like this does little to further your cause.
> 
> There are a handful of people who are swayed by the media but I don't believe most are - if you were going to buy a pedigree you still would, it may have encouraged people to ask more questions and research more but surely that is not a bad thing


The mention of £700 labradoodles is merely to demonstrate that crossbreeds have become "designer". I did not say everyone should get WGSL GSDs  Far from it. The requirements of a labradoodle are far less than my boy who needs around 3 hours free running most days with an hour training. A lot of people wouldn't keep up with that.

If you read my post I did say that I don't think anyone could justify that price for a pet bred dog of any breed.
I also said nowhere that only crossbreeds are badly bred. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Most people I talk to spout lies from PDE exposed actually.


----------



## DoodlesRule

Shrap said:


> Most people I talk to spout lies from PDE exposed actually.


Most people I talk to haven't seen it/never heard of it lol


----------



## Goblin

Bijou said:


> ummm...define 'messed up ' ?


As the overall body responsible for all breeds the KC messed up by allowing those breeds with problems to get to the state they were to begin with.

I've also stated that you are judged if you belong to a group by the worst elements not the best. Indirectly everyone in the group is responsible for the standard across all elements within that group.

The variety of breeds is a red herring to the discussion. There are other breeds supported by breed clubs not recognized by the KC which keep databases. I do not know how many also push for health testing but I would imagine it is not that uncommon for breeds which have been established for a lengthy period of time. Finance I would expect to also play a major role.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> I never said I knew what was happening on the inside of closed groups. In fact that's why I called them closed groups.


Yes you did. You said that the enclosed group accepted the very practices PDE sought to expose:



Goblin said:


> Something to remember is those who voice support for PDE are frequently outside the enclosed group which accepted the very practices PDE sought to expose.


Despite all your semantic wriggling about indiividual members of a group etc etc, you still posted that untrue item - an item of which you have no knowledge - as a fact that you pretended to know. The closed group have not accepted those practices - either as a group, or as individuals within that group.



Goblin said:


> Have you actually thought about what you are saying. You've stated criticism leveled at the group you belong to is a personal attack on the individuals within the group. And you don't see that as a vested interest?


I repeat - what has my membership of a closed internet group - in fact, what has any reply I have made to you about a closed internet group - got to do with a vested interest in the KC? I noticed you have avoided answering that question.



Goblin said:


> People don't trust closed groups and for good reasons unless they are open about what they do behind closed doors.


Hmmm. Like the "We support PDE2" closed internet group, for example? 

As the closed internet group you were maligning has nothing to do with you - apart from the fact that you feel you can state wrong things about it on an open forum - why are you getting hot under the collar about it? Apply to join it, if you want to know about it.



Goblin said:


> Instead you complain "we were doing something" and expect everyone to say "that's ok then".


I don't really know what you mean by this. What is this "we" that you supposedly quote me as having said? If you mean I have said the KC were doing something about it, I have furnished proof by saying what they have done and suggesting people read their website and find ut just exactly what they have been doing for dogs over the years.

As for my trying to discredit you - what nonsense. I'm not trying to do that at all. There is no need - you are doing a perfectly good enough job all by yourself.

Would write more but my coffee break is over.


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> Yes you did. You said that the enclosed group accepted the very practices PDE sought to expose


How long were health issues ongoing without changing, getting worse. It was allowed to get to that state and not acted upon. Not acting upon it in a timely manner is, even if indirectly, supporting it.



> I repeat - what has my membership of a closed internet group - in fact, what has any reply I have made to you about a closed internet group - got to do with a vested interest in the KC?


PDE did not just criticize the KC.



> Hmmm. Like the "We support PDE2" closed internet group, for example?


Hmmm  Until I see the program how am I supposed to judge it? I am a pro PDE supporter as I believe it forced the pace of change although it was biased (something I've previously said). Then again things exposing scandals normally are and to me and many others, the state some breeds are/were is a scandal.



> As the closed internet group you were maligning has nothing to do with you - apart from the fact that you feel you can state wrong things about it on an open forum - why are you getting hot under the collar about it? Apply to join it, if you want to know about it.


So the only way I can see and hear about things is to become a member of a group I have no respect for... So much for being more open and informing people outside the group. Also if you haven't already seen I live in a different country and have enough on my plate. None of this invalidates the points I raise.



> If you mean I have said the KC were doing something about it, I have furnished proof by saying what they have done and suggesting people read their website and find ut just exactly what they have been doing for dogs over the years.


When were the new standards for bulldogs brought in, before or after PDE? Why couldn't the KC advertise the progress into the issues raised by PDE shortly after instead of waiting 4 years?

I would hope nobody denies progress has been made since PDE. The question is and one everyone can only give their opinion on is would the pace of change been the same? I believe PDE gave the KC an advantage in dealing with the breed clubs to get them to accept changes and this enabled a greater pace of change.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Goblin said:


> I would hope nobody denies progress has been made since PDE. The question is and one everyone can only give their opinion on is would the pace of change been the same? I believe PDE gave the KC an advantage in dealing with the breed clubs to get them to accept changes and this enabled a greater pace of change.


I don't think anyone denies progress has been made since PDE, however, what I would deny is that progress was made *because* of PDE. Progress was already being made, health testing and research had been under way for numerous years funded by the KC. I wouldn't deny either that progress was quickened by PDE, but I'm not sure if that progress is doing us any good at the moment tbh, there's been a huge knee jerk reaction that could be harmful to all breeds. So here we are with health tests coming out of our ears for pedigree dogs, and people wanting 100% genetically healthy pedigree dogs that are guaranteed to be healthy for all of their long lived life, and it's by and large show people and working folk who are following those recommendations, and yet the largest producers of pups and an awful lot of unhealthy ones are produced by who? So really, what progress is that in the grand scheme of things? And that will always be my main gripe about the way PDE was put together, and anyone who thinks JH did it because she cares so much about dogs ONLY really needs their head examining in my books, she runs the company as a business after all.

And, I would like to point out, I am now feeling incredibly left out as I haven't a foggiest if I'm in a closed group, and if I am, then I'm being ignored, or I'm the only one in it


----------



## Bijou

> you are judged if you belong to a group by the worst elements not the best. Indirectly everyone in the group is responsible for the standard across all elements within that group.


What a ridiculous statement - using this logic all parents are responsible for the behaviour of other peoples children, all men are responsible for wife beaters and all doctors should be judged on the behaviour of Harold Shipman !!!


----------



## Snoringbear

comfortcreature said:


> What is a proxy server and how do I access one situated in the UK? I am in Canada.
> 
> Is it like a youtube site? If so could someone link to a UK proxy server site?
> 
> I googled Iplayer and finally know what that is.
> 
> I googled and found this about proxy servers but it makes no sense to me. Using BBC Iplayer Abroad - Watching via a UK Proxy Server
> 
> CC


Your geographic location is identified through your IP address which enables country specific content to be restricted. A proxy server allows you to use an IP address in the country you want to watch the footage in. I can't find an free ones as they are blocked at work. If you google free proxy servers you should find some.


----------



## Shrap

Snoringbear said:


> Your geographic location is identified through your IP address which enables country specific content to be restricted. A proxy server allows you to use an IP address in the country you want to watch the footage in. I can't find an free ones as they are blocked at work. If you google free proxy servers you should find some.


Will BBC iplayer allow you to watch via a proxy? I know a lot of sites don't run if you can't store cookies


----------



## shetlandlover

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And, I would like to point out, I am now feeling incredibly left out as I haven't a foggiest if I'm in a closed group, and if I am, then I'm being ignored, or I'm the only one in it


The closed group I am guessing means the "Stop the BBC making another PDE". I am a member of the group and can assure you that the mods/admin and active members within the group promote health testing and healthy breeding. Just because most of them are show folk does not mean they are bias as they are the good breeders, surely only the bad folk would be against pedigree dogs exposed..

Unless......

Its a unfair sensationalist program which tried to tar all show dogs as unhealthy, inbred mutants. But where would we have got that idea from? :001_rolleyes:

SL - I can PM you a link to the group if you like, they accept anyone who supports health testing, good breeding and of course, pedigree dogs.:cornut:


----------



## shetlandlover

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't think anyone denies progress has been made since PDE, however, what I would deny is that progress was made *because* of PDE. Progress was already being made, health testing and research had been under way for numerous years funded by the KC.


Spot on.

Many people ignore the fact the KC was promoting health testing and funding research for a very long time before Pedigree dogs exposed.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

shetlandlover said:


> SL - I can PM you a link to the group if you like, they accept anyone who supports health testing, good breeding and of course, pedigree dogs.:cornut:


Ah that one, but then isn't there also another one that supports PDE and PDE2? So if there are closed groups for both sides, which one's right :lol:

TBH, the stop the BBC bit of the group title is probably a waste of time, unless it's meant about airing it? As it's not made by the BBC, it's made by JH's own company from what I understand.


----------



## Snoringbear

Shrap said:


> Will BBC iplayer allow you to watch via a proxy? I know a lot of sites don't run if you can't store cookies


I've never tried. CC's link seemed to suggest that the software in the link would, but it has to be paid for.


----------



## shetlandlover

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ah that one, but then isn't there also another one that supports PDE and PDE2? So if there are closed groups for both sides, which one's right :lol:
> 
> TBH, the stop the BBC bit of the group title is probably a waste of time, unless it's meant about airing it? As it's not made by the BBC, it's made by JH's own company from what I understand.


I think they mean stop it airing. Which would not have been such a bad thing.

The actual aim of the group was either to stop it airing or have it more fair sided but can you imagine the length of the title of the group then? :lol:

Yes both groups are closed. And quite wisely, it stops anyone using one groups walls to have digs at the other or vice versa so the group wall is used for discussions and related Pedigree dogs exposed links.


----------



## majortom

DoodlesRule said:


> I think you will find that crossbreeds, "designer" or otherwise, have been around a lot longer than PDE. There are both good and downright awful breeders in both crosses AND pedigrees its not exclusive to either.
> 
> I believe if you do a tiny bit of research the general consensus is that rescues are "flooded" with Staffies.
> 
> How many pedigree puppies from un-health tested parents are sold too at similar prices? As above its not exclusive to either side. Presumably they sell for the amount people are willing to pay, I have seen a lot of british bulldogs being advertised at £1500 to £2000 I would not pay that but who I am to criticise anyone or does.
> 
> its not me that needs to open my eyes
> worked in a rescue years ago, then they were crossbreeds, not designer dogs
> and designer dogs were not bred like they are today for large sums of cash
> if people researched up on breeds they liked, they would see not to buy from dogs not healthtested ,, too many buy on a whim,
> 
> and why are all these staffy.staffy crosses being bred ,MONEY
> ofcourse you are a doodle lover, say no more, its a mongrel, but stupid people think its a designer dog
> i rest my case.
> JH has done more damage to the breeding of dogs by her crap programme
> than any other person, but then she really just likes to cause a sentation, just like her few fans
> and thats the last reply i will make to you,
> people like you just dont see the wood for the trees


----------



## majortom

oh and by the way, i have had pedigree dogs and mongrels
yes mongrels not designer dogs


----------



## DoodlesRule

majortom said:


> DoodlesRule said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will find that crossbreeds, "designer" or otherwise, have been around a lot longer than PDE. There are both good and downright awful breeders in both crosses AND pedigrees its not exclusive to either.
> 
> I believe if you do a tiny bit of research the general consensus is that rescues are "flooded" with Staffies.
> 
> How many pedigree puppies from un-health tested parents are sold too at similar prices? As above its not exclusive to either side. Presumably they sell for the amount people are willing to pay, I have seen a lot of british bulldogs being advertised at £1500 to £2000 I would not pay that but who I am to criticise anyone or does.
> 
> its not me that needs to open my eyes
> worked in a rescue years ago, then they were crossbreeds, not designer dogs
> and designer dogs were not bred like they are today for large sums of cash
> if people researched up on breeds they liked, they would see not to buy from dogs not healthtested ,, too many buy on a whim,
> 
> and why are all these staffy.staffy crosses being bred ,MONEY
> ofcourse you are a doodle lover, say no more, its a mongrel, but stupid people think its a designer dog
> i rest my case.
> JH has done more damage to the breeding of dogs by her crap programme
> than any other person, but then she really just likes to cause a sentation, just like her few fans
> and thats the last reply i will make to you,
> people like you just dont see the wood for the trees
> 
> 
> 
> Very erudite, you have certainly added to the debate in an educated manner.
> 
> Mine was from health tested parents thank you.
> 
> Its people like you who use the "designer" title.
> 
> People like you are not worth conversing with actually - if you cannot see that SOME pedigrees have serious health issues down to breeding practises then you should not have a dog if you are the voice for your cause god help the cause
Click to expand...


----------



## Devil-Dogz

majortom said:


> oh and by the way, i have had pedigree dogs and mongrels
> yes mongrels not designer dogs


How dare you call them Mongrels  dont sound as catchy


----------



## DoodlesRule

majortom said:


> oh and by the way, i have had pedigree dogs and mongrels
> yes mongrels not designer dogs


I have had more pedigrees than crosses, so what??


----------



## Nicky10

Ok being honest there are some pedigree dogs that are very unhealthy either with high chance of inherited disease or conformation issues on the other hand there are some that are almost perfectly healthy and fully capable of doing their job. There are some terrible KC breeders out there even show breeders who care more about trophies than their dogs of course there are but the majority are great.

The same with crossbreeders some do everything they can to assure the puppies they produce are healthy and have stable temperments others throw any two dogs together that will make them money.

However I doubt PDE will show the side of show breeders that do health test, that do rescue work etc and if they do it will all be because of the first show  whereas crossbreeds will be promoted as perfectly healthy which they aren't.

I'm not in the show scene I have a pretty healthy mix so am I in this group just looking out for it's own interests?


----------



## majortom

Devil-Dogz said:


> How dare you call them Mongrels  dont sound as catchy


as i said, some people cant see the wood for the trees
call them mongrels or crossbreeds or as some do mutts 
at the end of the day they are not a pedigree,
in my day they were mongrels, and my 2 were rescues
and the people who react to these words more than anyone else are doodle / poo lovers and even the guy that produced the first ones in oz, has said its the worst thing he ever done, 
i,ve met enough of these so called designer dogs at dog training and a lot are owned by people who paid a hell of a lot more than you would pay for a ped from a good breeder and they have not a clue, just sprout of they are healthier than pedigrees, which we know is utter rubbish, all dogs what ever can have health problems,


----------



## majortom

Nicky10 said:


> Ok being honest there are some pedigree dogs that are very unhealthy either with high chance of inherited disease or conformation issues on the other hand there are some that are almost perfectly healthy and fully capable of doing their job. There are some terrible KC breeders out there even show breeders who care more about trophies than their dogs of course there are but the majority are great.
> 
> The same with crossbreeders some do everything they can to assure the puppies they produce are healthy and have stable temperments others throw any two dogs together that will make them money.
> 
> However I doubt PDE will show the side of show breeders that do health test, that do rescue work etc and if they do it will all be because of the first show  whereas crossbreeds will be promoted as perfectly healthy which they aren't.
> 
> I'm not in the show scene I have a pretty healthy mix so am I in this group just looking out for it's own interests?


agree nicky, there are some rubbish breeders in all dogs, only think of cash pups bring, as for the first pde ,she interviewed the red and white setter people ,who at the time were health testing for clad, a awful disease, yet she only gave it a short second sentance, why , cos she did not want to show what good breed clubs and breeders were doing ,irish setter people did the same before and not a word mentioned,nor did she mention unless parents of these two breeds are tested clad clear, the KC will not register the pups,WHY NOT , cause it would not get the reaction she wanted,
pity she did not consentrade on the puppy farmers and BYB who churn out litter after litter instead and warn people not to buy from these types


----------



## Nicky10

The compulsory CLAD tests have been around for a few decades haven't they? I guess that just doesn't make sensational enough tv . She should be focusing on puppy farms and bybs and educating people even if she had said yes the breed she highlighted with the exception of the ridgeback tend to have issues but most are healthy and left out the NAZI stuff then people would have responded much better


----------



## rocco33

majortom said:


> agree nicky, there are some rubbish breeders in all dogs, only think of cash pups bring, as for the first pde ,she interviewed the red and white setter people ,who at the time were health testing for clad, a awful disease, yet she only gave it a short second sentance, why , cos she did not want to show what good breed clubs and breeders were doing ,irish setter people did the same before and not a word mentioned,nor did she mention unless parents of these two breeds are tested clad clear, the KC will not register the pups,WHY NOT , cause it would not get the reaction she wanted,


Absolutely and KC registration of only health tested clear parents has been going on for decades - hardly a JH triumph so why mention it!



> pity she did not consentrade on the puppy farmers and BYB who churn out litter after litter instead and warn people not to buy from these types


She has stated on another forum that she will not do a program about puppy farmers and byb - she has no interest in it.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> How long were health issues ongoing without changing, getting worse. It was allowed to get to that state and not acted upon. Not acting upon it in a timely manner is, even if indirectly, supporting it.


Even what you say is true - which it isn't (have you counted how many DNA tets were researched by the AHT and funded by the KC before PDE was even thought of?) what has that got to do with a closed facebook group?



Goblin said:


> PDE did not just criticize the KC.


No it criticised show breeders, the show scene, anything to do with KC and the show world - but what it didn't criticise are the true culprits of unhealthy pedigrees, ie the BYBs and the puppy farmers.



Goblin said:


> So the only way I can see and hear about things is to become a member of a group I have no respect for... So much for being more open and informing people outside the group. Also if you haven't already seen I live in a different country and have enough on my plate. None of this invalidates the points I raise.


How can you form any opinion with regard to respect about a group of which you know nothing? That's as absurd as me saying I don't respect Nuclear Physicists when I know nothing about nuclear physics or any Nuclear Physicists.



Goblin said:


> When were the new standards for bulldogs brought in, before or after PDE?


No idea. How many times have they been revised before PDE? You look it up.



Goblin said:


> Why couldn't the KC advertise the progress into the issues raised by PDE shortly after instead of waiting 4 years?


Why should the KC dance to the tune of a journalist?



Goblin said:


> I would hope nobody denies progress has been made since PDE. The question is and one everyone can only give their opinion on is would the pace of change been the same? I believe PDE gave the KC an advantage in dealing with the breed clubs to get them to accept changes and this enabled a greater pace of change.


Well, assuming for one moment you are right time alone will tell whether or not any knee-jerk reactions that PDE may have forced will be a good thing or a bad thing. It is very rare that knee-jerk reactions turn out well - you only have to look at the DDA law to realise that.

However, according to the blurb in the Radio Times, JH is going to argue that the KC has not moved fast at all since PDE, so you will probably be changing your tune about this once _Carry On Jemima_ has told you what to think about the matter.


----------



## majortom

She has stated on another forum that she will not do a program about puppy farmers and byb - she has no interest in it.[/QUOTE]

i wonder why
because they would not stand for it, she would be lynched


----------



## AlbertRoss

I want to be in my own group - the 'Wait until the programme has aired group'. I won't watch it tonight anyway - ITV1 has Whitechapel on and it's far more important than Jemima Harrison's ego trip - but I will record it to watch tomorrow.

My position is quite simple - I believe that the original PDE gave the KC a kick up the bum to accelerate and publicise the stuff they are doing. I also think that a certain amount of pressure has been brought to bear on them because a very large percentage of the public think that most pedigree dogs are some sort of mutants because of the first PDE programme.

It gets the KC on the defensive and the KC are really bad at putting their point over coherently - largely because of the inanities of Caroline Kisko. It's not just PDE. It's a lot of other things too.

However, one point shouldn't be overlooked.

It would be quite simple for the KC to insist that they would only register puppies from parents that have both been health checked (for whatever things are specific problems in a breed) and that those health check results should be at a specified level or better. There could then be no argument, at all, that the KC were trying to improve the health of pedigree dogs.

The question should be asked - why don't they do that? There's a simple answer - because it would cost them money from registrations. It's why the public face says "No puppy farms" and the private action says "We'll register anything you throw at us, so long at both parents are of the same breed and have previously been registered with us".


----------



## Devil-Dogz

> i wonder why
> because they would not stand for it, she would be lynched


Because people like her care more for heated debates, expanding their ego and causing havoc - with as many viewers as possible than she does the welfare of dogs. - ANYONE that cared for dogs in her line of 'work' would be very eager to promote responsible breeding, buying and selling of dogs in lessen the risk of dogs and buyers suffering from the wrong breeders instead she focuses on the very people trying to maintaine their choosen breeds (and dont get me wrong I know there are bad guys, like with everything but believe me for the most part all we want is to breed, and show happy, healthy dogs that we can love, and share our homes with that will also do well in the choosen area!)


----------



## 5rivers79

rocco33 said:


> This is a cause for concern. What happens if you are not in the position to stop people coming near him?
> 
> I think the worry is that you do not seem to understand the implications of what you are allowing regarding behaviour.
> 
> Your dog is a breed that is not the easiest, is not yet an adult dog so will still display puppylike behaviours and is entire. I'm not familiar with Akitas but my breed don't fully mentally mature until around 2 - 3 years of age and it is not until he is much older that you will see the true effects of the behaviours you are allowing. Is Sam your first dog? If so, then he may look adult now, but he is far from it mentally, and an adult dog can be quite different from a puppy/adolescent. It's worth mentioning too, that many 'adult' dogs are neutered so don't display adult male behaviours, but you plan to leave him entire, so I think it will still be a year or two before you see the real effects of what you are allowing him to do and the fact he is already barking at strangers is alarming.


Iv lived with an entire GSD and Rottie when i was a youngster, they were my brother's dogs. We played mouthing games then and they never once got into any trouble as adults. My brother took them with him when he moved out but the Rottie lived to a ripe old age with not one incident in his long life. The GSD didnt have a single incident either and lived to about 5 years old when he got killed by a hit and run driver. But yes Sam is my first dog since then, iv fostered and looked after other dogs between that time.

Many adults may be neutered, but not where i live. Its actually rare to find a large breed that is neutered around here and this is an area with alot of large status dogs where idiots are proud that they have very aggressive dogs.

Also if you read past posts and threads then you would know Sam had never barked or even grumbled at anyone prior to him being attacked a few weeks ago. Thats not because of what i taught him but because of an incident that was beyond my control.

Anyway there is an update of his behaviour in the following thread which i put up not long ago:

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/222661-proud-relieved-d.html

Comments regarding Sammy will be better on that thread as this thread is regarding PDE2.


----------



## Spellweaver

AlbertRoss said:


> It would be quite simple for the KC to insist that they would only register puppies from parents that have both been health checked (for whatever things are specific problems in a breed) and that those health check results should be at a specified level or better. There could then be no argument, at all, that the KC were trying to improve the health of pedigree dogs.


I have to disagree with you on the matter of registrations. As it is now, a prospective buyer/breeder can look up any registered puppy and see whether or not health test have been performed on sire, dam, and ancestors. They can see which puppies are from health tested stock - ie which are good breeders - and which are from non-health tested stock - ie which are bad breeders. If only progeny from health tested parents were registered, there would be a huge pool of unregistered pedigrees around, pedigrees that no-one can check up on to see wehther they have come from health tested stock or not.

Now given that many buyers are not that savvy about what goes on in the dog world (if they were, puppy farmers would not be selling as many dogs as they are), a huge pool of unregistered dogs, which the prospective buyer cannot check up on, is merely playing into the puppy farmers' hands.

You can just imagine the conversation: "Oh, no, they're not registered. There's no need to have 'em registered if you don't want to show and, let's face it, show dogs are all unhealthy anyway. Have you seen that PDE? No, these dogs are perfectly healthy love. Much safer with one of these than with that KC registered rubbish." The un-savvy prospective buyer believes the puppy farmer, can't check up on what he is saying because the puppies are not registered anywhere - and a few months down the line, there is another desperately ill dog, another family with a huge vet bill, another family with heartache untold in store.

No, much better that all puppies are registered. The prospective buy/breeder has a much wider pool of information in that way.


----------



## comfortcreature

majortom said:


> . . .
> pity she did not consentrade on the puppy farmers and BYB who churn out litter after litter instead and warn people not to buy from these types


I thought she did . . . only they breed within the show scene and some are even judges as well so they can disguise themselves.

If you go here - http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/test/Default.aspx - and type in the Ch. Cavalier dog's name, the one diagnosed with SM at 16 months through MRI, you will find he sired 140 registered pups in 40 litters. A quick google search will show his progeny going forward all around the world, some out at public stud omitting mention of SM or MRI.

His sire - 392 pups in 125 litters (and more in the USA) and two other half siblings (same sire) have 399 pups between them.

If that is not litter after litter from stock with great risk of bad health I don't know what is . . . or do some here feel that this behaviour is just fine as long as it is from those involved in the fancy? Perhaps we shouldn't tell anyone in case they think all in the fancy are like this? Is that the thought?

coldwetnose: Unhealthy attitudes at the Cavalier Club



> Gail said...
> 
> I have one of the 25 dogs dog that was sired by Beverley Costello's dog beauella radzinski. He has pain and itching, he can't walk very far without stopping for a scratch whilst whimpering in pain. I have only tonight mad ethe connection and fear he may have syringomyelia. I am appalled at what I am finding out about pedigree dogs and attitudes wihin these clubs.
> 
> I didn't choose harry for his beauty or that his father won shows, (stupidly it seems) *I chose a pedigree dog because I thought it would be healthier and for the temprament of the breed.* I chose him to be a family pet and Harry has to live a life of suffering just so people can have perfect looking dogs. Hooray Margaret Carter for speaking out.
> 28 September 2010 23:37


Too bad Gail didn't suspect she could run into this.

That is WHY what Jemima hightlighted was important to highlight. It is NOT ONLY PFs and BYBs that buyers have to be watchful of. Pretending that is the case does not help out people like Gail that end out suffering much heart ache even after sourcing a pup throught the 'right' channels.

I have knowledge of MANY more like Gail . . . unfortunately.

CC


----------



## Spellweaver

comfortcreature said:


> That is WHY what Jemima hightlighted was important to highlight. It is NOT ONLY PFs and BYBs that buyers have to be watchful of. Pretending that it is does not help out people like Gail that end out suffering much heart ache even after sourcing a pup throught the 'right' channels.
> 
> CC


But what she didn't do was point out that cases like these were in the minority, that there were good breeders around, and inform viewers where to go to find good breeders. And she didn't do that because, despite this one bad show breeder, most good breeders are show breeders and she didn't want to have to admit that. Instead, she left viewers thinking that all show breedrs are bad, and that non-show breeders were good. In other words, she led people towards puppy farmers.

And don't forget that the footage she showed of the two poor cavs suffering from SM were not show dogs and were not from show breeders. Let's not sweep that under the carpet, shall we? No mention of that in the film, was there? No highlighting the importance of that, or of not buying from puppy farmers, was there? On the contrary, she ended up pushing more people into the clutches of puppy farmers - puppy farmers who produced cavs like the two poor suffering cavs in the film.

But hey, that's ok, because as other people have reported on here - she has stated publicly that she is not interested in stopping puppy farmers - no matter how many dogs suffer because of it, and despite the fact that she knew about the poor health of dogs from puppy farmers because used two such dogs in her film in order to slate show breeders.


----------



## rocco33

comfortcreature said:


> I thought she did . . . only they breed within the show scene and some are even judges as well so they can disguise themselves.
> 
> If you go here - Health Test Results Finder - and type in the Ch. Cavalier dog's name, the one diagnosed with SM at 16 months through MRI, you will find he sired 140 registered pups in 40 litters. A quick google search will show his progeny going forward all around the world, some out at public stud omitting mention of SM or MRI.
> 
> His sire - 392 pups in 125 litters (and more in the USA) and two other half siblings (same sire) have 399 pups between them.
> 
> If that is not litter after litter from stock with great risk of bad health I don't know what is . . . or do some here feel that this behaviour is just fine as long as it is from those involved in the fancy? Perhaps we shouldn't tell anyone in case they think all in the fancy are like this? Is that the thought?
> 
> coldwetnose: Unhealthy attitudes at the Cavalier Club
> 
> Too bad Gail didn't suspect she could run into this.
> 
> That is WHY what Jemima hightlighted was important to highlight. It is NOT ONLY PFs and BYBs that buyers have to be watchful of. Pretending that is the case does not help out people like Gail that end out suffering much heart ache even after sourcing a pup throught the 'right' channels.
> 
> I have knowledge of MANY more like Gail . . . unfortunately.
> 
> CC


I agree that there are some breeds with problems, including ckcs, and she was right to bring this to the public's attention. The problem is that they way she did is made people think ALL pedigree dogs were unhealthy and, talking to quite a number of pet owners after, they thought it would be better to go to pet shops/puppy farmers/byb to buy their pets as they didn't show.

She made some important points in her program, the problem was that she allowed her personal vendetta against the KC and her personal ambition and ego get in the way of what should have been a beneficial and informative piece of journalism rather than the sensationalist tabloid type journalism we can read on a daily basis.


----------



## Angel pedigrees

Well i will have a strong drink at the ready waiting for all the Bull they will spout AGAIN :001_rolleyes:


----------



## chaka

It would be quite simple for the KC to insist that they would only register puppies from parents that have both been health checked (for whatever things are specific problems in a breed) and that those health check results should be at a specified level or better. There could then be no argument, at all, that the KC were trying to improve the health of pedigree dogs.

The question should be asked - why don't they do that? There's a simple answer - because it would cost them money from registrations. It's why the public face says "No puppy farms" and the private action says "We'll register anything you throw at us, so long at both parents are of the same breed and have previously been registered with us".[/QUOTE]

The health test thing really annoys me. KC assured breeders have to health check their breeding stock, but there is no level set. For instance in my breed (GSD) as long as they are hip and elbow scored it doesn't matter how high the scores are! I personally would not breed from anything with a hip score higher than mid teens, but there are other assured breeders out there who are breeding from dogs with scores in the 20s and 30s.

Sorry trying to quote AlbertRoss but not quite worked.


----------



## Wildmoor

Goblin said:


> I would hope nobody denies progress has been made since PDE. The question is and one everyone can only give their opinion on is would the pace of change been the same? I believe PDE gave the KC an advantage in dealing with the breed clubs to get them to accept changes and this enabled a greater pace of change.


This last sentence just proves you do not have a clue what you are talking about, take one of my breeds the GSD:
Highlighting the breeding lines responsible for epilepsy ....... through testing by Dr P. Croft.
• Introduction of a Voluntary Hip Scoring Scheme.
• Voluntary Tattoo identification.( and Micro chipping)
• Voluntary Haemophilia testing.( males only)
• Voluntary Elbow X-rays and grading.
• Voluntary DNA Parentage identification. 
• Other Parentage tests, work in progress….. 
• Voluntary Breed Surveys
• Ground Breaking GSD Sieger event, for the Fourth year, where only GSDs with mandatory Health and Working qualifications are promoted to the highest awards. (2008)
• Mandatory Judges Training scheme in order to become sponsored by the GSD Breed Council judging lists, not mandatory for eligibility to Judge KC shows however.

This process starting long before (Decades) PDE was even thought of dont know JH's age but likely before she was born - she has taken no part in this process the Breed Council/League along with the good show breeders Not JH, Not the KC.


----------



## comfortcreature

rocco33 said:


> I agree that there are some breeds with problems, including ckcs, and she was right to bring this to the public's attention. The problem is that they way she did is made people think ALL pedigree dogs were unhealthy and, talking to quite a number of pet owners after, they thought it would be better to go to pet shops/puppy farmers/byb to buy their pets as they didn't show.
> 
> She made some important points in her program, the problem was that she allowed her personal vendetta against the KC and her personal ambition and ego get in the way of what should have been a beneficial and informative piece of journalism rather than the sensationalist tabloid type journalism we can read on a daily basis.


And I disagree fully that the impression was left that ALL pedigree dogs were unhealthy. I think that is going to be the sticking point to those that support the program and those that do not. I think this is a defensive and untruthful take on it.

To do the circle conversation again I know many that have gone on to pursue getting a pedigree, including a Cavalier in that, but with better research.

I like and agree with sensational journalism that gets its point across as this did, so I cannot agree that this should have been a 'fair' piece. Who are you to say HER show should have been 'fair'? Again, if an informational and fair piece is what someone wants, then they should set out to do so. I don't believe it would be of any benefit.



Spellweaver said:


> But what she didn't do was point out that cases like these were in the minority, that there were good breeders around, and inform viewers where to go to find good breeders. .


Most people of any thought process know this already. It was not, therefore, her remit to do so. If you want to inform people where to find good breeders do it yourself.



Spellweaver said:


> And she didn't do that because, despite this one bad show breeder, most good breeders are show breeders and she didn't want to have to admit that. .


There was not just one suspect show breeder involved in the Beauella Radzinksi situation. If you care to search Beverly was mentored by and within a nest of show breeders -- many judges -- denying the hold SM had in the breed.



Spellweaver said:


> Instead, she left viewers thinking that all show breedrs are bad, and that non-show breeders were good. In other words, she led people towards puppy farmers..


That is your take on it. I think and my experience tells me that that idea is hogwash.



Spellweaver said:


> And don't forget that the footage she showed of the two poor cavs suffering from SM were not show dogs and were not from show breeders. Let's not sweep that under the carpet, shall we? No mention of that in the film, was there? ..


There was no need to. It is of absolutely no importance where the Cavaliers that exemplified the pain of SM came from. If you'd like I can list the names of many who have had to be put down for that same pain that were sourced from show breeders. One is an american sold champion son of Beauella Radzinski.



Spellweaver said:


> No highlighting the importance of that, or of not buying from puppy farmers, was there? On the contrary, she ended up pushing more people into the clutches of puppy farmers - puppy farmers who produced cavs like the two poor suffering cavs in the film...


If you are going to continue making this claim I'd like to see the numbers and where you've sourced them from. I don't believe you.



Spellweaver said:


> But hey, that's ok, because as other people have reported on here - she has stated publicly that she is not interested in stopping puppy farmers - no matter how many dogs suffer because of it, and despite the fact that she knew about the poor health of dogs from puppy farmers because used two such dogs in her film in order to slate show breeders.


Which two dogs are you speaking of here. Please provide proof the Cavalier - Silvie - was puppyfarm sourced. Please provide proof the tricolor (screaming as it scratched ) was as well. The one Boxer with epilepsy was BYB sourced, but again that is neither her nor there. They were used to exemplify the heart ache dogs and owners can suffer.

As to Jemima not caring to tackle puppyfarms, I don't give a hoot. If you want to do that do it yourself. There are others that can. There are others that do as it is often highlighted in media.

She is more than welcome to highlight just what she wants to highlight and as long as the cretins such as she exposed in the Cavalier world continue to hide amongst those that show, and people in the show world continue to turn a blind eye, then I will applaud what Jemima has done.

CC


----------



## Nicky10

It's coming on now for anyone who's watching


----------



## Wildmoor

I wont be watching it, the last pde wasnt the 1st time she was heavily criticed for her productions and wont be the last - its no better than the gutter press which I dont purchase uneducated rubbish produced for the uneducated public who dont have enough sense or education to think for themselves and believe everything they hear in the press is the truth


----------



## Happy Paws2

Nicky10 said:


> It's coming on now for anyone who's watching


I'm watching it


----------



## rocco33

> And I disagree fully that the impression was left that ALL pedigree dogs were unhealthy. I think that is going to be the sticking point to those that support the program and those that do not. I think this is a defensive and untruthful take on it.


You can disagree but that is FACT from my own experience. I appreciate that more experienced dog people would be able to read between the lines and not get that impression, but the average pet owner who has little knowledge did. I spoke to many of them, including those who extolled the virtues of getting their pup from the local pet shop (which has now thankfully closed down) and those that actually went out AFTER the program to get one deliberately from a breeder that didn't show - one of those was a Jack Russell - a breed that isn't shown under KC rules anyway - so someone else who knew nothing about dogs. I could go on, but suffice to say that this was my experience. I have no problem with some of the things she highlighted. I don't show but work my dogs, and it has been the opinion of working folk for many, many decades that showing tends to lead to exaggerations and loss of working ability, but I still found (my own experience) that the general public took the view that all show dogs were unhealthy, pedigree dogs mainly were unhealthy and that it was better to buy a dog from anywhere that bred dogs that didn't show.


----------



## Nicky10

Showing the ridgeback idiot breeder again  and pretty much saying that she brought in the breed standard changes and close inbreeding restrictions


----------



## Set_Nights

Damn! Lol, after all the hype on this I missed the start !!! Watching now.


----------



## Wildmoor

Nicky10 said:


> Showing the ridgeback idiot breeder again  and pretty much saying that she brought in the breed standard changes and close inbreeding restrictions


the close inbreeding ie father daughter as not been used in my breed by the WG show lines for decades it was the ones who bred for colour, certain workline breeders and the byb's who did this so not affected us one bit


----------



## Shrap

What an up herself boot


----------



## comfortcreature

rocco33 said:


> You can disagree but that is FACT from my own experience. . . .


And from my experience the FACT is that people learned to research better.

That is why we'll continue to sit on different sides of this issue.

CC


----------



## Nicky10

I sort of agree with this point that all dogs need to be tested and the results need to be published but to say that we need to stop breeding cavs altogether narrated over the footage of the screaming, writhing cav of course


----------



## welshdoglover

syringomyelia, what a nasty condition, why did the blonde woman who won the show allow her dog to produce pups?

Surely it would pass it onto the pups?


----------



## DoggieBag

LOL she has a really dull boring voice 

She is bigging herself up to the max, as if she is responsible for all the changes etc.


----------



## Julesky

Dalmatian lady has VERY good points


----------



## Nicky10

The dalmatian lady is great exactly the kind of person who should be there but I'm surprised they're bigging up the kennel club by saying they registered Fiona against the breed club's wishs


----------



## rocco33

> And from my experience the FACT is that people learned to research better.


But as you have said before, you're in a different country with a completely different view on dog ownership and breeding.



> That is why we'll continue to sit on different sides of this issue


.

Actually, we're not on different sides as much as you think. I have no problem with some of the things JH was trying to get across, and if she has convinced a few people to research better that has to be a good thing. Unfortunately, her program had the opposite effect on far too many. She had the opportunity to do something good, sadly her ego got in the way and it was misleading to too many.


----------



## Nicky10

Oh I can't wait to see the fallout from this boxer :001_unsure: and what the truth is


----------



## welshdoglover

DoggieBag said:


> LOL she has a really dull boring voice
> 
> She is bigging herself up to the max, as if she is responsible for all the changes etc.


She does raise some very good issues with regards to the breeding choices these supposed top breeders are making.

I thought the first programme was very good and this is a good follow on.


----------



## Nicky10

She's making good points and if the boxer thing was true then it's disgusting but we know she likes to twist the trust


----------



## Julesky

Nicky10 said:


> She's making good points and if the boxer thing was true then it's disgusting but we know she likes to twist the trust


Genetics cannot be twisted. Scientific research will show an outcome either way. At least it's being researched


----------



## Spellweaver

See - this is the kind of thing that makes me angry about what she does. She has just said that after the program the KC funded a new genetics centre at the AHT. All well and good - that is true - but the fact that she didn't also say they had been funding genetic testing for over 20 years, and their funding has helped to develop many of the DNA tets we now have, makes it look as though nothing was done by the KC until after PDE, whihc just is not true.

Is that telling lies? Lying by omission? It is certainly giving anyone who is watching and who dooes not know the truth the wrong impression.

How much more of the program consisted/will consist of such lies by omission?


----------



## Nicky10

Definitely if it shows that that line does carry it and the breeders were refusing to give blood to help with the research then it's disgusting but we'll wait and see


----------



## rocco33

Spellweaver said:


> See - this is the kind of thing that makes me angry about what she does. She has just said that after the program the KC funded a new genetics centre at the AHT. All well and good - that is true - but the fact that she didn't also say they had been funding genetic testing for over 20 years, and their funding has helped to develop many of the DNA tets we now have, makes it look as though nothing was done by the KC until after PDE, whihc just is not true.
> 
> Is that telling lies? Lying by omission? It is certainly giving anyone who is watching and who dooes not know the truth the wrong impression.
> 
> How much more of the program consisted/will consist of such lies by omission?


Absolutely, I've had dna tests done at AHT long before PDE1.


----------



## Nicky10

But that wouldn't fit into the whole I'm on a one woman crusade to save pedigree dogs and am bringing in all these changes personally would it


----------



## 5rivers79

Spellweaver said:


> See - this is the kind of thing that makes me angry about what she does. She has just said that after the program the KC funded a new genetics centre at the AHT. All well and good - that is true - but the fact that *she didn't also say they had been funding genetic testing for over 20 years, and their funding has helped to develop many of the DNA tets we now have,* makes it look as though nothing was done by the KC until after PDE, whihc just is not true.
> 
> Is that telling lies? Lying by omission? It is certainly giving anyone who is watching and who dooes not know the truth the wrong impression.
> 
> How much more of the program consisted/will consist of such lies by omission?


Thats a fair point, but all that 20 years of genetic testing and still badly bred breeds such as Cavs? Why did it take the first pde for the genetic test centre to be funded? Why was is not in place before pde?


----------



## Julesky

Also why is there no self- policing of the KC. That Cavalier KC woman amongst others should be thoroughly ashamed of herself... but why was she still allowed to breed?
I understand how hard etc. for BYB to be policed, she had a 'champion dog' , bet her stud fees were huge. Immoral.


----------



## Spellweaver

5rivers79 said:


> Thats a fair point, but all that 20 years of genetic testing and still badly bred breeds such as Cavs? Why did it take the first pde for the genetic test centre to be funded? Why was is not in place before pde?


A big part of the AHT has always been genetic testing research, and has been funded by the KC. The genetic centre is just a newer, more modern building where the same kind of research is taking place. You could ask why are the KC funding it at all? Therey don't have to. But they are.


----------



## Nicky10

So any gwp people want to say what is so wrong with them that they were repeatedly shown? 

That cavalier stud dog should never have been bred from that's obvious but some people don't care they're the minority. I love that's she's showing the most exaggerated examples of the breeds she can find


----------



## fredfern

watching this and all i can say is i am SPEACHLESS and saddened by some of the things i saw.


----------



## Spellweaver

Does anyone else find it odd that in a program about the KC and it's progress since the last PDE, the only pug JH could find to fit her criteria was a german one, living in Germany, dealt with by a vet in Leipzig?? A dreadful example of bad breeding, to be sure, but not exactly anything to do with british breeders and the KC.

Does the fact that she had to go abroad to find such an extreme example mean that pugs in this country are not as bad as she is trying to make out?


----------



## dandogman

Posted a thread regarding the inbreeding in the heath section if anyone wants to take a look.


----------



## Spellweaver

Nicky10 said:


> She's making good points and if the boxer thing was true then it's disgusting but we know she likes to twist the trust


This is the problem I am having. I can't eblieve a word the woman says. I think I shall reserve judgement until the truth comes out - like it did about the cavs and boxer she showed in 2008 not being show bred dogs at all.


----------



## rocco33

> Why did it take the first pde for the genetic test centre to be funded? Why was is not in place before pde?


But that's the point - the funding HAS been in place long before PDE.

The same as her comment that she believes we need a new indepenant regulatory body for dogs, implying the KC aren't doing it. But the KC have never been a regulatory body for dogs. 

I'm all for a regulatory body for dogs - but will the government fund it?


----------



## Shrap

Lmfao Spellweaver, you got it 100%. even down to the KC refusing to comment


----------



## Paganman

Spellweaver said:


> Does anyone else find it odd that in a program about the KC and it's progress since the last PDE, the only pug JH could find to fit her criteria was a german one, living in Germany, dealt with by a vet in Leipzig?? A dreadful example of bad breeding, to be sure, but not exactly anything to do with british breeders and the KC.
> 
> Does the fact that she had to go abroad to find such an extreme example mean that pugs in this country are not as bad as she is trying to make out?


Maybe it was to highlite the latest surgery technics needed and being carried out in Leipzig


----------



## 5rivers79

Spellweaver said:


> A big part of the AHT has always been genetic testing research, and has been funded by the KC. The genetic centre is just a newer, more modern building where the same kind of research is taking place. You could ask why are the KC funding it at all? Therey don't have to. But they are.


Course they have to fund testing because the pups of dogs like the King Charles come with the *status *of being KC reg'd KC show champions.


----------



## SpringerHusky

Quite surprised there was nothing on german shepherds.

More good points than the last one but will see over time if the things she's blurted out are true or not.


----------



## Tollisty

The GSD section was cut out as it over ran by 10 mins.


----------



## fredfern

well it left me shouting at the t.v and in tears about the suffering of thease poor animals, and felt guilty about owning pedigree dogs is that wrong??


----------



## Spellweaver

Shrap said:


> Lmfao Spellweaver, you got it 100%. even down to the KC refusing to comment


Yes, I did do rather well with my predictions, didn't I? :lol: :lol: Just got one thing wrong - there was nothing about her being vilified by most of the dog world - unless I missed that wehn I went to the loo!

Here's what I wrote on an earlier thread for anyone who wonders what we are talking about:

_I don't think anyone actually needs to watch it to know what the program will be like - I bet anyone any money that it will consist of a resume of all the "wrongs" Jemima "exposed" in Carry On Jemima 1, plus a resume of all the good things the KC has done over the last few years with JH taking the credit for it all. There will be a piece about how she can't understand why she has been vilified by all of the dog world except for her few cronies for merely "telling the truth". Then there will be some footage of one or two pedigree dogs who are not as healthy as they could be - but it won't say that unhealthy pedigrees are few and far between. Instead, it will leave viewers with the impression that despite everything Jemima has "made" the KC do, ALL pedigree dogs are still this unhealthy. Oh, and somewhere in there it will infer that she asked the KC to take part in the program but they refused, and will try to twist it to seem as though they had something to hide._


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

I am saddened and disgusted by what I saw on the programme this evening. I truel believe that cavaliers are beyond recovery, unless some outcrossing takes place. And the boxers that were so inbred that juv kidney disease is running through so many boxers. 

SO many good points made and people really need to sit up and take notice. We really do need a regulatory body, for everything dog-related. The problem is the breeders and breed clubs. Unless the breed clubs change the breed standards a lot, and the breeders start breeding for health and temperament rather than winning for the show ring, then dogs are doomed.

I really liked how she showed the working strains of dogs, such as the working neo mastiff against the show neo mastiff, and the levitt bulldog compared to the show bulldog. She asked why don't we have these healthier and fitter breeds? Why do we have the exaggerated and unhealthy breeds?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

fredfern said:


> well it left me shouting at the t.v and in tears about the suffering of thease poor animals, and felt guilty about owning pedigree dogs is that wrong??


I was in tears at the poor animals too, and shouting at the tv.


----------



## SLB

Oh is this the "your views" thread - I thought it wasn't so started my own.. :mellow:


----------



## Wildmoor

SpringerHusky said:


> Quite surprised there was nothing on german shepherds.
> 
> More good points than the last one but will see over time if the things she's blurted out are true or not.


Dear David Not sure if this will be a relief or a disappointment to you, but am emailing to let you know that at the last minute we had to drop the GSD sequence from the film. I feel very sad about it but we were overlong by 10 minutes and in the end the BBC execs took the difficult decision about which sequence to lose (I found it totally impossible as didn't want to drop any of it). The plan is to include it as a DVD extra and will put up on to YouTube. Will of course send you a copy. I am yet to be convinced about the shape of the current showdog, In the film, I acknowledged the GSD breeders commitment to health. I also said that I thought that - in my "uninformed" and "ignorant" point of view of course  - that there had been some improvement in the dogs in the ring. Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Three Years On airs on 27th Feb. - Monday night on BBC Four at 9pm. I hope you will let me know what you think of it.
Very best wishes Jemima


----------



## Happy Paws2

What ever she has said right or wrong, I can't for the life of understand why anyone would buy a Pug or Bulldog when their health problems are so obvious you don't even need a programme like that to tell you about them.


----------



## Spellweaver

Paganman said:


> Maybe it was to highlite the latest surgery technics needed and being carried out in Leipzig


Pity she couldn't find such an extreme dog in this country though wasn't it? Well, no it wasn't a pity really, because that means that the pugs in this country are not that extreme. Do you really think if she had been able to find one, she would not have taken great delight in filming it?


----------



## Paganman

SEVEN_PETS said:


> She asked why don't we have these healthier and fitter breeds? Why do we have the exaggerated and unhealthy breeds?


And I think someone independent said it's all about inflaited ego's


----------



## Julesky

I'm not in the breeding world so I have no idea who this lady is...

On the face of it this documentary was more about genetics than anything else-

Genetics I do understand- I've studied it comprehensively throughout my career.

If there was even the slightest suggestion that genetics potentially underpins conditions in certain breeds then it is every responsible breeder/clubs position to get involved with that research.

Why did the dalmatian club not comment on the new breed. 
Why did the KC not comment?
Why did any of the named breeders not comment?
Lots of people will form opinions based on this programme- I do believe it needs balanced by the breeders involved to portray the full picture- their absence was rather damning...


----------



## fredfern

still speachless ....................................................... and upsett but i suppose the aim of the program was to shock


----------



## Colette

To be honest, I think the most annoying thing about this one was the lack of new footage... I reckon half the time was taken up just replaying the stuff from PDE which is just lazy if you ask me.

Anyway, I think my views are pretty much the same as they were before....

There ARE some serious issues that need dealing with, and I do have issues with certain exaggerations, but then I felt that way before PDE so maybe that's beside the point. 

The extreme features of breeds like the pekes, pugs, bulldogs etc. have been rewarded in the showring for years, and if PDE3 is accurate on this point they still are. Don't get me wrong I appreciate that the byb's and puppy farmers are also breeding for these traits; and that they are far less likely to health test etc than show breeders, but the KC and breed clubs are not blameless.

The other bit I don't get....

I completely understand that many good breeders feel JH unfairly tarred everyone with the same brush; and I also understand that breeders that deilberately breed from known unhealthy dogs etc are the minority - BUT that doesn't explain the response from breed clubs etc.

I mean, the cav woman who repeatedly used her SM dog at stud is an individual problem sure, but for the club to get all outraged about the whistleblower campaigning for better health suggests their priorities are skewed.

Same with the dally club - I was following this before PDE2 and could not understand why the breed clubs were so completely against (and downright offensive about) the LUA dalmatians.

Before I upset everyone on here I'm not a big JH fan - I do believe there has been a huge amount of sensationalist bull; I do believe all show breeders got tarred with the same brush; and I do believe that many viewers will be driven to byb's, puppy farms and "designer" crosses because nothing was done to educate them on choosing a good breeder.

But sadly there were one or two points I do agree with her on


----------



## Spellweaver

Did anyone else get annoyed at how many times the ex-RSPCA vet tried to pretend that dog shows are beauty pageants, and was not corrected at all? I wonder if he's ever even been to a dog show. One thing, though - I spoke earlier of individuals and organisations with an axe to grind againt the KC - oneor two misguided people thought that was unfair - but there you have an excellent example of what I meant.


----------



## Paganman

Spellweaver said:


> Pity she couldn't find such an extreme dog in this country though wasn't it? Well, no it wasn't a pity really, because that means that the pugs in this country are not that extreme. Do you really think if she had been able to find one, she would not have taken great delight in filming it?


All pugs in this country are not that extreme :biggrin5: pmsl.... If you say so

The program is only an hour long,she can't expose everything. I think it was to show the extremes vet have to go to now just so a dog can breath and he is pioneering this surgery.


----------



## Argent

Omg wanted to SLAP that woman who thinks the 'young vets' were being silly for refusing to pts perfectly healthy RR puppies without ridges  Heartless toff :mad5: . She seems to think if they didn't go to people wishing to show them, they'll end up in the hands of 'fighting people'!? There's quite a large span of people between those two extremes who would give a ridgeless Ridgeback a wonderful loving home. ARGHHH 

The KC were right to add the clause that no healthy puppies were to be culled for aesthetic reasons.


----------



## 5rivers79

Spellweaver said:


> Pity she couldn't find such an extreme dog in this country though wasn't it? Well, no it wasn't a pity really, because that means that the pugs in this country are not that extreme. Do you really think if she had been able to find one, she would not have taken great delight in filming it?


But that is besides the point. The point is breeds like pugs and bulldogs are bred to look the way they do, and to look the way they do means a detrimental effect to their health. IMO that is simply wrong. I dont see any working advantage to have such a flat face that you cant even breathe through your nose.


----------



## EmCHammer

> Pity she couldn't find such an extreme dog in this country though wasn't it? Well, no it wasn't a pity really, because that means that the pugs in this country are not that extreme. Do you really think if she had been able to find one, she would not have taken great delight in filming it?


We had a pug come into the rescue whose eye fell out.

Dunno what his breeding was - was more upset by the eye incident

What I took from teh show is that there aer so many dogs being bred with health issues and over exaggerations that are seen as good and desirable - wherever they come from we need to work on changing this for the health and future of the dogs - and that there ae SOME people whoever they are that really should know better and claim to love the breed who continue to knowingly breed dogs with these health conditions who will go onto suffer. Yes there are other people also badly breeding the dogs that were not explored.

Most intelligent people would realise that not everyone is like that?


----------



## Spellweaver

Julesky said:


> Why did the dalmatian club not comment on the new breed.
> Why did the KC not comment?
> Why did any of the named breeders not comment?
> Lots of people will form opinions based on this programme- I do believe it needs balanced by the breeders involved to portray the full picture- their absence was rather damning...


I suspect they were put off because in PDE1, JH edited people's comments to make what they were saying seem absolutely ridiculous and totally different to what they actually did say. I suspect they were wary of having the same done to them. I have lost count of the number of people I have heard at shows say things on a variation of, "Well, the only quote she'll get if she asks me anything is no comment. She's not twisting my words to make herself look good and me look ridiculous"


----------



## Tollisty

I walk two very healthy pugs, that can definitely run! even though one is very overweight!
and there is the pugility group, all pugs enjoying agility. and the show champion pug that also competes in grade 5 agility.
So they are not all unhealthy!


----------



## Nicky10

EmCHammer said:


> We had a pug come into the rescue whose eye fell out.
> 
> Dunno what his breeding was - was more upset by the eye incident
> 
> What I took from teh show is that there aer so many dogs being bred with health issues and over exaggerations that are seen as good and desirable - wherever they come from we need to work on changing this for the health and future of the dogs - and that there ae SOME people whoever they are that really should know better and claim to love the breed who continue to knowingly breed dogs with these health conditions who will go onto suffer. Yes there are other people also badly breeding the dogs that were not explored.
> 
> Most intelligent people would realise that not everyone is like that?


Poor baby . The thing is that there was a big increase in people buying designer mixes or unregistered dogs and adverts proudly stating that because they were crosses or unregistered they were automatically healthier from the last show


----------



## Julesky

Nicky10 said:


> Poor baby . The thing is that there was a big increase in people buying designer mixes or unregistered dogs and adverts proudly stating that because they were crosses or unregistered they were automatically healthier from the last show


Got any figures for this? I'd be interested in seeing them...


----------



## Paganman

Happy Paws said:


> What ever she has said right or wrong, I can't for the life of understand why anyone would buy a Pug or Bulldog when their health problems are so obvious you don't even need a programme like that to tell you about them.


Unless they are British bred because Jemma or what ever her name is could not find one, she had to go to Germany


----------



## Pointermum

Can someone like this comment so i can find where i was upto in this thread is up to when i check back tomorrow 

Night all


----------



## Nicky10

Julesky said:


> Got any figures for this? I'd be interested in seeing them...


Someone else might have those but just have a look on the puppy selling websites there are a lot especially crosses being touted as healthy so they don't need tests which of course the parents should have done


----------



## Spellweaver

5rivers79 said:


> But that is besides the point. The point is breeds like pugs and bulldogs are bred to look the way they do, and to look the way they do means a detrimental effect to their health. IMO that is simply wrong. I dont see any working advantage to have such a flat face that you cant even breathe through your nose.


I agree with you 100%. Anyone who loved dogs would. However, it would make more sense to tackle the actual problem that is in this country, than tackle a problem from another country. Brreeders in this country, this country's KC, can do nothing about what is happening in Germany. But we can do something about what is happening in this country. And as she was unable to find such an extreme example of bad breeding in this country, then just maybe things aren't as bad here and we can actually put right what is wrong.

But hey, going abroad and finding the worst pug in the world made for more sensationalistic viewing, didn't it?


----------



## rocco33

> To be honest, I think the most annoying thing about this one was the lack of new footage... I reckon half the time was taken up just replaying the stuff from PDE which is just lazy if you ask me.


I nearly stopped watching it because the first half hour was just replaying clips from the original PDE - without even saying anything new. 

Colette, I agree with you mainly. There are issues in some breeds that those involved seem to be slow to address. There are breeds that I do not like (not individual dogs though), simply because they are too exaggerated (in fact, I don't even like the exaggerated version of my own breed either and they are generally a health breed - at least the well bred ones are). So, I don't disagree with some of her points, but I don't think it will benefit the general dog buying public. And ultimately, they are the ones that have the biggest influence of who breeders breed. We can legislate till we are blue in the face, but legislation requires policing and there is no funding for that. But supply and demand can influence things. If people didn't buy from these bad breeders (of all sorts),they would simply cease to breed.


----------



## 5rivers79

Tollisty said:


> I walk two very healthy pugs, that can definitely run! even though one is very overweight!
> and there is the pugility group, all pugs enjoying agility. and the show champion pug that also competes in grade 5 agility.
> So they are not all unhealthy!


Thats great, but how would it feel to have your nose closed off for the rest of your life so you could only breathe through your mouth?


----------



## Spellweaver

Julesky said:


> Also why is there no self- policing of the KC. That Cavalier KC woman amongst others should be thoroughly ashamed of herself... but why was she still allowed to breed?
> I understand how hard etc. for BYB to be policed, she had a 'champion dog' , bet her stud fees were huge. Immoral.


As in the first episode (which was where all that footage was from) you won't find anyone on here disagreeing with you on that one. I thiink everyone was amazed and aghast at a breeder who would breed from a dog with such an illness. There are bad breeders everywhere.


----------



## Wobbles

This should have been on one of BBC's prime channels so more people would have seen it. Some of the images were truly awful and the attitude of some of the breeders were disgusting - what kind of 'breeder' breeds incest and health problems into the breed that they claim to 'love'? Surely if you want to breed dogs you think very highly of them and want to do your utmost to make sure your 'beloved' breed stays healthy for years to come? To show off your pride at being capable of producing sound healthy puppies that will become someone's faithful companion? The thoughts of some of those interviewed was beyond me. The working lines pics were a real eye-opener - what sane person would look at those and then decide that the ones that were 'better' were the unrecognisable examples on the right? They looked like mutants, I certainly wouldn't chose one. Wether you agree with JH or the KC is irrelevant, what matters is the dogs, they didn't ask to have flat faces so they can hardly breathe, or be barely able to move properly, humans caused the problems so they should sort it out. Health is more important than looks, what good is a beautiful looking dog, if it too plagued with health problems to be able to enjoy and admire? I'd rather a dog with the 'wrong' size/shape/coloring than endless heartache and vet bills. There is a saying about working sheepdogs 'it doesn't matter what he looks like so long as he can work', I think that this should be true for ALL dog breeds.


----------



## Julesky

Nicky10 said:


> Someone else might have those but just have a look on the puppy selling websites there are a lot especially crosses being touted as healthy so they don't need tests which of course the parents should have done


Aye i've seen them, but that's been about for years and years- since the lab hips began being a noted problem amongst others.
That and people's demand for 'cute' novelty.
Potentially what inspired some of the pedigree breeds to be selected for in the first instance .. and no I'm not necessarily agreeing with it.

Just as many breeders of 'pure' dogs selling their puppies as there was before- if not more.

You cannot slate the documentary for not having enough hard evidence, if you in fact don't have any in your arguement. 
Just sayin


----------



## Paganman

Spellweaver said:


> I agree with you 100%. Anyone who loved dogs would. However, it would make more sense to tackle the actual problem that is in this country, than tackle a problem from another country. Brreeders in this country, this country's KC, can do nothing about what is happening in Germany. But we can do something about what is happening in this country. And as she was unable to find such an extreme example of bad breeding in this country, then just maybe things aren't as bad here and we can actually put right what is wrong.
> 
> But hey, going abroad and finding the worst pug in the world made for more sensationalistic viewing, didn't it?


Thinking about it,there was another pug on there from this country owned by the couple they showed walking it with a harness on.

They got it from a show winner and was hoping to show their pug to.

It showed a british vet examining it and talking about all it's problems, one of which if I remember rightly was it's knee joints and about three other serious problems it had.


----------



## rocco33

> Got any figures for this? I'd be interested in seeing them...


No figures that I'm aware of - why would anyone want to collate figures on this 

But, keep an eye on the freeads over the coming weeks/months and if the same happens as did after the original program, the freeads will be full of ads making these claims. TBH, I'm not sure that this program will have the same impact. Firstly, it's not new, it's a follow up, and it's not on BBC1 so I doubt the viewing figures will be anywhere near the original.


----------



## Julesky

Spellweaver said:


> I suspect they were put off because in PDE1, JH edited people's comments to make what they were saying seem absolutely ridiculous and totally different to what they actually did say. I suspect they were wary of having the same done to them. I have lost count of the number of people I have heard at shows say things on a variation of, "Well, the only quote she'll get if she asks me anything is no comment. *She's not twisting my words to make herself look good and me look ridiculous*"


But if they think she's making herself look good then surely they agree with the premise of her programme so therefore wouldn't look stupid?

Hmmm


----------



## Nicky10

I still want to know why she kept showing german wirehaireds I've had a look on the breed club site and there doesn't seem to be anything major and they seem to have pretty strong health programmes


----------



## Julesky

rocco33 said:


> No figures that I'm aware of - *why would anyone want to collate figures on this *
> 
> But, keep an eye on the freeads over the coming weeks/months and if the same happens as did after the original program, the freeads will be full of ads making these claims. TBH, I'm not sure that this program will have the same impact. Firstly, it's not new, it's a follow up, and it's not on BBC1 so I doubt the viewing figures will be anywhere near the original.


Because PDE1 was allegedly responsible for a surge in BYB and crosses... or so i'm told?


----------



## Spellweaver

Tollisty said:


> I walk two very healthy pugs, that can definitely run! even though one is very overweight!
> and there is the pugility group, all pugs enjoying agility. and the show champion pug that also competes in grade 5 agility.
> So they are not all unhealthy!


But from the comments on here, that is not what the program has led people to believe. According to some posters on here, the program has said that all pugs are as bad as the one in Germany and the program is right!


----------



## Paganman

Spellweaver said:


> But from the comments on here, that is not what the program has led people to believe. According to some posters on here, the program has said that all pugs are as bad as the one in Germany and the program is right!


And you say JM is sensationalist and twists things :001_rolleyes:

Where on here has anyone said ALL pugs are as bad as the one from Germany


----------



## Spellweaver

Julesky said:


> But if they think she's making herself look good then surely they agree with the premise of her programme so therefore wouldn't look stupid?
> 
> Hmmm


Not if they think she is making herself look good by twisting their truth into lies, by taking what they have said and editing it so that it comes out as quite the opposite of what they actually meant.  That has nothing to do with agreeing with the premise of her program - quite the opposite, in fact.


----------



## rocco33

> Because PDE1 was allegedly responsible for a surge in BYB and crosses... or so i'm told?


There was certainly an increase in those breeders advertising their dogs as healthier because they were not registered or show dogs, which was my point - why would anyone collage that sort of information?


----------



## Spellweaver

Paganman said:


> And you say JM is sensationalist and twists things :001_rolleyes:
> 
> Where on here has anyone said ALL pugs are as bad as the one from Germany


Here for one 



Paganman said:


> All pugs in this country are not that extreme :biggrin5: pmsl.... If you say so
> .


----------



## Julesky

rocco33 said:


> There was certainly an increase in those breeders advertising their dogs as healthier because they were not registered or show dogs, which was my point - why would anyone collage that sort of information?


Because the world of science and fact does not deal with hearsay...

same way people are up in arms with the alleged 'sensationalism' of the documentary claims.

Arguments on both sides must be based on facts. Not one person saying to another 'there certainly was'


----------



## Happy Paws2

Paganman said:


> Unless they are British bred because Jemma or what ever her name is could not find one, she had to go to Germany


Well the two round the corner from me I would imagine are British and you can hear them breathing from the other side of the road and when they are just walking.


----------



## Paganman

Spellweaver said:


> Here for one


Twisting things again.

You claimed she could not find a British pug that extreme as they don't exist. 

Of course not all are, there will be plenty though


----------



## LexiLou2

I don't know....I'm on the fence, I think if you ignored the Bull S and didn't take the program on face value it had some valid points but I do think it was far to angled at "this is what I uncovered in 2008 and look whats happened since aren't i great".
I really felt for the lady whose boxer died.
I also think it relied far too heavily on going over what was shown in PDE I know it was a 'sequeal' so had to refer back but it was a little excessive, it didn't really cover any valid ground.
I think there are issues within the breeds and the majority of us on here can agree on that, however I think the issues can be covered in a different manner.


----------



## tiggerthumper

Happy Paws said:


> What ever she has said right or wrong, I can't for the life of understand why anyone would buy a Pug or Bulldog when their health problems are so obvious you don't even need a programme like that to tell you about them.


I know, all my life I have wanted a CKCS, I was obsessed when I was little but when the time came I couldn't do it. I knew the breed was known for having heart probs, had no idea about the neurological disorder, but I knew I couldn't have a dog that had a high propensity to a life threatening condition as it would have been heartbreaking. Seeing those CKCSs in such pain was heart breaking. If the figures are 100% true then I don't know how there could be a way back from their current situation, so sad.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Wildmoor said:


> This last sentence just proves you do not have a clue what you are talking about, take one of my breeds the GSD:
> Highlighting the breeding lines responsible for epilepsy ....... through testing by Dr P. Croft.
>  Introduction of a Voluntary Hip Scoring Scheme.
>  Voluntary Tattoo identification.( and Micro chipping)
>  Voluntary Haemophilia testing.( males only)
>  Voluntary Elbow X-rays and grading.
>  Voluntary DNA Parentage identification.
>  Other Parentage tests, work in progress..
>  Voluntary Breed Surveys
>  Ground Breaking GSD Sieger event, for the Fourth year, where only GSDs with mandatory Health and Working qualifications are promoted to the highest awards. (2008)
>  Mandatory Judges Training scheme in order to become sponsored by the GSD Breed Council judging lists, not mandatory for eligibility to Judge KC shows however.
> 
> This process starting long before (Decades) PDE was even thought of dont know JH's age but likely before she was born - she has taken no part in this process the Breed Council/League along with the good show breeders Not JH, Not the KC.


The operative word in all that is VOLUNTARY. The KC could easily make most of it mandatory (except the Sieger which is purely a sport with the same relative value as flyball or heelwork to music).


----------



## Paganman

Happy Paws said:


> Well the two round the corner from me I would imagine are British and you can hear them breathing from the other side of the road and when they are just walking.


They must be visiting from Germany :biggrin5:


----------



## rocco33

Julesky said:


> Because the world of science and fact does not deal with hearsay...
> 
> same way people are up in arms with the alleged 'sensationalism' of the documentary claims.
> 
> Arguments on both sides must be based on facts. Not one person saying to another 'there certainly was'


Said as a true scientist 

I know that btw, but this is a discussion forum. No one is going to collate information on the kind of puppy ads that the freeads displays just to prove a point on a forum. If you want to play that card so be it, but it doesn't alter the fact that those ads DID start stating that their pups were healthier because they were not KC registered or pedigree or show dogs after the original PDE was aired.


----------



## Happy Paws2

Paganman said:


> They must be visiting from Germany :biggrin5:


Well they are on a long holiday then


----------



## Spellweaver

Paganman said:


> Thinking about it,there was another pug on there from this country owned by the couple they showed walking it with a harness on.
> 
> They got it from a show winner and was hoping to show their pug to.
> 
> It showed a british vet examining it and talking about all it's problems, one of which if I remember rightly was it's knee joints and about three other serious problems it had.


It was dreadful, I agree with you. And we should be breeding away from things like this. But it was not as extremely bred as the one in Germany. It's almost as if she thought that the poor pug in this country was not distressed enough to whip up mass hysteria and make people believe that ALL pugs are like that. To find footage to do that, she had to go outside this country. All I'm saying is that it is unnecessary. We can do something about what happens to dog breeding in this country. We can't do anything about dogbreeding in Germany.

It would have been much more productive, for example, to have cut that footage and left in the footage about the GSDs and what is happening with them. But perhaps that wasn't as melodramatic, so something that we could have sone something about hit the cutting room floor while a german dog (whose breeding no person or organisation in this country can do anything about) stayed in.


----------



## Paganman

Happy Paws said:


> Well they are on a long holiday then


Get in touch with JM,she might want to interview them for the next PDE


----------



## Firedog

Shall be watching it in a minute,no doubt it will give me another sleepless night.


----------



## catz4m8z

tiggerthumper said:


> I know, all my life I have wanted a CKCS, I was obsessed when I was little but when the time came I couldn't do it. I knew the breed was known for having heart probs, had no idea about the neurological disorder, but I knew I couldn't have a dog that had a high propensity to a life threatening condition as it would have been heartbreaking. Seeing those CKCSs in such pain was heart breaking. If the figures are 100% true then I don't know how there could be a way back from their current situation, so sad.


Thats exactly how I feel too! I would love a CKCS but the chances of getting a sick dog are just too high. How ironic that the breeders have taken what is essentially the perfect pet dog for nearly every type of owner and broken it...


----------



## Spellweaver

Paganman said:


> Twisting things again.
> 
> You claimed she could not find a British pug that extreme as they don't exist.
> 
> Of course not all are, there will be plenty though


Of course there must be because JH and you say so  - funny she couldn't find one to film though!


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> The operative word in all that is VOLUNTARY. The KC could easily make most of it mandatory (except the Sieger which is purely a sport with the same relative value as flyball or heelwork to music).


to enter the working class at the show ie dogs/bitches over 2yrs health tests are mandatory did you miss that part! if it wasnt for the GSD show breeders the hip scheme wouldnt have developed in this country when it did, also the show breeders are the ones who took up the elbow scheme when that developed in '98 - they arent the ones just using it as a tick box like the ones who breed for the pet market who have only recently started hip/elbow scoring and will breed regardless of the result just to get non standard colours


----------



## Paganman

Spellweaver said:


> It was dreadful, I agree with you. And we should be breeding away from things like this. But it was not as extremely bred as the one in Germany. It's almost as if she thought that the poor pug in this country was not distressed enough to whip up mass hysteria and make people believe that ALL pugs are like that. To find footage to do that, she had to go outside this country. All I'm saying is that it is unnecessary. We can do something about what happens to dog breeding in this country. We can't do anything about dogbreeding in Germany.
> 
> It would have been much more productive, for example, to have cut that footage and left in the footage about the GSDs and what is happening with them. But perhaps that wasn't as melodramatic, so something that we could have sone something about hit the cutting room floor while a german dog (whose breeding no person or organisation in this country can do anything about) stayed in.


So your still dismissing the idea that it was to show the pioneering work being done by a vet in Sweden 

Why did she not just do the interview with the pug in Germany or even better just show the dogs faults and not even mention the country of origin


----------



## Wildmoor

Spellweaver said:


> It was dreadful, I agree with you. And we should be breeding away from things like this. But it was not as extremely bred as the one in Germany. It's almost as if she thought that the poor pug in this country was not distressed enough to whip up mass hysteria and make people believe that ALL pugs are like that. To find footage to do that, she had to go outside this country. All I'm saying is that it is unnecessary. We can do something about what happens to dog breeding in this country. We can't do anything about dogbreeding in Germany.
> 
> It would have been much more productive, for example, to have cut that footage and left in the footage about the GSDs and what is happening with them. But perhaps that wasn't as melodramatic, so something that we could have sone something about hit the cutting room floor while a german dog (whose breeding no person or organisation in this country can do anything about) stayed in.


probably because last time it took her a long time to find the 6 GSDs used in the last footage maybe what she got this time wasnt sensationilst enough for her


----------



## tiggerthumper

catz4m8z said:


> Thats exactly how I feel too! I would love a CKCS but the chances of getting a sick dog are just too high. How ironic that the breeders have taken what is essentially the perfect pet dog for nearly every type of owner and broken it...


That's very true, I know a few people who have them and their temperament is wonderful and they appear to be very biddable dogs, but the higher chance of something going wrong would be in the back of your mind the whole time and would kind of ruin it.
It really has been broken hasn't it, so very sad


----------



## Paganman

Spellweaver said:


> funny she couldn't find one to film though!


and like I said before,it's only a 1 hr program 

She done two pugs, time to move on


----------



## Spellweaver

Paganman said:


> So your still dismissing the idea that it was to show the pioneering work being done by a vet in Sweden
> 
> Why did she not just do the interview with the pug in Germany or even better just show the dogs faults and not even mention the country of origin


Why did she not just show the pioneering work being done by the vet in Sweden after talking about the poor pug in this country? The things that that poor dog was suffering were surely bad enough for her to go straight to the interview with the vet who was doing the pioneering work that could possibly help him. 



Paganman said:


> and like I said before,it's only a 1 hr program
> 
> She done two pugs, time to move on


And as I said before, that is all the more reason not to show unnecessary footage - although arguing that showing a British example of totally extreme breeding rather than a german example would make the program any longer doesn't exactly make sense!


----------



## Spellweaver

Wildmoor said:


> probably because last time it took her a long time to find the 6 GSDs used in the last footage maybe what she got this time wasnt sensationilst enough for her


My thoughts exactly!


----------



## cinnamontoast

Are we disputing the fact that some breeds of dogs have been ruined this past century? Seriously? Open your ruddy eyes!

Just look at the show circuit and see how many extreme breeding examples you can see. If you think you have to look hard, then you are frankly horribly naïve.


----------



## 5rivers79

I dont get all this talk about sensationalism. It highlighted what *potentially* goes on in some of the pedigree breeding world. Just like how panorama highlighted what could be on in some care homes by showing one extreme example..that was shocking but it brought light to what *could* be going on in some care homes. This is the same, there are alot of good breeders but the program is on to highlight the bad points of a certain subject so people are made aware of *potential* problems.

Sometimes it takes shocking images for people to be made aware..look at all the drink driving ads during the xmas period..remember the mangled up little girl in one of the ads?? Its shocking so people watch and think. Its far from sensationalism.


----------



## Nicky10

Of course not some breeds are awful the way they are now like pekes but they're the minority of breeds


----------



## Happy Paws2

Well most of you are having fun pulling her apart, so you must think there was nothing wrong with the dogs she had on her show.


----------



## Paganman

Spellweaver said:


> Why did she not just show the pioneering work being done by the vet in Sweden after talking about the poor pug in this country? The things that that poor dog was suffering were surely bad enough for her to go straight to the interview with the vet who was doing the pioneering work that could possibly help him.


Maybe because the British pug owners could not afford pioneering treatment but the german could.

Like it or not, things like that are intersting to people.


----------



## Paganman

5rivers79 said:


> I dont get all this talk about sensationalism. It highlighted what *potentially* goes on in some of the pedigree breeding world. Just like how panorama highlighted what could be on in some care homes by showing one extreme example..that was shocking but it brought light to what *could* be going on in some care homes. This is the same, there are alot of good breeders but the program is on to highlight the bad points of a certain subject so people are made aware of *potential* problems.
> 
> Sometimes it takes shocking images for people to be made aware..look at all the drink driving ads during the xmas period..remember the mangled up little girl in one of the ads?? Its shocking so people watch and think. Its far from sensationalism.


Spot on, rep for that


----------



## Spellweaver

Happy Paws said:


> Well most of you are having fun pulling her apart, so you must think there was nothing wrong with the dogs she had on her show.


What a ridiculous statement. Just because you disagree with someone's journalistic style does not mean that you think there is nothing wrong with the dogs she showed.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

5rivers79 said:


> I dont get all this talk about sensationalism. It highlighted what *potentially* goes on in some of the pedigree breeding world. Just like how panorama highlighted what could be on in some care homes by showing one extreme example..that was shocking but it brought light to what *could* be going on in some care homes. This is the same, there are alot of good breeders but the program is on to highlight the bad points of a certain subject so people are made aware of *potential* problems.
> 
> Sometimes it takes shocking images for people to be made aware..look at all the drink driving ads during the xmas period..remember the mangled up little girl in one of the ads?? Its shocking so people watch and think. Its far from sensationalism.


completely right. why do some breeders get so sensitive about this program? its about potential problems in breeds, but with breeds like cavaliers, which are very popular, 70% of cavs have syringomelia by the age of six, and nearly all cavs have a heart murmur by the age of eight. Now that is a very high incidence of problems in this breed.


----------



## Wildmoor

cinammontoast said:


> Are we disputing the fact that some breeds of dogs have been ruined this past century? Seriously? Open your ruddy eyes!
> 
> Just look at the show circuit and see how many extreme breeding examples you can see. If you think you have to look hard, then you are frankly horribly naïve.


do you think it only happens in the show or pedigree world open your eyes go onto any social housing estate and you see extremely poor examples of pedigree breeds from BYBs then look at the cross breeds AmBulls crossed with Pits absolutely huge heads and shoulders squashed faces over muscled but weak back ends, the cross small breeds with over/under shot mouths that cant eat properly, the cross staff/lurcher very aggressive (fear)

I would much rather have my Showline GSD Korean sire German dam from Italian breeder but bred in the UK than any other example of so called GSD within a 3 mile radius of my house all are either from BYBs both reg and unreg or from windy English line dogs


----------



## DKDREAM

its saddened me, all for ribbons dogs suffer. maybe breed standards shouldn't be so tight?


----------



## Spellweaver

Got to go to bed - I have work tomorrow. I derad to think how long this thread will be by the time I get home tomorrow night.


----------



## 5rivers79

Paganman said:


> Spot on, rep for that


Thanks.

I just dont get how members on here can even debate the program when its clear in day to day real life that there is a *BIG* problem that needs addressing. Even one breed being bred the wrong way is one breed too many.


----------



## Wildmoor

5rivers79 said:


> I dont get all this talk about sensationalism. It highlighted what *potentially* goes on in some of the pedigree breeding world. Just like how panorama highlighted what could be on in some care homes by showing one extreme example..that was shocking but it brought light to what *could* be going on in some care homes. This is the same, there are alot of good breeders but the program is on to highlight the bad points of a certain subject so people are made aware of *potential* problems.
> 
> Sometimes it takes shocking images for people to be made aware..look at all the drink driving ads during the xmas period..remember the mangled up little girl in one of the ads?? Its shocking so people watch and think. Its far from sensationalism.


if that was the case why not in my breeds case show the GSDs that owners of epileptic and serios heart conditions whose owners contacted her before the 1st show???????????

mmm maybe because they werent connected with the show breeders so she wouldnt have been able to have a go at the KC and the showing fraternity!


----------



## 5rivers79

Wildmoor said:


> do you think it only happens in the show or pedigree world open your eyes go onto any social housing estate and you see extremely poor examples of pedigree breeds from BYBs then look at the cross breeds AmBulls crossed with Pits absolutely huge heads and shoulders squashed faces over muscled but weak back ends, the cross small breeds with over/under shot mouths that cant eat properly, the cross staff/lurcher very aggressive (fear)
> 
> I would much rather have my Showline GSD Korean sire German dam from Italian breeder but bred in the UK than any other example of so called GSD within a 3 mile radius of my house all are either from BYBs both reg and unreg or from windy English line dogs


Thats true but sadly is not the point. The point is the KC are encouraging the looks aspect by allowing unhealthy breeds to take part in their competitions and give them the status of being champions.


----------



## Argent

Happy Paws said:


> Well most of you are having fun pulling her apart, so you must think there was nothing wrong with the dogs she had on her show.


I don't think it's about that....I think she's being pulled apart on here because of how one-sided her arguments tend to be. The only time I saw her talk about a breeder in a positive light was the dally breeder who imported Fiona.

Regular people that aren't all that involved with the dog world will now assume ALL dog breeders and EVERYONE who shows their dogs at Crufts is cruelly breeding mutant dogs and will go running to the 'pet breeder' or byb for some designer mutts with good ol' hybrid vigour - forgetting to mention that these genetic problems are prevalent in byb level dogs as well as show ring dogs.

Not ALL pugs are so dramatically deformed - I know some fit and healthy pugs who are slim with long legs, and a short but not flat muzzle and can run and play with the rest of the other dogs. My shih tzu is meant to be one of the offending breeds too, he does have a short muzzle, but he definitely has a snout and does not have to snort and hack just to trot from A to B.

She should've mentioned some more breeders who ARE following good ethics and breeding towards friendly, fit, healthy and well-functioning dogs, without all this KC politics, just doing it off their own backs - there's plenty out there!


----------



## Malmum

Fantastic programme as usual IMO and bl**dy awful breeders who *STILL* dismiss the health problems within their breeds and continue to breed dogs to die every day just for the sake of their own vanity. I said a long time ago on the Mal forum that I thought any show dog should have had health tests relevant to their breed as they should be as perfect an example inside as well as out, only to be told that it would ruin some peoples lives if they couldn't show  it's their hobby and what they love doing. Sorry but I really couldn't care less about *their* lives and *their* hobbies - I care far more about their dogs. I said then that trophies could lead to un healthy dogs being bred from, how little did I know that that is just what it does do.

The breeders featured on there are an utter disgrace and in no way can I see any reason why *anyone* would condone their actions! I feel the same about the breed clubs who think it best to just stick their fingers up at the general public for trying to help with their breed. Who the hell do they think they are? playing with peoples lives and the lives of the dogs they were set up to look after! Absolutely sickening the lot of them and a disgrace to the human race!

I know not all breed clubs are like that and not all breeders but why try to defend them when you are a good breeder? Surely a good breeder can see how disgraceful some breeders are. If it were BYB's there would be an outcry from breeders, yet these are breeders and showers who know what they are doing and continue to allow their diseased dogs to be used at stud!

When a case of Polyneuropathy was discovered in a Malamute in France a few years ago the breeder made it public immediately. Copies of the dogs pedigree were circulated amongst breed clubs and the pedigree was also posted on the internet - that's how it should be done, completely open. I believe the dog in question was also sent to the US to be studied. To keep a breed healthy and safe there should be no cover up whatsoever!

I can hold my head high in as much as I have never been conceited enough to put my vanity before the welfare of my dogs and I do agree with the guy on the programme who described dog shows as just that, a boost to someone's vanity. There may be a World of difference between us pet owners and show people and long may it continue as I don't want any connection with that kind of dog abuse on my conscience!


----------



## rocco33

DKDREAM said:


> its saddened me, all for ribbons dogs suffer. maybe breed standards shouldn't be so tight?


But they're not tight at all. And because they are not they are open to interpretation. It is the interpretation that causes the exaggerations. My working bred labs are recognisably labradors and generally comply to the breed standard, however, they would be laughed out of the show ring


----------



## 5rivers79

Wildmoor said:


> if that was the case why not in my breeds case show the GSDs that owners of epileptic and serios heart conditions whose owners contacted her before the 1st show???????????
> 
> mmm maybe because they werent connected with the show breeders so she wouldnt have been able to have a go at the KC and the showing fraternity!


Yeh but thats the point, show breeders, breed clubs and the KC are meant to be the _good_ side of breeding where you would expect some kinds of control for the welfare of these beloved breeds. When that control for welfare does not take place or is ignored then it needs to shown.


----------



## Paganman

Argent said:


> Not ALL pugs are so dramatically deformed - I know some fit and healthy pugs who are slim with long legs, and a short but not flat muzzle and can run and play with the rest of the other dogs. My shih tzu is meant to be one of the offending breeds too, he does have a short muzzle, but he definitely has a snout and does not have to snort and hack just to trot from A to B.


Your quite right just as not ALL dogs from BYB or cross breeds are unhealthy.
I'm sure many thousands go on to live long happy lives.


----------



## Wildmoor

5rivers79 said:


> Thats true but sadly is not the point. The point is the KC are encouraging the looks aspect by allowing unhealthy breeds to take part in their competitions and give them the status of being champions.


it isnt the KC that give them awards its the Judges, but again that isnt the point of her charades is it? and it isnt just her 2 programmes on dogs she has been slated over do your research into her production company


----------



## Angel pedigrees

Way too much on shows and show breeders and not enough on the BYB and by that i mean people who dont fall into the PF group!

I also own and breed Shih Tzu and to say they are a Brachycephalic breed they suffer no problems from this and breath as clear as me.

Oh i also own Bulldogs too, i agree some are not good but you cant say that about the whole of the breed :


----------



## LexiLou2

Happy Paws said:


> Well most of you are having fun pulling her apart, so you must think there was nothing wrong with the dogs she had on her show.


The dogs were appalling there is no doubt about that, the issue I had with the program is I sat there with my 'dog knowledge' hat on. I don't know a lot about dogs and breeding but I do know there are good breeders and bad breeders I know there will be breeders out there somewhere breeding a decent quality cav with the health tests etc they will just take some searching for, I know that I can't assume every ridgey breeder will cull pups, or ever dally breeder doesn't agree with crossing to a pointer to get a healthier dally, I can see the bigger picture....but because of the shock horror pictures, the sad images of the poor boxers that died and the one sided arguement how many people that watched that program are now going to go to a BYB for a cross because its 'healthier' in their mind than a pedigree.

In the most simplistic sense as the program was on my mum rang, she was watching too and she said to me that the reason Lexi has all the issues she has is because shes a pedigree, you only have to watch something like this to realise that all pedigrees are in bred and have health issues. She reckons if I had got a 'fancy doodle dog' i would have been fine as thats a cross and they don't have issues. Lexi is a staffie a breed that wasn't mentioned but people with limited knowledge of the dog world (and I count my parents in that) take a program like this and apply the message this program states as a blanket across all pedigree dogs and good breeders.

I know and many others that have dog world knowledge know Lexis issues do not stem from been pedigree, she isn't even KC reg, her issues stem from been bred from what I can only decribe as a BYB.

The dogs on that program were terrible but they are going to be the worst of the worst designed to shock and horrify, not inform and educate, as that does not make for good TV, regardless of what we may or may not think at the end of the day this was a TV program and it was designed to bring in the viewing figures, not to give an informed and balanced argument.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

An article about banning pugs and bulldogs (or crossing them with longer muzzled dogs):

Leading vet calls for pugs and bulldogs ban because the pedigree dogs often struggle to breathe | Mail Online

I fully agree with Malmum.


----------



## 5rivers79

Wildmoor said:


> it isnt the KC that give them awards its the Judges, but again that isnt the point of her charades is it? and it isnt just her 2 programmes on dogs she has been slated over do your research into her production company


Doesnt matter what the judges do, the organising body is the KC and they have to take responsibility for what goes on in their shows.


----------



## rocco33

> I said a long time ago on the Mal forum that I thought any show dog should have had health tests relevant to their breed as they should be as perfect an example inside as well as out, only to be told that it would ruin some peoples lives if they couldn't show


Why would doing health tests stop people from showing? In most cases it was the show folk who started using the health tests long before anyone else did (including the working breeders).



> The breeders featured on there are an utter disgrace and in no way can I see any reason why anyone would condone their actions!


I couldn't agree more - but I haven't seen anyone condoning their actions.



> know not all breed clubs are like that and not all breeders but why try to defend them when you are a good breeder? Surely a good breeder can see how disgraceful some breeders are. If it were BYB's there would be an outcry from breeders, yet these are breeders and showers who know what they are doing and continue to allow their diseased dogs to be used at stud!


I don't think anyone is trying to defend them. I'm certainly not. I do actually think that if those in the breeds affected are not doing anything to address the problems, which is what JH is claiming (I'm not involved so can't comment as to whether anything is being done or not), then she is absolutely right in highlighting them. However, her ego driven, sensationalist program (which she has admitted is OTT to get people's attention) is as damaging as it is informative and she could have done so much better. Her information is not always correct which casts doubt on her integrity and motivation. I can't remember the details, but she 'outed' a CH dog as having passed on a condition and died of it, when if fact the dog was in fact alive and healthy. As far as I'm aware she has made no apology or correction for her error. It is not surprising that there are those who are suspicous of her.


----------



## 5rivers79

LexiLou2 said:


> The dogs on that program were terrible but they are going to be the worst of the worst designed to shock and horrify, not inform and educate, as that does not make for good TV, regardless of what we may or may not think at the end of the day this was a TV program and it was designed to bring in the viewing figures, not to give an informed and balanced argument.


That would be like an ad campaign saying.."drink driving could possibly maybe kill"... doesnt have the same effect as "drink driving kills!" does it?


----------



## Wildmoor

5rivers79 said:


> Doesnt matter what the judges do, the organising body is the KC and they have to take responsibility for what goes on in their shows.


you are still not getting it are you in my breed reg have dropped its between 12-14 thousand a small % of these are bred from those that show, there are even more unreg ones born each year again not connected to the show world
if a dog produces a serious condition then it is retired , they are many in the show world who do many tests that have been developed such as PD, AF, DM etc do the others??
the ones JH showed are in the minority in the show world but are in the majority in the non show/standard types


----------



## Paganman

rocco33 said:


> I couldn't agree more - but I haven't seen anyone condoning their actions.
> 
> .


It would be nice though to see a breeder come on and write with as much passion as malumum instead of the usual "bashing" of the program.


----------



## LexiLou2

5rivers79 said:


> That would be like an ad campaign saying.."drink driving could possibly maybe kill"... doesnt have the same effect as "drink driving kills!" does it?


I completely agree but I think if you are going to do something as rash as that then you have to give a full and proper overview. What has PDE2 achieved if all those people watching tonight go to a BYB to get an oodle or poo or some other cross because its steering them away from the dreaded pedigrees? You need to give a proper insight, do a program on pedigrees by all means but do one on BYB's do one on puppy farms, if you want to shock horror the public I am sure many more people would be horrified by the conditions of puppy farm bitches than a couple of breeds within the KC have some health issues and that need some serious work to improve.
I know you need the shock factor but on the back of tonights programme IMO the good breeders out there of good quality health tested dogs are going to loose out to the puppy farmers churning out designer breeds because they are 'safer' in the publics eye.


----------



## 5rivers79

Wildmoor said:


> the ones JH showed *are in the minority in the show world* but are in the majority in the non show/standard types


I really dont understand why you dont get it?? Even a minority in the show world is too many because if that minority is allowed to carry on the minority will eventually grow to the detriment of the breed.

Byb and puppy farms are not discussed because for those of us who have a little knowledge know that those are the wrong places to get a dog. But when its the _legitimate_ show breeders that are following bad practices what hope is left for man's best friend?


----------



## Wildmoor

5rivers79 said:


> I really dont understand why you dont get it?? Even a minority in the show world is too many because if that minority is allowed to carry on the minority will eventually grow to the detriment of the breed.
> 
> Byb and puppy farms are not discussed because for those of us who have a little knowledge know that those are the wrong places to get a dog. But when its the _legitimate_ show breeders that are following bad practices what hope is left for man's best friend?


No I admit I do not understand where you are coming from - maybe its like that in your breed? what is your breed?
But not in mine that is why the GSD world dislike/distrust her the majority of crap breeders are not in the showing fraternity 98% of these crap breeders are from else where breeding purposely for the pet market


----------



## 5rivers79

LexiLou2 said:


> I know you need the shock factor but on the back of tonights programme IMO the good breeders out there of good quality health tested dogs are going to loose out to the puppy farmers churning out designer breeds because they are 'safer' in the publics eye.


IMO that wont happen, if someone really wants a GSD they will get one, if someone really wants a Rottie they will get one. My point is that the program will not disuade people from buying the breed they really want but it will get people asking questions of what health tests are carried out when they meet breeders. Well thats my opinion anyway.


----------



## terencesmum

5rivers79 said:


> Byb and puppy farms are not discussed because for those of us who have a little knowledge know that those are the wrong places to get a dog. But when its the _legitimate_ show breeders that are following bad practices what hope is left for man's best friend?


Surely, that is not true. Those of us who have a little knowledge know that Joe Public does not look at the pedigrees, go to an ethical breeder etc. Where does he go?? The guy down the road who sells the pups for cheap.
So, for me, the program is hitting out at the wrong end of the spectrum. Yes, I think some of those stories she showed today were tragic, but she didn't go about it the right way.


----------



## Malmum

5rivers79 said:


> I really dont understand why you dont get it?? Even a minority in the show world is too many because if that minority is allowed to carry on the minority will eventually grow to the detriment of the breed.
> 
> Byb and puppy farms are not discussed because for those of us who have a little knowledge know that those are the wrong places to get a dog. But when its the _legitimate_ show breeders that are following bad practices what hope is left for man's best friend?


There is no excuse five, whether it's a minority or not. Even dogs that are not on the "watch list" look hideous in shows - did you see how pompus the poodle looked, they look so much better when clipped sensibly. All that talc can't be good for the dogs sensitive noses, showmanship and very far removed from what dogs are really like. I have never understood why a poodle is thought to look better like that as opposed to just being clipped in order that you can actually see what a fantastic body it has - like many other breeds. Doesn't appeal to me any of this showing stuff and to see how some dogs suffer because of it makes me mad!

It's not unlike those awful American beauty pageant things where vile parents smother their little girls in make up just to win a prize.


----------



## Wildmoor

5rivers79 said:


> IMO that wont happen, if someone really wants a GSD they will get one, if someone really wants a Rottie they will get one. My point is that the program will not disuade people from buying the breed they really want but it will get people asking questions of what health tests are carried out when they meet breeders. Well thats my opinion anyway.


But it doesnt I run a GSD forum and the majorty join after getting their pup from bybs, the few that do join before it is me who tells them what tests they need to be asking for and steering them to correct breeders of either working type or show type not JH's programme


----------



## 5rivers79

Wildmoor said:


> No I admit I do not understand where you are coming from - maybe its like that in your breed? what is your breed?
> But not in mine that is why the GSD world dislike/distrust her the majority of crap breeders are not in the showing fraternity 98% of these crap breeders are from else where breeding purposely for the pet market


One is Japanese Inu X American Akita and the other appears to be a American Bulldog who i rescued. I dont know what the position of my breeds are in the show ring so cant comment.

BUT what i can say is if you really dont understand the plight of breeds such as Cavs, Bulldogs and Pugs etc then either you simply are ignoring what is going on or are in denial that a problem exists.

Im just giving my opinion of what the program has highlighted to me, im no expert in any field..medical field, working field, show field or breeding field. Im just a member of good old Joe Public


----------



## pod

Wildmoor said:


> No I admit I do not understand where you are coming from - maybe its like that in your breed? what is your breed?
> But not in mine that is why the GSD world dislike/distrust her the majority of crap breeders are not in the showing fraternity 98% of these crap breeders are from else where breeding purposely for the pet market


It's the show breeders who are the subject of the programme because these are the ones breeding for the exaggerations that predispose to the health problems under discussion. And the GSD is one prime example of how showring competion can cause exaggeration and a diminished gene pool.


----------



## 5rivers79

Wildmoor said:


> But it doesnt I run a GSD forum and the majorty join after getting their pup from bybs, the few that do join before it is me who tells them what tests they need to be asking for and steering them to correct breeders of either working type or show type not JH's programme


But how many people know of your forum compared to the amount of people that want GSDs?

Programs like these make people on a large scale aware that they should be buying healthy dogs and make sure the necessary tests have been done to ensure the pups they have bought have less a risk of getting breed associated problems.

People buying from the bloke down the road will think twice, and people buying from a show breeder will also be asking questions that they may not have thought of asking before.

Are you not happy that a program like this will encourage someone like me to ask questions regarding health when setting out to buy a dog of your breed?


----------



## terencesmum

5rivers79 said:


> But how many people know of your forum compared to the amount of people that want GSDs?
> 
> Programs like these make people on a large scale aware that they should be buying healthy dogs and make sure the necessary tests have been done to ensure the pups they have bought have less a risk of getting breed associated problems.
> 
> People buying from the bloke down the road will think twice, and people buying from a show breeder will also be asking questions that they may not have thought of asking before.
> 
> Are you not happy that a program like this will encourage someone like me to ask questions regarding health when setting out to buy a dog of your breed?


It was shown on BBC4!!! If they had wanted to make loads and loads of people aware it would have been shown on BBC1!!!


----------



## 5rivers79

terencesmum said:


> It was shown on BBC4!!! If they had wanted to make loads and loads of people aware it would have been shown on BBC1!!!


But isnt that upto the BBC? Surely thats not the reporter's or the program makers fault?


----------



## Wildmoor

pod said:


> It's the show breeders who are the subject of the programme because these are the ones breeding for the exaggerations that predispose to the health problems under discussion. And the GSD is one prime example of how showring competion can cause exaggeration and a diminished gene pool.


is it the show breeders of GSDs breeding for narrow skulls so they become more collie like in the head? no it isnt
is it the show breeders breeding from dogs with CDA just to get colour? no it isnt
is it the show breeders breeding from either no hip/elbow score or high ones? no it isnt
is it the show breeders inbreeding on known epileptic producers? no it isnt

6 GSDs are not a major health problem, the ones from breeders who do the above are


----------



## Wildmoor

5rivers79 said:


> But how many people know of your forum compared to the amount of people that want GSDs?
> 
> Programs like these make people on a large scale aware that they should be buying healthy dogs and make sure the necessary tests have been done to ensure the pups they have bought have less a risk of getting breed associated problems.
> 
> People buying from the bloke down the road will think twice, and people buying from a show breeder will also be asking questions that they may not have thought of asking before.
> 
> Are you not happy that a program like this will encourage someone like me to ask questions regarding health when setting out to buy a dog of your breed?


There was absolutely no mention of the tests a GSD should have!


----------



## Malmum

You don't need to be an expert to see how those dogs are suffering, you just need to have eyes! 

How any dog lover can not see that those poor Pugs and Bull dogs having problems with breathing is cruel is beyond me. I don't need numerous Professors to tell me it's wrong to breed like that but unfortunately some do and even then question what these people have spent a lifetime studying. If highly educated people, including geneticists are not to be listened to then who is? - it certainly wouldn't appear to be breeders, far from it in fact! 

Just keep the image of the Pekingese dog in your head, then imagine it's you who has to struggle to breath like that and how you would feel. It has to be stopped and just like buying from BYB's & PF's the gen pub should boycott all these breeds until they are bred responsibly. People who breed dogs like that are no better than BYB's and PF's - in fact they are worse as not being able to breath properly has to be the most debilitating condition of all. Even a dog with HD has a better chance of normality than a poor dog struggling to breath it's entire life. People must stop buying these breeds completely, it's seems it is the only way breeders will actually listen if it affects their pocket and they get stuck with puppies that no one wants. Treat them like BYB's & PF's and don't line their pockets!


----------



## 5rivers79

Wildmoor said:


> There was absolutely no mention of the tests a GSD should have!


Breed is not the point. What is important is that *ALL* breeds should be bred in a healthy and responsible way and thats what i got from watching the program.


----------



## Malmum

Wildmoor said:


> But not in mine that is why the GSD world dislike/distrust her the majority of crap breeders are not in the showing fraternity 98% of these crap breeders are from else where breeding purposely for the pet market


That must be why the GSD is on the "watch list" then - because there is nothing wrong with them in the show ring!  It is the show world who are creating the problems with all of these breeds and breeding to cruel standards - funny cos I could have sworn that is exactly what the programme stated.

Malamutes are not on the "watch list" so we don't hate JH at all, but I wouldn't hate her or mistrust her if my breed were suffering, I would accept her comments gladly so as it didn't continue! Probably because I actually do *love the breed*!


----------



## Wildmoor

I am not interested in other breeds or crossbreeds in your case I only have 2 breeds GSDs & CPs and it is their health & welfare that I have at heart not others that I have never owned or will do, I do campaign on the health of my breed and do out the crap breeders in my chosen breeds - theres a few names here I recognise and have had run ins with.
I know both my breeds history including the genetic history and what lines carry what inherent conditions, I can tell even as a young pup whether its from WG show lines, working lines, pet bred, English show lines, I know the breed inside out so no I am not interested in other breeds just my own. On the GSD I have read every book out there apart from a few recent ones, even ones only published in German, one of the recent published books I refuse to even look at let alone buy as it has been produced by someone who for decades has been breeding from known epileptic producers (not connected with show lines) - name may change but I have a long memory.


----------



## Wildmoor

Malmum said:


> That must be why the GSD is on the "watch list" then - because there is nothing wrong with them in the show ring!  It is the show world who are creating the problems with all of these breeds and breeding to cruel standards - funny cos I could have sworn that is exactly what the programme stated.
> 
> Malamutes are not on the "watch list" so we don't hate JH at all, but I wouldn't hate her or mistrust her if my breed were suffering, I would accept her comments gladly so as it didn't continue! Probably because I actually do *love the breed*!


and pray tell what this watch list is? your breed is no healthier than mine it as its problems I had many disscussion with JH elsewhere and her arguements were flawed - the KC do not like our breed council as the council are the ones challenging the KC to introduce mandatory tests and maximum grades a dog can be bred from this as been going on long before JH


----------



## pod

Wildmoor said:


> is it the show breeders of GSDs breeding for narrow skulls so they become more collie like in the head? no it isnt
> is it the show breeders breeding from dogs with CDA just to get colour? no it isnt
> is it the show breeders breeding from either no hip/elbow score or high ones? no it isnt
> is it the show breeders inbreeding on known epileptic producers? no it isnt
> 
> 6 GSDs are not a major health problem, the ones from breeders who do the above are


I don't think you've understood my point. There will always be cases of someone doing something even worse. Do I really have to ask - do two wrongs make a right?

The point again - breeding for showring exaggerations predisposes to health problems and diminished gene pools. This is the central point of PDE.

6 GSDs---?? could you explain please


----------



## 5rivers79

Wildmoor said:


> I am not interested in other breeds or crossbreeds in your case I only have 2 breeds GSDs & CPs and it is their health & welfare that I have at heart not others that I have never owned or will do,


May be thats the problem right there, people who do care enough to keep proper measures for their own breeds simply do not care what is happening amongst other breeds. IMO very shallow. Dogs are dogs, God's creatures no matter what the breed, they all want to be healthy, they all want to be loved and they all want to be cared for. Segregation is something formed by humans and imo one of the many evils of mankind.

Its only humans that could have done this to such a beautiful animal and for what but our own selfish pleasures. If only the wolf had bitten man's ass when man first wanted to have him as a pet!


----------



## Wildmoor

pod said:


> I don't think you've understood my point. There will always be cases of someone doing something even worse. Do I really have to ask - do two wrongs make a right?
> 
> The point again - breeding for showring exaggerations predisposes to health problems and diminished gene pools. This is the central point of PDE.
> 
> 6 GSDs---?? could you explain please


6 GSDs equates to the ones she filmed over a year perod to get the footage she did, again she admited this and named them I will dig them out for you, again when she started quoting COIs a lot of imports which the show fraternity use the KC will only put in their database 3 gens so not a true COI of the GSDs in the show rings


----------



## Elles

Wildmoor said:


> and pray tell what this watch list is?


Probably this:

Vet Checks For High Profile Breeds At Crufts 2012 And Championship Shows Thereafter - The Kennel Club

The fifteen high profile breeds are as follows: Basset Hound, Bloodhound, Bulldog, Chow Chow, Clumber Spaniel, Dogue De Bordeaux, German Shepherd Dog, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff, Pekingese, Shar Pei, St Bernard, French Bulldog, Pug and Chinese Crested.


----------



## Wildmoor

5rivers you may call me shallow I dont care but the knowledge i have on my own breeds I couldnt have that on all the other breeds of the world, I stick to my own, I dont like mongrols never have, I cant possibly police all the breeds of the world I concentrate on my own - but you will likely find people like me in these other breeds that do the same as me for their own breeds

hence like in work I specialise in one field the knowledge you gain by doing this enables you to hep many, but if you only knew a little bit about a lot of things you could only help a few, maybe it ist like that in your given profession but it is in mine and by knowing a lot about one subject area you can excell in your profession which then benefits the wider society


----------



## Wildmoor

Elles said:


> Probably this:
> 
> Vet Checks For High Profile Breeds At Crufts 2012 And Championship Shows Thereafter - The Kennel Club
> 
> The fifteen high profile breeds are as follows: Basset Hound, Bloodhound, Bulldog, Chow Chow, Clumber Spaniel, Dogue De Bordeaux, German Shepherd Dog, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff, Pekingese, Shar Pei, St Bernard, French Bulldog, Pug and Chinese Crested.


I cant see what this has to do with the GSD
"The guidance which we will issue to Show Vets will focus on clinical signs associated with pain or discomfort which will come under the main headings of external eye disease, lameness, skin disorders and breathing difficulty. The show veterinary surgeons will be looking for signs such as ectropion, entropion, corneal damage, dermatitis, breathing difficulty on moderate exercise, and lameness. The fifteenth breed is the Chinese Crested where the principal issue will be the presence of skin damage arising from hair removal and thus signs of clipper rash or chemical insults to the skin will be looked for."


----------



## 5rivers79

Wildmoor said:


> 5rivers you may call me shallow I dont care but the knowledge i have on my own breeds I couldnt have that on all the other breeds of the world, I stick to my own, I dont like mongrols never have, I cant possibly police all the breeds of the world I concentrate on my own - but you will likely find people like me in these other breeds that do the same as me for their own breeds
> 
> hence like in work I specialise in one field the knowledge you gain by doing this enables you to hep many, but if you only knew a little bit about a lot of things you could only help a few, maybe it ist like that in your given profession but it is in mine and by knowing a lot about one subject area you can excell in your profession which then benefits the wider society


Im not saying you need knowledge on other breeds. But you said you dont care and imo that is harsh. You dont need knowledge to see certain breeds cant breathe properly due to their looks..does that really not evoke some kind of feelings in you?? Id feel gutted if i saw the same happening to cats, horses, cows, sheep etc etc..i dont own them but it doesnt mean i dont care and i would be just as disgusted with that too.


----------



## pod

Wildmoor said:


> I cant see what this has to do with the GSD


Take a look here. This footage from Crufts 2008 -

GSD Movement in slow motion - YouTube


----------



## Wildmoor

i was refering to the quote from that link
I have seen JHs you tube links the GSDs she filmed were not all at Crufts and as stated it took her a year to film 6 dogs! thats how badly the GSDs are lol 6 out of hundreds she admitted this eslsewhere


----------



## Wildmoor

5rivers79 said:


> Im not saying you need knowledge on other breeds. But you said you dont care and imo that is harsh. You dont need knowledge to see certain breeds cant breathe properly due to their looks..does that really not evoke some kind of feelings in you?? Id feel gutted if i saw the same happening to cats, horses, cows, sheep etc etc..i dont own them but it doesnt mean i dont care and i would be just as disgusted with that too.


if your that concerned about dogs you would be horrified on the breeding practices in some lifestock breeds 
it may seem harsh but like I stated I concentrate on my own breeds not others


----------



## pod

Wildmoor said:


> i was refering to the quote from that link
> I have seen JHs you tube links the GSDs she filmed were not all at Crufts and as stated it took her a year to film 6 dogs! thats how badly the GSDs are lol 6 out of hundreds she admitted this eslsewhere


That footage is actually all from Crufts 2008. Remember all dogs have qualified to attend.

I'm sure that the time taken to access GSDs suitable for filming is more to do with the massive undertaking this programme took. As somebody said (I think on this forum) GSDs alone would have filled the whole hour adequately.


----------



## Paganman

pod said:


> That footage is actually all from Crufts 2008. Remember all dogs have qualified to attend.
> 
> I'm sure that the time taken to access GSDs suitable for filming is more to do with the massive undertaking this programme took. As somebody said (I think on this forum) GSDs alone would have filled the whole hour adequately.


Indeed the GSD has its issues which maybe why some have worked hard on the testing. Had they not, it could have gone very wrong for the breed altogether.

I do know wildmoor is very passionate about the health of the GSD and knows her stuff and will help anyone on the subject.


----------



## 5rivers79

Wildmoor said:


> if your that concerned about dogs you would be horrified on the breeding practices in some lifestock breeds
> it may seem harsh but like I stated I concentrate on my own breeds not others


So what you are basically saying is you dont care? Fair enough.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

5rivers79 said:


> Breed is not the point. What is important is that *ALL* breeds should be bred in a healthy and responsible way and thats what i got from watching the program.


So how come you defend Sammy's breeder all the time? Someone who is a byb, breeds from a non-KC registered bitch to a KC registered dog, he happens to own both and does no health tests that you know of? How responsible is that?

For me, if you have this sort of view, it needs to be applied across the board, you can't slate one set of breeders and say it's ok for the rest, because they're not *show* dogs. 

---------------------------------------------------------

I didn't watch the programme btw, I take it the whole thing was just as badly produced as the first one?


----------



## Colette

Quick question to Spellweaver (and anyone else) about the SM cav and the woman who repeatedly bred from him after diagnosis...



> As in the first episode (which was where all that footage was from) you won't find anyone on here disagreeing with you on that one. I thiink everyone was amazed and aghast at a breeder who would breed from a dog with such an illness.


But not everyone was aghast - that is my concern. On here we all seem to agree that breeder was totally irresponsible, but the response of the breed club said a lot for me. They rallied round to defend this woman, whilst hounding out the woman who shopped her; the woman who was campaigning for better breed health.

That doesn't suggest that _most_ show breeders are ethical / responsible etc - not when they defend practices like this.

Same with the dalmatian clubs - most of whom fought tooth and claw against the LUA dallies being KC registered. This doesn't suggest a few breeders don't care about health - it suggests that many breeders put "purity" above health (despite the LUA dogs being to all intents and purposes pure dallies anyway).

My last issue is with the breeds with obvious exaggerations that risk* health. Whilst dogs with extreme features are winning at KC shows (placed by KC trained judges) how many breeders are going to breed away from these extremeties? Again, it isn't a minority of bad breeders producing bulldogs with no snout or neos with skin three sizes too big - it is most of them, and many are winning.

(* I used the word "risk" because I do realise that not every individual dog with extreme features will suffer health problems as a result - eg some pugs can breathe properly - BUT the feature itself is high risk, the cause of the problem where is does occur).


----------



## wooliewoo

Colette said:


> My last issue is with the breeds with obvious exaggerations that risk* health. Whilst dogs with extreme features are winning at KC shows (placed by KC trained judges) how many breeders are going to breed away from these extremeties? Again, it isn't a minority of bad breeders producing bulldogs with no snout or neos with skin three sizes too big - it is most of them, and many are winning.
> 
> .


I agree, although show breeders are only a % of breeders they are in effect setting the standards. If their poorly breed dog is winning then to an outsider it must be the correct standard!!!!!!:mellow: Im afraid to say its winning because the judge has connections to that dog /breeder (my opinion gained from being at shows where the judge is looking at the wrong end of the lead):
The KC wanna make changes then it needs to look at the judges!!!!
We advise potential owners to visit shows to have a look at the breed etc and gain knowledge but in some breeds they are getting bad information

The buck stops with the breeder- unfortunately it seems they are free to do what they want as no-one is checking and just accepting what they are doing


----------



## Spellweaver

Malmum said:


> I know not all breed clubs are like that and not all breeders but why try to defend them when you are a good breeder? Surely a good breeder can see how disgraceful some breeders are. If it were BYB's there would be an outcry from breeders, yet these are breeders and showers who know what they are doing and continue to allow their diseased dogs to be used at stud


And how many good breeders do you know who actually do this? From what I can see, none of the good breeders on here (and none of the good breeders I know in real life) condone anything like this. Surely by definition, any breeder who condones this is a bad breeder, not a good breeder?

And whilst you say here that you know all breed clubs and all breeders are not bad, you seem to have completely changed your mind when you get to the end of your post - suddenly you are saying that ALL show people (which must mean all show breeders and all breeds clubs) are bad.



Malmum said:


> When a case of Polyneuropathy was discovered in a Malamute in France a few years ago the breeder made it public immediately. Copies of the dogs pedigree were circulated amongst breed clubs and the pedigree was also posted on the internet - that's how it should be done, completely open. I believe the dog in question was also sent to the US to be studied. To keep a breed healthy and safe there should be no cover up whatsoever!


A good example of a good breeder. Now, no-one would try to pretend that all breeders are this good, just because they've seen one example of a good breeder. But your comments below about show dogs and show breeders show that you are not applying the same rules in reverse - ie just because you have been shown an example of a bad boxer breeder it doesn't automatically follow that all boxer breeders are bad. Why are you trying to say that it does? And why, by the end of your post, have you extended that to ALL show breeders by saying things like all show breeders are conceited people who put their own vanity above the welfare of their dogs?



Malmum said:


> I can hold my head high in as much as I have never been conceited enough to put my vanity before the welfare of my dogs and I do agree with the guy on the programme who described dog shows as just that, a boost to someone's vanity. There may be a World of difference between us pet owners and show people and long may it continue as I don't want any connection with that kind of dog abuse on my conscience!


I can hold my head equally as high as you and find it quite insulting that you try to tar ALL show people with *dog abuse *(your words). My dogs are also my pets and a less abused lot you never saw. I am not vain, and the welfare of my dogs is paramount - and I would say the same for any of the owners on here who show their dogs. In fact, I challenge you to supply any evidence whatsoever that I or any of the people on here who show our dogs abuse our dogs. If you can come up with the smallest shred of evidence, I will donate £50 to the AHT. If you cannot, will you do the same? Over to you. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? I am.

We have heard tales of some horrific dog abuse by "ordinary" pet owners in the press recently - eg the guy who tied a dog to a car, the guy who was videod kicking and abusing a dog on its lead. How would you feel as a pet owner if I said something as stupid as, "Thank goodness I'm a show owner and not a pet owner. There is a world of difference between us and long may it continue as I don't want any connection with that kind of dog abuse on my conscience!" You wouldn't like it at all that I was stupid enough to lump all pet owners in the same boat as a few bad pet owners, would you? So why do you think it is ok for you to do the same in reverse - ie slate all show people because you have seen or or two examples of bad show people?

And THAT is what is wrong with this kind of baised reporting that shows only one side of a story. As evidenced in posts like these, this kind of reporting leads viewers to believe that the bad part is the only part, which is as blatantly untrue as trying to pretend there is no bad.

I am going to save this post so that, in future, when people such as Goblin are trying to say, "I don't know anyone who thinks the program made viewers think all show people were bad" then I can trot this out as a prime example that he/she does.


----------



## Helbo

Haven't read the whole thread  it's a bit long now!

But I just wanted to say I am shocked at how irresponsible some KC registered breeders can be. I had no idea about the extent of the problem of inbreeding and how little the KC actually do about the few problem breeders who are breeding from parents with serious diseases/with the genes for a serious disease. 

When I bought Charlie I was given a full family tree going back several generations to show his bloodline, but I wonder how many breeders aren't so forthcoming with such information...:skep:


----------



## Cleo38

I can't comment on the journalist in question as I know nothing about her (& I haven't read all 57 pages of this thread) but as 'an ordinary pet owner' I was horrified at the programme last night & found the footage of the KC spaniel particularly upsetting.

I didn't find that the programme was targetting ALL breeders but was highlighting that 'some' (supposedly) top breeders are using unsuitable dogs for stud & are not being taken to task for this. I also found it staggering that the dalmation owner had to fight to get her dog registered & accepted depsite trying to improve the breed.

It keeps being stressed that most breeders don't condone this behaviour but some obviously do & are quite influential.

It maybe that this was a sensationalist piece of journalism but at times this is needed to raise awareness & get people talking - it's obviously worked as this thread is over 57 pages long!

I feel (imo) that I have learned alot more about possible genetic conditions, health problems, how breeds have changed over the years, etc which may mean I can read further about them should I wish. If this also helps other people & makes them more aware when buying a puppy then surely this can only be a good thing.

Despite whether or not the journalist is biased or whatever I just hope that changes are made so that less dogs are affected by health problems in furture lines.


----------



## Spellweaver

Malmum said:


> Malamutes are not on the "watch list" so we don't hate JH at all, but I wouldn't hate her or mistrust her if my breed were suffering, I would accept her comments gladly so as it didn't continue! Probably because I actually do *love the breed*!


My two breeds - border collies and bergamaschi - aren't on the "watch list" either - in fact the bergamasco has no known health probelms whatsoever - but that doesn't blind me to the fact that this reporter cannot be trusted to report in an unbiased manner, and deliberately misleads viewers to think that because one or two examples of a breed are badly bred, then every single dog in that breed must be badly bred, and hence all show dogs must be badly bred and unhealthy. Don't you realise that by that extension, she is also intimating that your breed must be unhealthy? Well, mals are shown aren't they? Ergo, by JH's definition -and by the definitioin of the man whose views you were extolling in an earlier post - they are an unhealthy breed, nothing more than another breed in the parade of mutants.


----------



## noushka05

Malmum said:


> I can hold my head high in as much as I have never been conceited enough to put my vanity before the welfare of my dogs and I do agree with the guy on the programme who described dog shows as just that, a boost to someone's vanity. There may be a World of difference between us pet owners and show people and long may it continue as I don't want any connection with that kind of dog abuse on my conscience!


gosh Malmum this is so offensive:nonod:.....and just highlights the damage a bias program like that can do.



5rivers79 said:


> I really dont understand why you dont get it?? Even a minority in the show world is too many because if that minority is allowed to carry on the minority will eventually grow to the detriment of the breed.
> 
> Byb and puppy farms are not discussed because for those of us who have a little knowledge know that those are the wrong places to get a dog. But when its the _legitimate_ show breeders that are following bad practices what hope is left for man's best friend?


funny that you bought Sammy from a byb then isnt it



5rivers79 said:


> One is Japanese Inu X American Akita and the other appears to be a American Bulldog who i rescued. I dont know what the position of my breeds are in the show ring so cant comment.
> 
> BUT what i can say is if you really dont understand the plight of breeds such as Cavs, Bulldogs and Pugs etc then either you simply are ignoring what is going on or are in denial that a problem exists.
> 
> Im just giving my opinion of what the program has highlighted to me, im no expert in any field..medical field, working field, show field or breeding field. Im just a member of good old Joe Public


be honest 5Rivers you dont know exactly what Sammy is do you? one minute hes a Japanese Akita Inu next hes an Akita...now hes a tweenie

Ive seen the pics of his parents and neither of them are Inu's,

.


----------



## Helbo

Cleo38 said:


> I can't comment on the journalist in question as I know nothing about her (& I haven't read all 57 pages of this thread) but as 'an ordinary pet owner' I was horrified at the programme last night & found the footage of the KC spaniel particularly upsetting.
> 
> I didn't find that the programme was targetting ALL breeders but was highlighting that 'some' (supposedly) top breeders are using unsuitable dogs for stud & are not being taken to task for this. I also found it staggering that the dalmation owner had to fight to get her dog registered & accepted depsite trying to improve the breed.
> 
> It keeps being stressed that most breeders don't condone this behaviour but some obviously do & are quite influential.
> 
> It maybe that this was a sensationalist piece of journalism but at times this is needed to raise awareness & get people talking - it's obviously worked as this thread is over 57 pages long!
> 
> I feel (imo) that I have learned alot more about possible genetic conditions, health problems, how breeds have changed over the years, etc which may mean I can read further about them should I wish. If this also helps other people & makes them more aware when buying a puppy then surely this can only be a good thing.
> 
> Despite whether or not the journalist is biased or whatever I just hope that changes are made so that less dogs are affected by health problems in furture lines.


Nicely said. I feel the same. I was made aware of issues by the tv programme, but i'm not a lemming. I understand they were talking about a handful of breeders, not all breeders.

I was also upset to see the KC spaniel footage, and that a high percentage could develop such a painful disease.


----------



## Blondie

I havent even watched the programme yet, lol!! 

We had to record it to watch laters when I can shove Maddie Madmad upstairs with my daughter as she was going berserk at the dogs on the programme  

Am not commenting till I've watched it, but am enjoying reading everyone else comments, lol! :biggrin:


----------



## 5rivers79

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So how come you defend Sammy's breeder all the time? Someone who is a byb, breeds from a non-KC registered bitch to a KC registered dog, he happens to own both and does no health tests that you know of? How responsible is that?
> 
> For me, if you have this sort of view, it needs to be applied across the board, you can't slate one set of breeders and say it's ok for the rest, because they're not *show* dogs.


Yeh you may be right, but the guy i got my dog from is a pet breeder and has has bred for himself, his family and his friends. Yeh its also a fair point i didnt ask questions when i went to buy Sam, but i can hand on heart say i was naive or maybe gullible then and after seeing Sam and his parents i wanted him full stop.

The breeder i got my dog from is not endorsed by a multi million pound organisation. He isnt breeding a facially deformed breed that cant breathe adequately with the support of a large multi million pound organisation. Id much rather buy a dog from a pet breeder with a good heart than some show breeder who is destroying their breed just to fuel their own ego.


----------



## 5rivers79

noushka05 said:


> gosh Malmum this is so offensive:nonod:.....and just highlights the damage a bias program like that can do.
> 
> The only damage done is to people who are ruining their own breed for the sake of vanity and ego.
> 
> funny that you bought Sammy from a byb then isnt it
> 
> Atleast he isnt lining his pockets with deformed dogs endorsed by the very breed clubs and organisation that is meant to look out for the welfare of their own breed
> 
> be honest 5Rivers you dont know exactly what Sammy is do you? one minute hes a Japanese Akita Inu next hes an Akita...now hes a tweenie
> 
> Ive seen the pics of his parents and neither of them are Inu's,
> 
> .


Uv seen pictures, iv seen the Sire's pedigree papers with photos of his ancestors. Fair enough the mum isnt pedigree but its plain to see she is Akita. 

Funny how this has turned to being about where my dogs are from LOL Its like you are actually attempting to defend the disgusting actions of those that were shown on the program.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Haven't yet watched it but there are some truly misleading things being said about GSDs in this thread...



Wildmoor said:


> to enter the working class at the show ie dogs/bitches over 2yrs health tests are mandatory....


What show? What has it to do with the Kennel Club?



Wildmoor said:


> .... produced by someone who for decades has been breeding from known epileptic producers (not connected with show lines) - name may change but I have a long memory.


If my memory serves me well one of the earliest 'top' show GSDs in the UK suffered from epilepsy and, if you go far enough back up the pedigrees for many, many GSDs you'll find him represented. So, it is prevalent in show lines too. (I can think of one breeder who is a 'show' breeder who still produces dogs that have exhibited that tendency).



Wildmoor said:


> 6 GSDs equates to the ones she filmed over a year perod to get the footage she did, again she admited this and named them I will dig them out for you, again when she started quoting COIs a lot of imports which the show fraternity use the KC will only put in their database 3 gens so not a true COI of the GSDs in the show rings


Funny, I thought in the first PDE most of her footage came from one show. In fact it was one show and then Crufts PDE1 GSDs. The You Tube video of Crufts 2008 shows precisely what a shambles the breeding of dogs with roach backs has inflicted on the breed. (And has nothing to do with Harrison). If anyone wants to see live evidence of how bad the GSD has become they should go to Crufts this year. AFAIK all the dogs there will be 'German' as all the better known 'English' breeders won't exhibit because of the perceived bias of the judge. You won't see a finer example of bendy backs anywhere in the UK. The comment of the Crufts judge in the PDE1 video shows how far divorced from reality he and 'German' breeders are.



pod said:


> It's the show breeders who are the subject of the programme because these are the ones breeding for the exaggerations that predispose to the health problems under discussion. And the GSD is one prime example of how showring competion can cause exaggeration and a diminished gene pool.


Not quite. It's a prime example of those breeders who won't adhere to the KC standard when breeding their dogs but would rather follow fashion in following the way the dogs have been developed (and ruined) in Germany by breeding which makes a total mockery of what a GSD is supposed to be like. There are a number of us that won't breed roach backs and who continue to try and get the breed back to what it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, the majority of GSD judges now promote the 'German' type to the detriment of the breed. (It's fashion - it's totally different to what the GSD is meant to be).



Wildmoor said:


> But it doesnt I run a GSD forum and the majorty join after getting their pup from bybs, the few that do join before it is me who tells them what tests they need to be asking for and steering them to correct breeders of either working type or show type not JH's programme


Twaddle. Most GSD buyers don't give a toss about health checks. I get lots of people stop me when I walk my dogs asking if I know of any puppies for sale. When I ask them what they know about GSDs it's pretty much a catalogue of ignorance and nobody has ever asked me any questions about health. (OTOH I guess my dogs look healthy).



Wildmoor said:


> I cant see what this has to do with the GSD
> "The guidance which we will issue to Show Vets will focus on clinical signs associated with pain or discomfort which will come under the main headings of external eye disease, lameness, skin disorders and breathing difficulty. The show veterinary surgeons will be looking for signs such as ectropion, entropion, corneal damage, dermatitis, breathing difficulty on moderate exercise, and lameness. The fifteenth breed is the Chinese Crested where the principal issue will be the presence of skin damage arising from hair removal and thus signs of clipper rash or chemical insults to the skin will be looked for."


Funny you missed this bit: There are 195 breeds whose participation in the hobby of dog showing is overshadowed by _*the small minority of people within some high profile breeds who seem to continue to breed, and occasionally reward, unhealthy dogs*_ and who by so doing are bringing down the reputation of the hobby and the rest of the dog showing fraternity."

They specifically singled out the GSD as one such breed. The 'German' breed clubs refused to sign up to the KC's health check programme - until it was made clear to them that they'd lose the chance to offer Championship Certificates at their shows if they didn't. At that point resistance crumbled. (This is all well documented on various 'German' GSD club websites).

As a matter of FACT the majority (if not all) the shows this year which will be awarding championship points to GSDs will be judged by people from the ranks of the 'German' style breeders. So, as Pod noted, the show breed will continue to degenerate. Not until the KC actually police GSD judges and make sure that they are judging to the GSD standard (as opposed to their personal preference) will this situation start to become reversed.


----------



## Autaven

Kennel Club are doing a live Q&A just now if anyone wanted to ask them anything. Think it's nearly finished though;

Kennel Club Live Q and A - The Kennel Club

Just reading through so sorry if this has already been posted!


----------



## Tollisty

A comment from someone on another forum -



> It would put me off buying any puppy from a Show Breeder (not that I would anyway).
> 
> If I were going to buy a pedigree pup I think I would be looking for one that has NO show champions in its pedigree, if I wanted a healthy dog! Maybe working strains are a better bet.
> 
> It certainly did seem to come across as 'All Show Breeding is Bad', for example, the comments from the RSPCA vet who thought that the whole KC should be scrapped.


----------



## cinnamontoast

5rivers, seriously, the breeder had a good heart? Are you on the same planet as us lot? It matters not a jot that the breeder had a good heart-more like an eye on his bank balance, breeding 'status dogs'. 

My dogs' breeder 'had a good heart' which meant he then ignored my email telling him that Zak had HD. Stupid me, thinking that was the right thing to do and would encourage him to re-consider using the dam or sire again. The breeders shown on the programme clearly don't give a damn because they continue to use known health issue dogs to further their lines/showing career.

I am not put off buying a KC registered dog, but I am put off buying a non-health tested dog (I mean thorough health tests with low scores because I think it should be made illegal to use dogs with high scores and say 'yeah, he's tested'-yeah, tested as bloody appalling!).

There are some awful, inhuman breeders out there and there are some fabulous, caring breeders who are in it for altruistic, improve the breed reasons, not the kudos or the money.


----------



## DoodlesRule

Spellweaver said:


> I have to disagree with you on the matter of registrations. As it is now, a prospective buyer/breeder can look up any registered puppy and see whether or not health test have been performed on sire, dam, and ancestors. They can see which puppies are from health tested stock - ie which are good breeders - and which are from non-health tested stock - ie which are bad breeders. If only progeny from health tested parents were registered, there would be a huge pool of unregistered pedigrees around, pedigrees that no-one can check up on to see wehther they have come from health tested stock or not.
> 
> Now given that many buyers are not that savvy about what goes on in the dog world (if they were, puppy farmers would not be selling as many dogs as they are), a huge pool of unregistered dogs, which the prospective buyer cannot check up on, is merely playing into the puppy farmers' hands.
> 
> You can just imagine the conversation: "Oh, no, they're not registered. There's no need to have 'em registered if you don't want to show and, let's face it, show dogs are all unhealthy anyway. Have you seen that PDE? No, these dogs are perfectly healthy love. Much safer with one of these than with that KC registered rubbish." The un-savvy prospective buyer believes the puppy farmer, can't check up on what he is saying because the puppies are not registered anywhere - and a few months down the line, there is another desperately ill dog, another family with a huge vet bill, another family with heartache untold in store.
> 
> No, much better that all puppies are registered. The prospective buy/breeder has a much wider pool of information in that way.


You are contradicting yourself if the general public know nothing then they would either be unlikely to check the register at all or still not understand the significance of no test results



Spellweaver said:


> Not if they think she is making herself look good by twisting their truth into lies, by taking what they have said and editing it so that it comes out as quite the opposite of what they actually meant.  That has nothing to do with agreeing with the premise of her program - quite the opposite, in fact.


As most of the comments in PDE1 consisted of "f**k off" does not leave much room for twisting or editing lol



Spellweaver said:


> What a ridiculous statement. Just because you disagree with someone's journalistic style does not mean that you think there is nothing wrong with the dogs she showed.


Until someone pulled you up on it, your posts have consisted of bashing the programme or bashing anyone whose view opposed yours, with little if any acknowledgement that in some areas things are very very wrong. The impression you give is that your main concern is the programme(s) somehow tarnished the reputation of all show breeders


----------



## Werehorse

Whether you like what'sherface or not it still stands to reason that extreme inbreeding and breeding for any over-exagerrated physical characteristic is going to be detrimental to the health of dogs over all.

Also you don't need a TV programme to demonstrate that both these things happen in abundance in pedigree dog breeding whether show breeding or back yard breeding/puppy farming.

I found the _apparent_ attitude of the breed clubs shown quite pathetic and the situation with the cavs particularly made me sad. The attitude of the breed club suggests to me that it is not just the puppy farmers who have caused the problems there.

The RSPCA vet person who ****ed on about mutants and freak shows just made himself sound silly because there was nothing balanced in his argument, however I think a new type of dog show with a *heavier* focus on function than form might be a good way forward.

I'd like to see bassetts and dachshunds looking like the "working" breed pictures that were shown in the programme. And as a general rule less skin folds and longer snouts in a number of other breeds.

It's worth remembering that a breed and it's standard is an _entirely man-made_ construct there is actually nothing to stop the people in charge havign a radical overhall. A change in breed standards followed by a period of registering a dog to a breed based on form and function rather than pedigree would certainly shake things up a little. I would like to see more variety of form (and by implication genetics) within breeds even if that meant blurring breed boundaries and allowing outcrossing to similar breeds and registration of the puppies depending on which breed they looked like most! 

I also think that a registry that was for ALL DOGS not just pedigrees but with stipulations on health checks and number of litters in place before a litter could be registeres would tackle a number of issues. Especially if it got to the point were and reasonable person wouldn't dream of buying an unregistered puppy....

A random assortment of thoughts!


----------



## Snoringbear

5rivers79 said:


> Yeh you may be right, but the guy i got my dog from is a pet breeder and has has bred for himself, his family and his friends. Yeh its also a fair point i didnt ask questions when i went to buy Sam, but i can hand on heart say i was naive or maybe gullible then and after seeing Sam and his parents i wanted him full stop.
> 
> The breeder i got my dog from is not endorsed by a multi million pound organisation. He isnt breeding a facially deformed breed that cant breathe adequately with the support of a large multi million pound organisation. Id much rather buy a dog from a pet breeder with a good heart than some show breeder who is destroying their breed just to fuel their own ego.


I would rather buy a dog registered by a multi-million (non-profit making BTW) organisation where I could verify the health testing of the parents and ancestors and assess the level of inbreeding in the pedigree behind them than a BYB who just sticks two random dogs together. At least I'd be knowing that a portion of the registration fee would be invested in health testing and furthering the good of all dogs.

Just caught this on the live Q&A regarding distribution of their money:

Split of Expenditure in 2010: Registrations and Healthcare = £5.1 million (Processing registrations, Petlog and insurance), Health, Welfare and Charity = £2.7 million (Including support for the Kennel Club Charitable Trust), Education = £1.7 million (Good Citizen Dog Training Scheme, Safe and Sound for children, Young Kennel Club, Crufts and Discover Dogs), External Affairs = £1.5 million ( Including lobbying Parliament at Westminster, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the EU on issues of concern to dog owners), Canine Activities = £2.1 million (Processing licences, judges and awards for shows and the activity disciplines)


----------



## DoodlesRule

Extract from the KC response to PDE
Bill Lambert, Manager of the Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme, said: There are some extremely serious issues affecting dog health and welfare but sadly the vast majority of dog breeders in this country are effectively unregulated. This means that disreputable breeders can get away with breeding dogs, whether crossbreed or pedigree, for money and fashion at the expense of welfare.

That is why the Kennel Club established its Assured Breeder Scheme in 2004, which sets high welfare standards for and monitors breeders. This is the only scheme of its kind in the country and the Kennel Club is lobbying the government to make the principles that Assured Breeders follow mandatory for all. 

I really don't understand how they justify lobbying the government when they don't even insist on these standards for ALL KC registered dogs. Does anyone know what the percentage of Assured Breeder registrations is compared to those from non-assured breeders? Surely thats the place to start


----------



## AlbertRoss

DoodlesRule said:


> Extract from the KC response to PDE
> 
> That is why the Kennel Club established its Assured Breeder Scheme in 2004, which sets high welfare standards for and monitors breeders. This is the only scheme of its kind in the country and the Kennel Club is lobbying the government to make the principles that Assured Breeders follow mandatory for all.


ROFL. That's the same Breeders Scheme that was so badly designed that it gave an open door to puppy farmers?


----------



## 5rivers79

Snoringbear said:


> I would rather buy a dog registered by a multi-million (non-profit making BTW) organisation where I could verify the health testing of the parents and ancestors and assess the level of inbreeding in the pedigree behind them than a BYB who just sticks two random dogs together. At least I'd be knowing that a *portion of the registration fee would be invested in health testing and furthering the good of all dogs.*


Correction Dam is random, Sire is not  But the matter here is not byb vs pedigree dogs...the point is sick, ill, deformed pedigree dogs that are produced in that way on purpose to win beauty contests.

Really? Is that why there are still major problems in Pugs, Cavs, Bulldogs etc? Im all for furthering the good of all dogs but i cant see it happening if some of these show breeders are allowed to get away with what they are doing.



cinammontoast said:


> 5rivers, seriously, the breeder had a good heart? Are you on the same planet as us lot? It matters not a jot that the breeder had a good heart-more like an eye on his bank balance, breeding 'status dogs'.
> 
> My dogs' breeder 'had a good heart' which meant he then ignored my email telling him that Zak had HD. Stupid me, thinking that was the right thing to do and would encourage him to re-consider using the dam or sire again.


Probably not on the same planet at all, you see im from planet Earth..Welcome..We greet you in peace  (just joking )

I dont see how breeding one litter for yourself, your friends and family is lining your bank balance? Especially neutering your dogs after having that litter.

Your breeder may be ignoring your emails but my breeder keeps in contact offering advice whenever i need it. 



cinammontoast said:


> The breeders shown on the programme clearly don't give a damn because they continue to use known health issue dogs to further their lines/showing career.


I agree with that totally.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

5rivers79 said:


> Yeh you may be right, but the guy i got my dog from is a pet breeder and has has bred for himself, his family and his friends. Yeh its also a fair point i didnt ask questions when i went to buy Sam, but i can hand on heart say i was naive or maybe gullible then and after seeing Sam and his parents i wanted him full stop.
> 
> The breeder i got my dog from is not endorsed by a multi million pound organisation. He isnt breeding a facially deformed breed that cant breathe adequately with the support of a large multi million pound organisation. Id much rather buy a dog from a pet breeder with a good heart than some show breeder who is destroying their breed just to fuel their own ego.


My dogs aren't endorsed by a multi million pound organisation either 

It's already been pointed out to you that the KC is a non-profit organisation, but do you not see how hypocritical it is to say on the one hand the person who bred your dog with no knowledge of the health status of the parents, is ok, and breeding dogs with conformation issues isn't? It's all bad in my books; how would you feel if you found that Sammy developed a condition that could easily have been tested for, I'm sure that may well change your perspective of breeding and breeders, it isn't enough to have a good heart I'm afraid.

This from a good friend of mine:

"The sort of damage it does was expressed to me at 7.30am this morning in an email received: (Person writing was going to see a litter of wonderfully bred pupies completely unrelated to any of my dogs so I was completely unbiased here...) " Hi Di please can you give me some advice as we are very worried. From the Pedigree Dog programme on bbc4 this evening they told us the inbreeding number for a good litter needs to be below 6.4 for labradors. The litter you pointed us to is 6.6 so I think we may have to look elsewhere. Its such a shame and we are very sad but we need to have a healthy dog as we have small children and couldn't have them upset by the dog having real problems." Made me slump on my keyboard as that was the sort of rubbish it creates less than 12 hours later."

And that's not an isolated incident, so where will these people turn to? The CoI on the KC database is also inaccurate producing a false expectations of a lower CoI, if it were taken correctly over more generations, the number would be just under 10%, so yet again, the programme in giving only part of a picture has produced a backlash against very good breeders doing all they can to produce healthy pups. Which is what was said all along about the way it was done, and it's happening again.


----------



## Set_Nights

5rivers79 said:


> Yeh you may be right, but the guy i got my dog from is a pet breeder and has has bred for himself, his family and his friends. Yeh its also a fair point i didnt ask questions when i went to buy Sam, but i can hand on heart say i was naive or maybe gullible then and after seeing Sam and his parents i wanted him full stop.
> 
> The breeder i got my dog from is not endorsed by a multi million pound organisation. He isnt breeding a facially deformed breed that cant breathe adequately with the support of a large multi million pound organisation. Id much rather buy a dog from a pet breeder with a good heart than some show breeder who is destroying their breed just to fuel their own ego.


Akitas may not be facially deformed but seeing as you bought from non health tested parents your "good hearted" breeder may in fact have pumped out a bunch of dogs with deformed hips! How is that any better?! As for inbreeding seeing as Sammy's dam isn't registered his mum and dad could have been brother and sister for all you know and both carrying the same deformities that will be amplified in their offspring!!!

For the record my dog isn't KC registered either but I have enough sense to see that a pet breeder who breeds from dogs of unknown lineage and with no health tests can be just as bad as the worst of the show breeders.


----------



## Alice Childress

Malmum said:


> Just keep the image of the Pekingese dog in your head, then imagine it's you who has to struggle to breath like that and how you would feel._ It has to be stopped and just like buying from BYB's & PF's the gen pub should boycott all these breeds until they are bred responsibly_.


I think an appropriate amendment to this statement would be that the general public should boycott the BREEDERS that are breeding irresponsibly. There already exists breeders breeding responsibly that are working incredibly hard to improve the welfare and health of Bulldogs (and I presume pugs but I have not research the breed specifically so can only guess). There are lines of Bulldogs that give birth naturally, can run like the wind, walk for hours without any breathing difficulties, live to 13 and have very few exaggerations. There are breeders health testing for HUU, heart, eyes and numerous other disorders even though the KC doesn't actually require any mandatory tests for the breed (which is madness!).

I cannot stand to see these poor exaggerated animals, I doubt anyone on here can and dear god I could have punched the ridgeback and cavalier breeder from PDE1 - I'd forgotten just how repulsive they were. However, to say, as some have on this forum, that the WHOLE breed is unhealthy and that ALL breeders should be boycotted is a real slap in the face to those working so hard to bring these breeds back to good health.


----------



## DoodlesRule

what I don't understand, hopefully someone with the knowledge of these things can explain, why has it been necessary to in-breed/line-breed at all?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

DoodlesRule said:


> what I don't understand, hopefully someone with the knowledge of these things can explain, why has it been necessary to in-breed/line-breed at all?


If you want a dog to retain the characteristics you bred it for in the first place, you have to have a closed gene pool of dogs of the same *type*. Otherwise you just end up with any old sort of dog, which is fine if you don't have any criteria, size, coat, colours etc, but some dogs with jobs do need to be bred to type otherwise they couldn't work as well as they do.


----------



## lennythecloud

Spellweaver said:


> And how many good breeders do you know who actually do this? From what I can see, none of the good breeders on here (and none of the good breeders I know in real life) condone anything like this. Surely by definition, any breeder who condones this is a bad breeder, not a good breeder?


While i'm sure they don't condone bad breeding what I don't get is why isn't this army of good breeders shouting from the roof tops against those bad breeders? to stop them winning at shows and to stop them having influence within the breed clubs. If these good breeders have such a powerful majority then why are some people who try and make a positive change being allowed to be ignored or even villified by the breed clubs? Is it that within some in some breeds those that hold the most influence are actually NOT putting the health and welfare of the dogs first?

If I showed healthy dogs I would be annoyed if I saw clearly badly bred dogs (such as that bulldog) even being exhibited at the same venue as me, and I would be utterly disgusted if they then went on to be placed. Surely it totally devalues the accolade of winning, say best in group, when a poorly bred dog can achieve the same.

The way *some* show breeders breed is disgraceful and I would happily see the worst put in front of a judge on animal cruelty charges. Since when did it become acceptable to breed puppies that you know will spend a life time struggling to breathe? That will almost certainly have heart disease and a serious brain disorder by the time they are 8 years old? They might as well be adding carcinogens to their litters water, though that would probably be a less effective way of setting them up for health problems in later life.

The show community should be putting all its energy into throwing out these obviously rotten apples it has in its ranks rather than not bothering because puppy farmers and byb have worse problems or because they're too busy fighting a crusade against a documentary maker. If there wasn't such big problems in some sections of the show world there wouldn't be any material to make such a documentary with....


----------



## 5rivers79

Set_Nights said:


> Akitas may not be facially deformed but seeing as you bought from non health tested parents your "good hearted" breeder may in fact have pumped out a bunch of dogs with deformed hips! How is that any better?! As for inbreeding seeing as Sammy's dam isn't registered his mum and dad could have been brother and sister for all you know and both carrying the same deformities that will be amplified in their offspring!!!
> 
> For the record my dog isn't KC registered either but I have enough sense to see that a pet breeder who breeds from dogs of unknown lineage and with no health tests can be just as bad as the worst of the show breeders.


Yes of course i get that point, but as someone pointed on the other thread buying from a byb you are under no illusion that the dog you get is going to be in the best of health...and i wouldnt do that again. *BUT* the point is not bybs..that would have been an entirely different program...its a different issue???

*This program raised the issue that under the KC's nose, show breeders of pedigree dogs are ruining their breeds by deforming them or mating dogs that are very poorly..Do you agree with these practices????*

Are you saying its ok for Champ show dog breeders to get away with what bybs do??


----------



## Argent

DoodlesRule said:


> what I don't understand, hopefully someone with the knowledge of these things can explain, why has it been necessary to in-breed/line-breed at all?


Inbreeding and line breeding aren't always bad things that produce horrific genetically impaired monsters. When used properly, these methods can 'set' certain desired characteristics (straight backs, strong legs, right shaped muzzle etc) and breed out undesirable ones (such as certain illnesses, deformities etc), without the risk of contaminating the gene pool with yet more unknown genes to rifle through to remove all the bad bits and retain the good. That's my simplified knowledge on it. Sometimes it's what's needed to improve a line or a breed altogether, sometimes the opposite is needed, and an outcross will occur, to replace lost or damaged genes or characteristics.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

5rivers79 said:


> Yes of course i get that point, but as someone pointed on the other thread buying from a byb you are under no illusion that the dog you get is going to be in the best of health...and i wouldnt do that again. *BUT* the point is not bybs..that would have been an entirely different program...its a different issue???
> 
> *This program raised the issue that under the KC's nose, show breeders of pedigree dogs are ruining their breeds by deforming them or mating dogs that are very poorly..Do you agree with these practices????*
> 
> Are you saying its ok for Champ show dog breeders to get away with what bybs do??


Really is my last post before I have to get out and take some photos, but if you read back through this thread, I've not said once that any breeder of KC pedigree dogs should get away with producing health issues in their pups/dogs, either through conformation or from lack of health testing to at least try and produce anything other than pups that are healthy. However, what keeps getting missed is that although that should be across the board, the effect of highlighting only a small proportion of pedigree dogs that are being bred, means that instantly there is a backlash against the kennel club and pedigree dogs across the board, whether they are from show breeders or not, and whether they are breeds that have known health problems or not, or even if those health problems have come about as a result from breeding to exaggeration to try and win at shows. The perception is that KC pedigree equals unhealthy because that programme said so, and that breeders of KC pedigree dogs are not to be trusted, because that programme showed they couldn't be.


----------



## noushka05

5rivers79 said:


> The only damage done is to people who are ruining their own breed for the sake of vanity and ego.
> 
> no by generalising Malmum has implied that all breeders who show care more about winning than the welfare of their dogs...that it is so wrong im almost speechless
> 
> Atleast he isnt lining his pockets with deformed dogs endorsed by the very breed clubs and organisation that is meant to look out for the welfare of their own breed
> 
> why do you constantly defend a byb like that?
> 
> Uv seen pictures, iv seen the Sire's pedigree papers with photos of his ancestors. Fair enough the mum isnt pedigree but its plain to see she is Akita.
> 
> hmm right, well why were you still trying to track down the sires breeder a year after you got Sammy? in your posts im sure its because you wanted to find info on him?.. you couldnt even get hold of Sammys breeder, just check out your posts 5Rivers....oh here you are, save you looking
> 
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/175027-anyone-heard-adacar-akitas.html
> 
> Yeh thats true, his stud did have full paper work though i just didnt think to look at it thoroughly
> 
> He did pay for the initial vet check, a months insurance with petplan, micro chipping, both sets of injections and a few weeks worth of food ( Arden Grange) i dont know how much all that would cost but he charged me £500 for Sammy.
> 
> Im not sure if i remember correctly but im sure in the original advert on epupz stated that they were Adacar Akitas or something im not even sure if it was spelt like that as i cant find anything online with that name.
> Like
> 
> Funny how this has turned to being about where my dogs are from LOL Its like you are actually attempting to defend the disgusting actions of those that were shown on the program. [/COLOR]


its only turned out that way because you seem to be constantly defending a bad breeder ...and if you check out my post on the other PDE thread you'll seethat unlike you i havent defended ANY bad breeders


----------



## Snoringbear

5rivers79 said:


> Correction Dam is random, Sire is not  But the matter here is not byb vs pedigree dogs...the point is sick, ill, deformed pedigree dogs that are produced in that way on purpose to win beauty contests
> 
> Really? Is that why there are still major problems in Pugs, Cavs, Bulldogs etc? Im all for furthering the good of all dogs but i cant see it happening if some of these show breeders are allowed to get away with what they are doing.


By random, I meant two dogs at hand with no real thought behind the mating, other than the pure convinience of it and having saved a stud fee. Typifying the worst kind of breeding be it cross or pedigree. The kind of breeding that you have stated you are against:



5rivers79 said:


> Breed is not the point. What is important is that *ALL* breeds should be bred in a healthy and responsible way and thats what i got from watching the program.


I do agree with your comment above BTW.

Yes, there are problems with these exaggerated breeds and some way to go. But at the end of the day, it has been the KC breeders who have funded the development of DNA tsting for genetic conditions not BYB's.


----------



## EmCHammer

quick reply as late back from lunch ... BYB or show breeder could breed a dog with a genetic issue that made it ill. 

The byb through igorance potentially - which still doesn't make it right... but anyone (show, byb, puppy farm, whoever) who does it knowing full well their dog will be passing on these awful painful illnesses and doesn't care and who could be viewed by some of the top people in their breed is just plain wrong... they know what they are doing and don't care.


----------



## Werehorse

While I heartily agree that BYBs and puppy farmers etc are causing a number of problems that doesn't change the fact that sadly exaggerated dogs are winning at dog shows, thus held up as an example of what GOOD breeders *should* somehow be aiming for...

This issue needs to be tackles AS WELL AS the less reputable breeders who don't health testat all.

There's more than one issue in the world of dog breeding and it's no good ducking out of one by pointing the finger at the other.

People "in" breeds are obviously very passionate but really some clearly need to take a step back and gain some perspective. There are good and bad people everywhere but sadly a lot of the time good people are willing to turn a blind eye to bad practice out of politeness.

As well as the number of litters a bitch produces I think there should be a limit on the number of litters a dog sires. Is there such a limit?


----------



## Patterdale_lover

Well back on topic about the programme my personal opinion is that while it was very one sided and I can see how good ethical breeders would be annoyed by seeming to be tarred with the same brush, I do think it highlighted serious issues within some breeds particularly bulldogs, pugs and CKC's. 
It is unacceptable and downright disgusting on how some people view and approach their "beloved" breed of choice. 

Why dogs with serious diesease and malfunctionings are still being bred and getting away with it I do not know. I do feel as though the KC is not doing enough and that many of the people exposed on last nights programme do have an obsession to strive for vanity and ego rather than love for their breed.

Yes the Dally was finally accepted but why was it so much effort. Surely the kennel club and breeders and dog people in general should know all dogs come from some form of cross along the line?! And if we love our dogs so much and want certain breeds to be around in the future what harm would doing what was done with the Dallies actually do? If it produced healthier dogs. Purity means too much to some....A certain individual that was infamous in the second world war springs to mind when I think of some breeders and "dog" people. The ignorance and narrowminded cruelty shown by some on that show last night just goes to show that they have lost sight of what a dog is and what it is here for. Dogs were bred and domesticated to be workers and our companion, not some mutation that can barely breathe just to win a stupid rosette.

If I ever get into showing it will be a dog with few health issues as possible and most natural to it's working predecessor. 

Sorry for rambling but it gets my back up.

On the good side, the working types of the basset, bulldog and daschund were all lovely looking, proper dogs.


----------



## Spellweaver

DoodlesRule said:


> As most of the comments in PDE1 consisted of "f**k off" does not leave much room for twisting or editing lol


You obviously watched a different PDE1 from the rest of us. I saw one breeder put two fingers up to JH (whch she showed again last night). Please provide more of the many examples you are suggesting happened - I bet you can't!



DoodlesRule said:


> COLOR="blue"]Until someone pulled you up on it, your posts have consisted of bashing the programme or bashing anyone whose view opposed yours, with little if any acknowledgement that in some areas things are very very wrong. The impression you give is that your main concern is the programme(s) somehow tarnished the reputation of all show breeders


Total rubbish. But then as all your posts to me have attacked me in some way since wayyyyy back when we argued about crossbreeding, I'm not surprised by this latest attack. Go back and read all my posts in this thread. From the beginning I have said that there have been things wrong, and that the KC have been working to put them right since before PDE. How is that not acknowledging that there is something wrong? The posts are there for all to see - as are your vitriolic ones to me. By choosing to attack me in this way you are merely showing yourself up.

I am concerned about how these two programs have made people think that all show breeders are bad breeders - but that is because there are some bloody good show breeders out there and these programs are making people think that buying a dog from a puppy farmer is better than going to one of them. How can that be good for any buyer or any dog?


----------



## hutch6

I can't believe Whitney Houston is DEAD


----------



## 5rivers79

noushka05 said:


> no by generalising Malmum has implied that all breeders who show care more about winning than the welfare of their dogs...that it is so wrong im almost speechless
> 
> then maybe good breeders should stand up against the minority of bad show breeders instead of standing up against a documentary?
> 
> I see you edited your line that he is lining his own pockets, which iv already answered.
> 
> hmm right, well why were you still trying to track down the sires breeder a year after you got Sammy? in your posts im sure its because you wanted to find info on him?.. you couldnt even get hold of Sammys breeder, just check out your posts 5Rivers....oh here you are, save you looking
> 
> But now he is on my facebook as well as others who had Sam's siblings
> 
> He did pay for the initial vet check, a months insurance with petplan, micro chipping, both sets of injections and a few weeks worth of food ( Arden Grange)
> 
> How many idiot breeders do you know that would get those things done?
> 
> its only turned out that way because you seem to be constantly defending a bad breeder ...and if you check out my post on the other PDE thread you'll seethat unlike you i havent defended ANY bad breeders


Again this is not about me, sam or his breeder. Unless you want to make a documentary about us?


----------



## shetlandlover

This is the problem with this program, this is something posted by someone on the kennel club facebook page.



> Having just watched the programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed I am not ashamed to admit I just cried! You people should be ashamed of yourselves!!!! I have a 6mth old llhasa apso who I love dearly but am now questioning wether I did the right thing buying a pedigree dog from a breeder recommended by you! I will be taking Molly to the vets to check everything you people approved!


Anyway, just watched the program.

Funny how she has to go to Germany to find a pug that can't breath. Surely the UK kennel club has no say over German dogs.

Re; the breeder who's still using her dog at stud despite a genetic issue, these are the breeders who need to be stopped. I again see no mention of good breeders who do test and refuse to use any dog that has genetic conditions. Let alone show them. These along with puppy farmers are the breeders we should be making public.

Sadly the only turd polishing I have seen is pedigree dogs exposed 2, it basically repeated pedigree dogs exposed 1. "Mutant" "Freak show" ect all the same sensationalist crap.

I notice she picked the worst pictures possible. Did you see the Great Dane who had barely any eyes because of them being dragged down? Well this is one of the great danes I snapped at a show last year.








And another.









My advice to anyone who thinks all show dogs are sick is, get your bum down to shows, not just Crufts but normal shows and look at the dogs.


----------



## noushka05

5rivers79 said:


> Again this is not about me, sam or his breeder. Unless you want to make a documentary about us?


no its okay im done now... i was just pointing out your hypocrisy


----------



## Spellweaver

hutch6 said:


> I can't believe Whitney Houston is DEAD


Do keep up Hutch! :lol:


----------



## 5rivers79

noushka05 said:


> no its okay im done now... i was just pointing out your hypocrisy


No hypocrisy at all as id do things differently next time. 

The hypocrisy is breeders ganging up on a documentary rather than the scandelous breeders that the doc has uncovered.


----------



## Set_Nights

shetlandlover said:


> I notice she picked the worst pictures possible. Did you see the Great Dane who had barely any eyes because of them being dragged down? Well this is one of the great danes I snapped at a show last year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My advice to anyone who thinks all show dogs are sick is, get your bum down to shows, not just Crufts but normal shows and look at the dogs.


Near the very end? I did spot it and it took me a moment to realise it was a Daney... not a good or representative photo at all! I WILL say I have seen a Dane with eyes like that (NOT a show dog)  didn't look right at all. I have seen a lot of Daneys though and at the show I went to I didn't see any eyes like that, even on the big chunkers who you'd expect to be more prone to it. There can be a little bit of droop but nothing like her photo showed!

Are you photographing at Crufts this year? Were those ringside photos or out and about at the stands?


----------



## Cleo38

shetlandlover said:


> This is the problem with this program, this is something posted by someone on the kennel club facebook page.
> 
> Anyway, just watched the program.
> 
> Funny how she has to go to Germany to find a pug that can't breath. Surely the UK kennel club has no say over German dogs.
> 
> Re; the breeder who's still using her dog at stud despite a genetic issue, these are the breeders who need to be stopped. I again see no mention of good breeders who do test and refuse to use any dog that has genetic conditions. Let alone show them. These along with puppy farmers are the breeders we should be making public.
> 
> Sadly the only turd polishing I have seen is pedigree dogs exposed 2, it basically repeated pedigree dogs exposed 1. "Mutant" "Freak show" ect all the same sensationalist crap.
> 
> My advice to anyone who thinks all show dogs are sick is, get your bum down to shows, not just Crufts but normal shows and look at the dogs.


But surely the point is that people who are trying to buy healthy pups are being misled as well as countelss dogs suffering, because these people are so 'protected' by some in the 'dog world'.

Why are these people allowed to show dogs who suffer these diesease & why are they still allowed to breed? They have let their dogs produced many litters of dogs that may suffer because of their irresponsible & selfish behaviour.


----------



## shetlandlover

Set_Nights said:


> Are you photographing at Crufts this year? Were those ringside photos or out and about at the stands?


Not this year, I did take some at crufts last year. Those Dane photo's are from Blackpool show ring side.


----------



## shetlandlover

Cleo38 said:


> But surely the point is that people who are trying to buy healthy pups are being misled as well as countelss dogs suffering, because these people are so 'protected' by some in the 'dog world'.
> 
> Why are these people allowed to show dogs who suffer these diesease & why are they still allowed to breed? They have let their dogs produced many litters of dogs that may suffer because of their irresponsible & selfish behaviour.


Honestly I can't answer that.

I fully health test and I don't see any reason why not to or why you would show a dog that is sick. A dog show to me is looks, health and temperament and if its unhealthy it shouldn't be there, the winners should be healthy, solid in temperament and conform to standard. And before anyone says I am obsessed with looks and standard ect I am not, Alaska (who I am planning to breed) is not able to be shown because she's a little to tall and has heavy ears.

I certainly don't support anyone breeding unhealthy dogs. But I also don't want people thinking all show dogs are sick because many are not.

There needs to be a public program to show good breeders and what to look out for with bad breeders. Because if no one sticks it infront of the public's face it wont be noticed.


----------



## Paganman

shetlandlover said:


> Funny how she has to go to Germany to find a pug that can't breath. Surely the UK kennel club has no say


 she didn't, she went to Sweden, maybe by invite of the vet who is doing pioneering work to help them breath.

There also was a British pug on there that had various issues,on being it's knee joints and it to had a problem with it's throat due to breathing problems amongst a few other things.

Besides the program is called "pedigree dogs exposed" and not "The kennel club exposed" and we are only talking about Germany here, a few hours away. Had that pug been a show winner, you can bet many would have wanted his little weena used on their dog.


----------



## wst

i watched that program last night,and i must say i was on a waiting list to buy a pug puppy! but after seeing this and doing some research this morning,i am reconsidering my decision to buy this pup.
i thought i was doing the right thing not only going to a show breeder but also a judge of the breed! i am totaly gutted.


----------



## Blondie

Gave all the dogs a new raw bone and settled down to watch programme. Heres my comments, please note, my opinion only, feel free to disagree 

Overall, I found the programme a lot less 'sensationalist' that the first. Much of it was replays of film from the first too - space that could have been used to show more new stuff.

The Boxer breeder needs hauling over the coals for allowing her dog to Sire 800 and odd puppies, way too much for one dog even in a numerically high breed. But on the other saide of the coin, the fact remains, had this dog sired say 6 litters only, there may never have been any progeny with the kidney problem at all and everyone would say what a healthy dog......... its only because the dog has sired a high number of pups, that the problem becomes apparent and can be traced. The other Boxer breeder needs also to take her head out her ar$e and learn to understand the genetic analysis pedigree that guy so painstakingly put together and she needs to act accordingly for the greater good of the breed. 

I think every breeder of every breed should be keeping records, not just the linear pedigree of ancestors, but the genetic analysis pedigree too - its not rocket science and over time, gives a better picture of genetic disease within a dogs bloodlines.

The Pug & the Bulldog were difficult to watch. I simply cannot imagine myself ever owning a 'breathing problem' breed, never mind breeding them! The german Prof made strong statements that these breeds should be allowed to die out, and no further breeding take place. Strong, provocative words! I can understand where he is coming from, after all, he is seeing the worst of these breeds on a daily basis, its bound to have a major emotional effect giving rise to having strong opinions on the breeds and the breeding practices.

One thing I think the KC should do with immediate effect is amend the breed standards of the affected breeds with those darn double twist tails etc - not needed and linked to spinal deformities - get it altered!! 

I know these problems cannot be bred out of these dogs overnight, it will take many generations of careful breeding to see changes, and even then, it will only happen if ALL breeders are singing from the same hymn sheet, and how could you ensure BYB's etc are going to breed from the same hymn sheet also?? Therein lies the problem, the only answer I can see is to heavily legislate dog breeding, to do this correctly and effectively will, again, take time, something I really dont think these dogs have. Perhaps, controversially, I find myself in some of agreement with the Professor.......................... but then again, how would you stop people breeding these breeds, the same regulation problems would occur. No easy answer for these breeds I fear 

The Dalmation breeder, I will simply say I actually applauded her.

One thing I am certain of, is that many breed clubs of many breeds and the breed councils, full of so-called 'senior' breeders, sitting on their self-made pedestals, need to get their huge heads out their own ar$es and start demanding health info from their members and collating it and acting upon it, for the better of the breed.


----------



## Happy Paws2

Wildmoor said:


> probably because last time it took her a long time to find the 6 GSDs used in the last footage maybe what she got this time wasnt sensationilst enough for her


If you go to Sutton Park you'll see lots GSDs and some of these have deformed hind legs, they shouldn't be to hard to find.


----------



## shetlandlover

wst said:


> i watched that program last night,and i must say i was on a waiting list to buy a pug puppy! but after seeing this and doing some research this morning,i am reconsidering my decision to buy this pup.
> i thought i was doing the right thing not only going to a show breeder but also a judge of the breed! i am totaly gutted.


So if you don't buy from a show breeders who would you buy from? A free ad site?

Pedigree dogs exposed is no reason not to buy from a show breeder, just ensure the breeder health tests and check the parents out in depth. I know plenty of pugs who can breath just fine. Infact I am saving up to get a pug in the future.


----------



## noushka05

5rivers79 said:


> No hypocrisy at all as id do things differently next time.
> 
> good to hear, tho now i wonder where you would go to for a pedigree dog? and i still cant understand why you constantly defend Sammys breeder.. but hey ho,
> 
> The hypocrisy is breeders ganging up on a documentary rather than the scandelous breeders that the doc has uncovered.


the thing most people are angry about is that the documentary it was extremely bias, it tarred everyone in the show sector with the same brush and it misled people into believing all breeds are falling to bits!..i havent defended the scandalous breeders she exposed at all, i dont think anyone has! ....so where is the hypocrisy?


----------



## Paganman

shetlandlover said:


> I certainly don't support anyone breeding unhealthy dogs.


 I can just hear that pofaced cow who breeds the poorly boxers saying just the same and condeming all byb


----------



## wst

shetlandlover said:


> So if you don't buy from a show breeders who would you buy from? A free ad site?
> 
> Pedigree dogs exposed is no reason not to buy from a show breeder, just ensure the breeder health tests and check the parents out in depth. I know plenty of pugs who can breath just fine. Infact I am saving up to get a pug in the future.


no i wasnt going to go any where else,just decided against the breed (perhaps wrongly)but i do wonder now how many people are now left in my position!
i have even phoned the kc and got no joy there,i was looking to see if the parents had been health tested for hv, but the kc do not have these records.i have tried to call the breeder but his phone is constantly engaged, i wonder why?


----------



## shetlandlover

wst said:


> no i wasnt going to go any where else,just decided against the breed (perhaps wrongly)but i do wonder now how many people are now left in my position!
> i have even phoned the kc and got no joy there,i was looking to see if the parents had been health tested for hv, but the kc do not have these records.i have tried to call the breeder but his phone is constantly engaged, i wonder why?


If in doubt contact the Pug breed club. They should be able to guide better.

You have to make the choice, not the tv program. If you do it right you could have a healthy happy pug who lives a long life with you, I certainly know many who have no breathing problems and have lived long lives. However there will be some breeders who produce pups that have issues. Its about finding the right one.


----------



## Paganman

wst said:


> no i wasnt going to go any where else,just decided against the breed (perhaps wrongly)but i do wonder now how many people are now left in my position!
> i have even phoned the kc and got no joy there,i was looking to see if the parents had been health tested for hv, but the kc do not have these records.i have tried to call the breeder but his phone is constantly engaged, i wonder why?


It is a good thing the program has got you thinking about this now.

Get the right breed that is fully tested from where ever you have to and check everything is all above board and kosher.


----------



## wst

shetlandlover said:


> If in doubt contact the Pug breed club. They should be able to guide better.
> 
> You have to make the choice, not the tv program. If you do it right you could have a healthy happy pug who lives a long life with you, I certainly know many who have no breathing problems and have lived long lives. However there will be some breeders who produce pups that have issues. Its about finding the right one.


thanks for that,i think i will try and contact them now.


----------



## Firedog

I watched that last night.I didnt realise that boxers were in so much trouble.I think it is discusting that even though the problems were pointed out to those two top kennels they still wanted to ignore it.I dont think they will be selling many puppies anymore.
I applaud the people that stood up for what they believed in and tried to make a difference even though they were slated.
Wst,i watched that last night and wondered whether you would still go ahead with getting the pug.Nice to have someone else i know here.


----------



## Nighteyes

If its not crosses it pedigrees. I wish every dog was happy and healthy. Do I agree with unethical breeding, NO! If I could click my fingers and make them disappear, would I? Yes. Unfortunately, humans by nature are irresponsible, fickle and driven by greed. Whilst there are 6 billion of us on the planet is this going to stop? You just have to look at what we do to ourselves. We defy nature at every turn, why would we not do it to innocent dogs?

An interesting fact. 

1 million seconds is 11.5 days
1 billion seconds is 31.7 years

Currently there are: 6,840,507,003 people on the planet.


----------



## DoodlesRule

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If you want a dog to retain the characteristics you bred it for in the first place, you have to have a closed gene pool of dogs of the same *type*. Otherwise you just end up with any old sort of dog, which is fine if you don't have any criteria, size, coat, colours etc, but some dogs with jobs do need to be bred to type otherwise they couldn't work as well as they do.


Thank you 

The KC now have the tool for calculating COI and no longer register litters from certain close family matings ie mother/son, father/daughter or brother/sister mating (though believe they will in "special cases) so presumably it is accepted that inbreeding is a bad thing? Presumably it is still accepted for grandfather/grandaughter, uncle/neice etc.

Just a couple of questions:

why were such close matings ever thought to be suitable?

Would breeders here be prepared to say whether they have ever done such close matings when they could be registered and/or what is the closest "family" ever mated.

The programme did give the impression that its widespread throughout pedigree breeders and I am genuinely interested to know whether that is true or not.


----------



## AlbertRoss

DoodlesRule said:


> Thank you
> 
> The KC now have the tool for calculating COI and no longer register litters from certain close family matings ie mother/son, father/daughter or brother/sister mating (though believe they will in "special cases) so presumably it is accepted that inbreeding is a bad thing? Presumably it is still accepted for grandfather/grandaughter, uncle/neice etc.


Yes and yes (with reservations)



> Just a couple of questions:
> 
> why were such close matings ever thought to be suitable?


Because it was felt that characteristics of, say, a father when bred with a daughter would result in a grandchild that would have those characteristics strengthened. (A knowledge of genetics would tend to indicate this was pretty dumb).



> Would breeders here be prepared to say whether they have ever done such close matings when they could be registered and/or what is the closest "family" ever mated.


Personally - never. In fact, at present I have a dog and a bitch that share a grandfather, i.e. they are half-cousins. Everything else in a 5 generation pedigree differs. I won't breed them together although, genetically, it might produce puppies that held strong characteristics of the grandfather who was an absolutely top specimen of the breed. However, it's equally true that such a close breeding can produce pups with all sorts of problems.



> The programme did give the impression that its widespread throughout pedigree breeders and I am genuinely interested to know whether that is true or not.


In some breeds there is a very small gene pool to choose from and there is hope that those breeds will become more diverse over a few generations but it is currently necessary if that breed is to survive. In other breeds there is a very large gene pool, so it becomes totally unnecessary.

However, if one goes back to the origin of many KC registered breeds there were usually only a couple of dogs involved in starting those breeds and ALL the current dogs in that breed would somehow be descended from those two. That may be many, many generations back.


----------



## Shrap

The closest mating that I'm aware of being done by someone I know has a COI of 9.2%. Breed average being 3.2%. My boy's COI is 3.9%

The mating I stated doesn't really make me think OMG. I'm sure the breeder has researched the lines, and the dogs that are being line bred on haven't been implicated in any prevalent diseases in the breed. The puppies are looking promising


----------



## pod

DoodlesRule said:


> Thank you
> 
> The KC now have the tool for calculating COI and no longer register litters from certain close family matings ie mother/son, father/daughter or brother/sister mating (though believe they will in "special cases) so presumably it is accepted that inbreeding is a bad thing? Presumably it is still accepted for grandfather/grandaughter, uncle/neice etc.
> 
> Just a couple of questions:
> 
> why were such close matings ever thought to be suitable?
> 
> Would breeders here be prepared to say whether they have ever done such close matings when they could be registered and/or what is the closest "family" ever mated.
> 
> The programme did give the impression that its widespread throughout pedigree breeders and I am genuinely interested to know whether that is true or not.


Yes, I've done a father x daughter breeding. It was in the early days of my breed in the UK, when we had a dangerously high PRA rate and before DNA tests. The only alternative was to mate with very high PRA risk dogs or not breed.

There is one sure way to deplete the gene pool faster than inbreeding, and that is no breeding. For the next generation, luckily the pet passport scheme materialised and I had the opportunity to import an outcross dog with low PRA risk.

There has been a lot more research and much learned about the detrimental effect of inbreeding over the last decade or so and I think the KC is quite right in banning the reg of close breeding but IMO it doesn't go far enough. As pointed out in PDE2, a breeding can have a much higher COI than the basic 25% for sibling or parent/offspring breeding, through the cumulative effect over generations. The one quoted in the film was 45.7% for a Cesky litter and this was acceptable for registration.

It was previously though that background inbreeding, several generations away, did not have much influence but we now know that this is not the case and that COI calculation should go back 10 generations.


----------



## terencesmum

5rivers79 said:


> The hypocrisy is breeders ganging up on a documentary rather than the scandelous breeders that the doc has uncovered.


I am not a breeder, I don't show, I am not part of the canine world in the sense that I am not a member of any organised body. Was I hacked off by what I saw yesterday?? Yes, I was. 
I was shocked (just like any sensible person would have been) when I saw the footage of the boxer, spaniel, pug and the Bulldog. I am all for making changes with those breed standards that cause problems, I honestly am.
I do not think the program went about things the right way. What is Joe Public going to think now? ALL show breeders and those organised in breed clubs are like the ones in the program.So where will they go to get a pup?? You guesses it, some BYB.
Really, the program should have pointed out the importance of research, research, research and trying to find breeders like Ceearot whose statement quite clearly shows that RESPONSIBLE breeders not only exist, they are deeply horrified by some of the practices outlined in the program.
Where will my next puppy come from?? It'll be a pedigree puppy. KC registered, probably with a show background.

For me, PDE2's level of journalism was comparable to that of the Daily Mail and not exactly Sunday Times material.


----------



## Wobbles

Just a thought - if the number of good breeders really does outweigh the number of bad ones, why have the good ones not overpowered and squoze out the bad? If as we keep hearing it's only a 'small' percent of bad breeders, why do they have enough of them and they have enough power to be able to have someone removed from the breed club for trying to improve things? If say 25 people were part of a club, and one was voted out 20-4, that means the majority of 20 won the decision to remove that person. If you think of these as good and bad breeders, with 20 'bad' and 4 'good' the bad ones ones have won as that is what there was more of/ what was thought of as right by the club members. Therefore it is quite possible that there are more bad breeders than they'd like people to believe and unfortunately they're the ones with the power:frown5:.


----------



## Paganman

colliewobble said:


> Just a thought - if the number of good breeders really does outweigh the number of bad ones, why have the good ones not overpowered and squoze out the bad? If as we keep hearing it's only a 'small' percent of bad breeders, why do they have enough of them and they have enough power to be able to have someone removed from the breed club for trying to improve things? If say 25 people were part of a club, and one was voted out 20-4, that means the majority of 20 won the decision to remove that person. If you think of these as good and bad breeders, with 20 'bad' and 4 'good' the bad ones ones have won as that is what there was more of/ what was thought of as right by the club members. Therefore it is quite possible that there are more bad breeders than they'd like people to believe and unfortunately they're the ones with the power:frown5:.


Because it's one big happy club and the one you try to oust might one day become a judge 

Long memory and all that and that's you last at the show


----------



## EmCHammer

> There has been a lot more research and much learned about the detrimental effect of inbreeding over the last decade or so and I think the KC is quite right in banning the reg of close breeding but IMO it doesn't go far enough.


Surely people knew longer back than a decade ago that it was not a good idea to breed with close relatives?


----------



## Pointermum

Bjt said:


> I watched that last night.I didnt realise that boxers were in so much trouble..


I think this is where the program goes wrong, i don't think boxers are in *that *much trouble, it was purely showing one line of boxers. Where i think it was 200 odd pup's sired by the main dog, this is over how many years and when how many boxer pup's are being breed in a year  It would atullay account for a *very* small amount of the boxer population ! The program just high lighted bad breeders IMHO not always breeds in trouble


----------



## Julesky

Well they have reason to believe the boxer condition is hereditary... thus why it needs more research.

So on the face of it no they're not in trouble. If this turns out to be fact, this could be seen to be a 'ticking timebomb' unless addressed by breeding practices.

I think it was highlighting ignoring inherited problems or lack of research into conditions that could potentially be caused by breeding.
That goes for KC, BYB and Puppy farmers.


----------



## Wobbles

EmCHammer said:


> Surely people knew longer back than a decade ago that it was not a good idea to breed with close relatives?


Surely anyone with an ounce of common sense knows its not a good idea to breed close relatives...


----------



## Pointermum

Julesky said:


> Well they have reason to believe the boxer condition is hereditary... thus why it needs more research.
> 
> So on the face of it no they're not in trouble. If this turns out to be fact, this could be seen to be a 'ticking timebomb' unless addressed by breeding practices.
> 
> I think it was highlighting ignoring inherited problems or lack of research into conditions that could potentially be caused by breeding.
> That goes for KC, BYB and Puppy farmers.


Don't get me wrong i think the breeders was very irresponsible to still use the dog as a stud  and i believe more research should be done.


----------



## dandogman

The thing that really annoyed me was the CKS breeder who knowingly bred/studded 25 litters (i think it was) when she knew her dog had that problem. Disgusting.


----------



## Nicky10

I don't think anyone is justifying the cav or boxer's breeders actions the cavalier woman is just digusting breeding a dog with such a horrific condition even if he wasn't affected too badly (well so it seemed anyway) and if the bit about the boxer breeders not giving blood for the tests is true then they're a disgrace too. 

There are some hugely screwed up breeds and people breeding for extremes of course there are there are also gundogs who can go from the field to the show ring easily and working dogs who still do their job.

I'm not in the show scene I have a mutt from a BYB but my next dog will be from a KC breeder possibly a cairn whose breed club as far as I can tell have brilliant schemes in place for the health tests. It hasn't put me off buying a KC reg puppy in the slightest


----------



## comfortcreature

EmCHammer said:


> Surely people knew longer back than a decade ago that it was not a good idea to breed with close relatives?


I've known this since the 60s, which is as far back as I remember. I know my grandfather was a breeder - cattle, sheep and dogs - and ran his dairy with this in mind starting in the early 1900s. His son and daughters, also breeders, bred with this in mind beginning in the 1930s and I have many memories of discussions over this topic as a young child as they made a concerted effort to keep their populations outbred. Didn't want to suffer with newborns with a higher rate of early death if they neglected to do so.

CC


----------



## DoodlesRule

comfortcreature said:


> I've known this since the 60s, which is as far back as I remember. I know my grandfather was a breeder - cattle, sheep and dogs - and ran his dairy with this in mind starting in the early 1900s. His son and daughters, also breeders, bred with this in mind beginning in the 1930s and I have many memories of discussions over this topic as a young child as they made a concerted effort to keep their populations outbred. Didn't want to suffer with newborns with a higher rate of early death if they neglected to do so.
> 
> CC


Do you think issues with things like heart disease, cancer, auto immune diseases etc in dogs are the cummulative effects of in-breeding over many years which have finally "caught up" with us or other reasons such as developments in science allow better diagnosis? (I know what I am trying to ask but not sure put it right )


----------



## DoodlesRule

Pointermum said:


> I think this is where the program goes wrong, i don't think boxers are in *that *much trouble, it was purely showing one line of boxers. Where i think it was 200 odd pup's sired by the main dog, this is over how many years and when how many boxer pup's are being breed in a year  It would atullay account for a *very* small amount of the boxer population ! The program just high lighted bad breeders IMHO not always breeds in trouble


I have thought thats one of the biggest failings in the whole registration process, its one of the biggest databases there is and a huge missed opportunity that its not been used to record health issues. The information would then have been readily available and any problems highlighted much earlier. Such a shame really


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

DoodlesRule said:


> Thank you
> 
> The KC now have the tool for calculating COI and no longer register litters from certain close family matings ie mother/son, father/daughter or brother/sister mating (though believe they will in "special cases) so presumably it is accepted that inbreeding is a bad thing? Presumably it is still accepted for grandfather/grandaughter, uncle/neice etc.
> 
> Just a couple of questions:
> 
> why were such close matings ever thought to be suitable?
> 
> Would breeders here be prepared to say whether they have ever done such close matings when they could be registered and/or what is the closest "family" ever mated.
> 
> The programme did give the impression that its widespread throughout pedigree breeders and I am genuinely interested to know whether that is true or not.


Close matings are quite common in all animals where man has created breed *types*, not just dogs. Back when I was a little girl, my father started off an aviary of budgies with just six individuals, that was all that was recommended as a starting point back then, and the population overall was pretty healthy. I actually think if you look at some other animals, such as budgies, cats and rabbits you will find that the same sort of *thing* happens with them as with the dog world, it's not an exclusive problem, show budgies are nothing like what they should look like to survive. At least in dogs there is a percentage of people who recognise the problems that we're facing from breeding in that way and the trouble that some of the breeds have gotten into, and we have a good resource with the KC and the history of our breeds.

I think the closest you can now register is half siblings, I've known a couple, it's not something I think I'd be comfortable with doing, although one of the ones I know was a cracking dog, sadly no longer with us but a fabulous worker and a field trial champion as well.



colliewobble said:


> Just a thought - if the number of good breeders really does outweigh the number of bad ones, why have the good ones not overpowered and squoze out the bad? If as we keep hearing it's only a 'small' percent of bad breeders, why do they have enough of them and they have enough power to be able to have someone removed from the breed club for trying to improve things? If say 25 people were part of a club, and one was voted out 20-4, that means the majority of 20 won the decision to remove that person. If you think of these as good and bad breeders, with 20 'bad' and 4 'good' the bad ones ones have won as that is what there was more of/ what was thought of as right by the club members. Therefore it is quite possible that there are more bad breeders than they'd like people to believe and unfortunately they're the ones with the power:frown5:.


I don't think the good breeders outweigh all the bad breeders tbh, if you're only talking about the show world, then yes, but then it's all in small groups depending which breed or breeds you own or are interested in. The flatcoat people are nothing like the Labrador people, and theyr'e shown in different ways depending on which breed, some are trimmed and stacked, both my two breeds are thankfully free standing, although you do tart up your flat coats a little more by trimming off a little bit of hair to show their profile and movement off to the very best.


----------



## comfortcreature

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If you want a dog to retain the characteristics you bred it for in the first place, you have to have a closed gene pool of dogs of the same *type*. Otherwise you just end up with any old sort of dog,. . . .


You can breed to type without a closed gene pool. The breeds that we have WERE DEVELOPED without a closed gene pool. Retaining type does not require a closed gene pool. It requires careful selection. You can see that in the Boxer/Corgi backcross experiment.

Dogs were not created by inbreeding- but they are being destroyed by it « The Retriever, Dog, & Wildlife Blog










The breeder was working with two dominant phenotypic traits from the Corgi yet these third gen dogs are not 'random mix' looking dogs simply because three gens back a Corgi was crossed in. Why. Because the breeder utilized selection.

GENETICS CAN BE FUN - Part 4

Other backcross projects have also shown this same capability which is WHY there are currently some being undertaken.

CC


----------



## DoodlesRule

CC a lot of the genetics posts are admittedly a bit over my head but yours about crossing makes perfect sense. I have seen pedigree breeders here comment that with crosses they could look like either parent so what you are saying is by then selecting the "look" you want you can breed back to your type. Hope I got that right!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

comfortcreature said:


> You can breed to type without a closed gene pool. The breeds that we have WERE DEVELOPED without a closed gene pool. Retaining type does not require a closed gene pool. It requires careful selection. You can see that in the Boxer/Corgi backcross experiment.
> 
> "Dogs were not created by inbreeding but they are being destroyed by it" - Dogs were not created by inbreeding but they are being destroyed by it « The Retriever, Dog, & Wildlife Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These third gen dogs are not 'random mix' looking dogs simply because three gens back a Corgi was crossed in. Why. Because the breeder utilized selection.
> 
> GENETICS CAN BE FUN - Part 4
> 
> Other backcross projects have also shown this same capability which is WHY there are currently some being undertaken.
> 
> CC


Yes, the dog looks like a boxer, but if you've got a breed like a cocker spaniel, where the ability as well as the looks, and of course health and temperament is vitally important, you can't just outcross to a dog where you might bring in something that diminishes the way the dog has been bred to work. I do think there is certainly potential to try to help with smaller gene pools in outcrossing, but it needs to be done carefully otherwise we could end up taking some breeds off on a tangent. I'm afraid I'm not a fan of the show cocker (sorry Spellweaver), and I think you can see if you look at the american cocker, how a dog can become exaggerated when you carry on breeding that way, the original cocker spaniel was nothing like either in the show ring, and the American cocker would need completely shaving to work at all (mind you, so would a lot of show cockers I've seen), it's apparently bred to specifically retrieve quail, I've never seen one work, so can't comment other than to say they really do not look like any working breed I'm familiar with. I'm also saddened by the show bassets, but thank goodness the working bassets are still around, and fit for function! For me, personally and I'm sorry if it upsets anyone with these breeds, that sort of breeding, adding extra coat, a head more and more domed, more wrinkles etc, etc, does nothing to make the breeds better at all.


----------



## comfortcreature

Cleo38 said:


> But surely the point is that people who are trying to buy healthy pups are being misled as well as countelss dogs suffering, because these people are so 'protected' by some in the 'dog world'. . .


You'ld think that should be the point.



Ceearott said:


> . . . The Dalmation breeder, I will simply say I actually applauded her.
> 
> One thing I am certain of, is that many breed clubs of many breeds and the breed councils, full of so-called 'senior' breeders, sitting on their self-made pedestals, need to get their huge heads out their own ar$es and start demanding health info from their members and collating it and acting upon it, for the better of the breed.


Well said.

CC


----------



## Nicky10

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes, the dog looks like a boxer, but if you've got a breed like a cocker spaniel, where the ability as well as the looks, and of course health and temperament is vitally important, you can't just outcross to a dog where you might bring in something that diminishes the way the dog has been bred to work. I do think there is certainly potential to try to help with smaller gene pools in outcrossing, but it needs to be done carefully otherwise we could end up taking some breeds off on a tangent. I'm afraid I'm not a fan of the show cocker (sorry Spellweaver), and I think you can see if you look at the american cocker, how a dog can become exaggerated when you carry on breeding that way, the original cocker spaniel was nothing like either in the show ring, and the American cocker would need completely shaving to work at all (mind you, so would a lot of show cockers I've seen), it's apparently bred to specifically retrieve quail, I've never seen one work, so can't comment other than to say they really do not look like any working breed I'm familiar with. I'm also saddened by the show bassets, but thank goodness the working bassets are still around, and fit for function! For me, personally and I'm sorry if it upsets anyone with these breeds, that sort of breeding, adding extra coat, a head more and more domed, more wrinkles etc, etc, does nothing to make the breeds better at all.


There's a couple of kennels work am cockers and they're apparently becoming more popular in the US as working dogs but they do generally have a lot less coat than the show dogs.


----------



## comfortcreature

Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . . I do think there is certainly potential to try to help with smaller gene pools in outcrossing, but it needs to be done carefully otherwise we could end up taking some breeds off on a tangent. . .


Yes, carefully, I agree. I'm not suggesting otherwise. The point is it can be done and there should be allowances for it with provisions and qualifications as there is in nearly every single other breed of animal - including show animals.

In regards to breeds taken off into tangents my first heart dog as a child was an America Cocker - with a coat that did not have to be shaved off in order for him to work and without a bubble topped 'plush' head. Breeds are being taken off into tangents constantly from many directions so why this is the one (allowance for a b-register again, or an open stud book) to get the great battle by purists I do not understand.

CC


----------



## Nicky10

Controlled outcrossing programmes like the LUA dalmatians should be allowed in smaller gene pools the norwegian lundehund for example the conservative estimate is that 95% have stomach and intestinal problems because of the tiny gene pool. But it would need to be managed very carefully of course and all dogs fully health tested. Some breeders would throw a fit though some do see purity as more important


----------



## S_Rollo

At the end of the day we as dog lovers should care about the health and happiness of ur pets, first and foremost! So why are breeders who you would asume have a love for that breed still creating unhealthy animals in pain and distress, how can anyone condone that? regardless of who you are weather you support the programe or KC shouldnt we all be saying lets sort this?

I personally do not agree with breeding any dogs, look how many dogs have ended up in pounds, fighting rings etc because they do not have a home. I do understand why people breed these magnificent creatures because they truely are mans best friend and im proud to say my dog is my baby and my best friend, but I also agree it is a bit 'Hitler' although this is a bad way of saying it the programme could have been a bit more tasteful in making their point but if someone bred people in this way for hair colour, size etc there would be uproar, especially if people had children with aunts uncles or any family. why do people insist on playing God with things that are not ours to pay with.

p.s. I have read a lot of peoples posts on here and if anyone replies to me personally without the intention of debate and conversation I will not answer.

Proud owner of a happy healthy LOVED and cherrished, mongrel/mutt/crossbreed.
Thanks for reading my opinion. 
Westie Staff Information and Pictures West Highland White Terrier / American Staffordshire Hybrid Dogs


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

comfortcreature said:


> Yes, carefully, I agree. I'm not suggesting otherwise. The point is it can be done and there should be allowances for it with provisions and qualifications as there is in nearly every single other breed of animal - including show animals.
> 
> *In regards to breeds taken off into tangents my first heart dog as a child was an America Cocker - with a coat that did not have to be shaved off in order for him to work and without a bubble topped 'plush' head. Breeds are being taken off into tangents constantly from many directions so why this is the one to get the great battle by purists I do not understand.*
> 
> CC





Nicky10 said:


> Controlled outcrossing programmes like the LUA dalmatians should be allowed in smaller gene pools the norwegian lundehund for example the conservative estimate is that 95% have stomach and intestinal problems because of the tiny gene pool. But it would need to be managed very carefully of course and all dogs fully health tested. Some breeders would throw a fit though some do see purity as more important


Completely agree, I'm not sure why some pedigree breeders have this mind set, but unfortunately they do. If we created these breeds in the first place with different *types* then we can use other dogs surely to help out any that now have problems?

CC, do you agree then that the Am Cocker is now very different to the original dog?


----------



## pod

EmCHammer said:


> Surely people knew longer back than a decade ago that it was not a good idea to breed with close relatives?


Well not really common opinion in the dog world. It certainly was in the breeding of captive zoo animals and also in livestock breeding but it took a long time to filter through to dog breeding.

Over the last decade or so there has been a wealth of research specifically on dog breeding and availability of pedigrees via the internet has fueled the interest.

It's not actually the closeness of the relatives that's significant, though of course this does elevate the COI, but rather the COI calculated over many generations. Pedigrees are now available in many breeds going right back to breed founders where it can be seen that parent/offspring breedings and close breeding for continuous generations were rather common when breeds were initially formed, often with just a few founder dogs.


----------



## comfortcreature

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Completely agree, I'm not sure why some pedigree breeders have this mind set, but unfortunately they do. If we created these breeds in the first place with different *types* then we can use other dogs surely to help out any that now have problems?
> 
> CC, do you agree then that the Am Cocker is now very different to the original dog?


OH MY GOODNESS YES!!!

And I am not happy about it ... so then you move to the Cavalier as it has a smoother coat and look what you find! Again. I am not a happy camper with what has happened to the type of dog (by temperament and formerly by coat type) that I favor.



DoodlesRule said:


> Do you think issues with things like heart disease, cancer, auto immune diseases etc in dogs are the cummulative effects of in-breeding over many years which have finally "caught up" with us or other reasons such as developments in science allow better diagnosis? (I know what I am trying to ask but not sure put it right )


The proof is that these are the cummulative effects of in-breeding over many generations.

_"Much of the genetic diversity of dogs is dimished or lost in many breeds due to aggressive breeding programs and closed inbred populations. Loss of genetic diversity threatens the welfare and vitality of dogs and may predispose them to various diseases.

An important part of this genetic diversity is related to genes, which are responsible for the effective and functional immune defense against viruses, parasites and other foreign pathogens in dogs. There are probaly hundreds if not thousands of genes involved in the functionality of the immune system in mammalian genome. One of the most important such gene cluster is called major histocompatibility complex (MHC) in the dog's genome. MHC complex includes a large number of genes and lies in canine chromosome 12.

This MHC complex includes genes that are responsible for the recognition of the species own tissues from foreign material. Recognition is related to the genetic diversity and some of the genes in this region contain particulary hypervariable areas in their coding regions to maintain them as diverse as possible. The loss of diversity in the MHC region or inheritace of particular allele combinations may result in increased susceptibility to autoimmune diseases such as diabetes, atopia, hypothyroiditis and different forms of inflammatory disorders. Many canine autoimmune disorders have been already associated with risk haplotypes in the MHC locus and homozygosity to risk alleles or haplotypes seems to increase the disease risk. Heterozygosity is preferred in the MHC locus in wild population too. Several studies in both natural and domesticated populations underline the importance of heterozygosity rather than the numer of different haplotypes in the MHC region. . . . " _​
http://www.genoscoper.com/in_english2/gene_tests/gene_tests/dla_diversity/

This following blog post gives a very blunt, but entertaining , explanation of what happens through the cummulative effects of inbreeding in a closed population.

"*PART I: MHC, DLA, WTF?*

. . .Right, so what is the MHC, and why should we care? MHC stands for Major Histocompatibility Complex. Keep that term in mind, because if you use it you'll sound smart. The MHC is, basically, the gene family that makes up the immune system. In people these genes are called Human Leukocyte Antigens, or HLA genes. In dogs, surprisingly enough, they are called Dog Leukocyte Antigens, or DLA genes. Can you guess what they're called in cats? CLA genes? Wrong! It's FLA genes. DLA and MHC as terms are pretty interchangeable.

The MHC is comprised of three regions, which are called Class I, Class II, and Class III. MHC genes regulate the immune response, and help the body to identify foreign invaders (viruses, bacteria, very small aliens), and to recognize the body's own cells (auto-immunity.) Stuff (antigens) enters the body, and the DLA genes pick it up and wave it around, saying _"Hey, look at this! You know what this is! Killitkillitkillit!"_ Or, in the case of auto-immunity, _"Hey, look at this! This belongs here, leave it the hell alone!" _The MHC will determine the response to infections, vaccinations, and development of auto-immune disease. It cleans up all the minor little goofs that go on in the body, like messed up cells. The MHC is really, really, really, really important. . . "

http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/...stries-dogs-in-the-handbasket-to-hell-part-i/​
More good reading here.

http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/...tries-dogs-in-the-handbasket-to-hell-part-ii/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK27156/

Those inbred lab mice - http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2012/01/those-inbred-lab-mice.html

http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/unintended-consequences-or-why-i-wont-just-shut-up/

CC


----------



## AlbertRoss

Ceearott said:


> One thing I am certain of, is that many breed clubs of many breeds and the breed councils, full of so-called 'senior' breeders, sitting on their self-made pedestals, need to get their huge heads out their own ar$es and start demanding health info from their members and collating it and acting upon it, for the better of the breed.


I agree with the sentiment but the reality is that in many breed clubs the people in those clubs have decided what they a) want dogs to look like and b) and this is the important bit - _*can only breed dogs from their own stock that will turn out a certain way*_.

It's exactly that sort of attitude that has caused so much of the problems that PDE shows up. If you have a dog with a flat face and all your local friends have bitches with a flat face then it's odds-on that the joining of your dog and any of those bitches will produce puppies with a flat face. This is prevalent in 'local ' breed clubs. It means that certain features will get exaggerated over time - but probably won't get noticed because all the people you know are breeding exactly the same problems. All the judges will be looking at dogs with the same problems and it takes a brave judge to withhold a first place at a show. It becomes self perpetuating.

The ONLY people that can stop this are the Kennel Club. They can insist on not registering progeny unless the parents both reach a particular level of health check. They can appoint "super judges" whose job would be to make sure that a judge was judging to the standard of the breed and not their personal preference. At the end of the day it's the Kennel Club that make the rules for registered pedigree dogs.

But the KC has a huge input from breed clubs and councils and they fight tooth and nail against most changes that might, in any way, interfere with what they are doing. The problem is that all these people think they are experts. ("I've been in the breed 25 years, I know more about dog health than anyone. No one can tell me there's anything wrong with my dogs.") The sad fact is that most of them are simply ignorant followers of fashion.


----------



## Wildmoor

pod said:


> That footage is actually all from Crufts 2008. Remember all dogs have qualified to attend.
> 
> I'm sure that the time taken to access GSDs suitable for filming is more to do with the massive undertaking this programme took. As somebody said (I think on this forum) GSDs alone would have filled the whole hour adequately.


beg to differ it was also manchester ch show


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

comfortcreature said:


> OH MY GOODNESS YES!!!
> 
> And I am not happy about it ... so then you move to the Cavalier as it has a smoother coat and look what you find! Again. I am not a happy camper with what has happened to the type of dog (by temperament and formerly by coat type) that I favor.
> 
> CC


This is a photo I happen to have of a cocker that was exported to the USA and a founding dog of the Am Cocker breed type, this is what an original working English Cocker Spaniel looks like, and looks like many I see owned by friends and also the spit of one of the OH's dogs. For anyone wondering what an English Show Cocker now looks like, and an American Cocker Spaniel, just google, I'm not going to paste any pics of any just in case I get pulled up by an owner, has happened in the past I'm afraid, once bitten and all that 










Also, look at my sig as the cocker retrieving the pheasant was the son of the dog my OH owns, sadly no longer with us due to an accident involving fishing wire


----------



## DKDREAM

rocco33 said:


> But they're not tight at all. And because they are not they are open to interpretation. It is the interpretation that causes the exaggerations. My working bred labs are recognisably labradors and generally comply to the breed standard, however, they would be laughed out of the show ring


I mean with the papillon if dogs have any white on their ears this is a fault, why should it be? it dosent hurt the dog or effect it in anyway? plus the size rule in my opinion is silly, why not let the dogs be a few " higher it would be better for the bitch's (this is just my opinion so dont shoot me)


----------



## pod

Wildmoor said:


> beg to differ it was also manchester ch show


Nope, that one - GSD Movement in slow motion - YouTube is Crufts 2008 according to Jemima. Note the green carpet.

This is the one you may be thinking of - German Shepherd half dog half frog - cut from BBC Pedigree Dogs Exposed - YouTube 
Manchester followed by Crufts 2008


----------



## Wildmoor

Helbo said:


> Haven't read the whole thread  it's a bit long now!
> 
> But I just wanted to say I am shocked at how irresponsible some KC registered breeders can be. I had no idea about the extent of the problem of inbreeding and how little the KC actually do about the few problem breeders who are breeding from parents with serious diseases/with the genes for a serious disease.
> 
> When I bought Charlie I was given a full family tree going back several generations to show his bloodline, but I wonder how many breeders aren't so forthcoming with such information...:skep:


In my breed it is general practice to email a copy of pups pedigree for checking before they are born
Re the KC it is the owners of ill pups/dogs responsibility to inform the KC of the problems providing a vet report the KC will then take action against the breeders but if they are not informed how can they? and once again this is nothing to do with JH from personal experience I know they have done this since 1993


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

DKDREAM said:


> I mean with the papillon if dogs have any white on their ears this is a fault, why should it be? it dosent hurt the dog or effect it in anyway? plus the size rule in my opinion is silly, why not let the dogs be a few " higher it would be better for the bitch's (this is just my opinion so dont shoot me)


I don't know with the companion breeds, with working breeds, colouring was *thought* to be suitable for the role they took on, so should really either camouflage, or show them up, depending what's needed. Other than that, colour should be an issue only if it's linked to health problems I think.

Also, in the UK, they don't have a measuring stick in the ring, so as long as your dog is about the right size, it's deemed ok, we also don't rule out dogs with dentition that isn't complete, ie missing a molar or two. In other countries, they are far more stringent about showing.


----------



## Pointermum

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy: :crazy:
that's how my brain feels reading that lot :001_rolleyes:


----------



## Wildmoor

5rivers79 said:


> Yeh you may be right, but the guy i got my dog from is a pet breeder and has has bred for himself, his family and his friends. Yeh its also a fair point i didnt ask questions when i went to buy Sam, but i can hand on heart say i was naive or maybe gullible then and after seeing Sam and his parents i wanted him full stop.
> 
> The breeder i got my dog from is not endorsed by a multi million pound organisation. He isnt breeding a facially deformed breed that cant breathe adequately with the support of a large multi million pound organisation. Id much rather buy a dog from a pet breeder with a good heart than some show breeder who is destroying their breed just to fuel their own ego.


he is nothing but a byb and it is people like him destroying the breeds - no health tests put any dog to any bitch regardless of inherent problems in the lines - my god you lot have been brainwashed by JH havent you ????


----------



## DKDREAM

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't know with the companion breeds, with working breeds, colouring was *thought* to be suitable for the role they took on, so should really either camouflage, or show them up, depending what's needed. Other than that, colour should be an issue only if it's linked to health problems I think.
> 
> Also, in the UK, they don't have a measuring stick in the ring, so as long as your dog is about the right size, it's deemed ok, we also don't rule out dogs with dentition that isn't complete, ie missing a molar or two. In other countries, they are far more stringent about showing.


Thankyou for clearing that up, Its just when I 1st got Tilly we thought about showing but where told she would be penalised for her white ear tip (miss-marked) its in the breed standard that the ears should be of the same colour no white


----------



## Shrap

AlbertRoss said:


> The ONLY people that can stop this are the Kennel Club. They can insist on not registering progeny unless the parents both reach a particular level of health check.


I would guess if they did that they wouldn't register progeny from your dog with an elbow grade of 3.

Again, as has been said previously, where do you draw the line? A PRA affected or carrier dog can be bred to a clear. 
What about hip scores? Where do you draw the line there? There are many dogs whose hip scores are above the BMS yet have been proven to reduce hip scores in progeny.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

DKDREAM said:


> Thankyou for clearing that up, Its just when I 1st got Tilly we thought about showing but where told she would be penalised for her white ear tip (miss-marked) its in the breed standard that the ears should be of the same colour no white


Why not give it a bash in any case, you never know, and if you get chatting to some of the other owners, you might find out why there's the strange ruling about the white to the ears.

One thing I will throw out there and this might cause some consternation with the show folk, is that I do know there are corrupt people in showing from first hand experience; I've thought about posting it before and wasn't sure whether to or not, I received a message before I entered Rhuna into her first show, well, before I set off, and was told that we wouldn't get placed. I won't say why, but the message was spot on.


----------



## Pointermum

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Why not give it a bash in any case, you never know, and if you get chatting to some of the other owners, you might find out why there's the strange ruling about the white to the ears.
> 
> One thing I will throw out there and this might cause some consternation with the show folk, is that I do know there are corrupt people in showing from first hand experience; I've thought about posting it before and wasn't sure whether to or not, I received a message before I entered Rhuna into her first show, well, before I set off, and was told that we wouldn't get placed. I won't say why, but the message was spot on.


I'm not in the showing world but it doesn't surprise me, i should imagine your face has to fit as much as the dog's half the time


----------



## Wildmoor

Happy Paws said:


> If you go to Sutton Park you'll see lots GSDs and some of these have deformed hind legs, they shouldn't be to hard to find.


never heard of sutton park - but remember JH wanted to target show breeders and the KC hence why she wanted footage at a show


----------



## terencesmum

Pointermum said:


> I'm not in the showing world but it doesn't surprise me, i should imagine your face has to fit as much as the dog's half the time


Are you trying to imply SL is ugly??


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Pointermum said:


> I'm not in the showing world but it doesn't surprise me, i should imagine your face has to fit as much as the dog's half the time


From what I've gleaned, this can definitely be the case, and you do get people who travel to enter different shows because they either want to avoid or want to be under certain judges. As with breeding, I am going to be completely honest, if I come last, and that was second out of two dogs, I will put exactly that information out there, far too many people don't unfortunately!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Right, I've watched it (inbetween posting on here) and I have to say, not actually as bad as I thought, there were lots of positives unlike the first PDE programme. I applaud the dalmation and boxer breeders who are going against the tide of old school stuck in a rut breeders who think they can just ignore what's going on because of their own status. There were still an awful lot of implied problems that didn't give a good enough picture, flatcoats were mentioned and cancer, which made it sound as if all flatcoats die young from cancer, I once heard it said, if you did an autopsy on everyone who died of old age, you'd most likely find some form of cancer in there, it happens, and we're dealing with a breed that comes predominantly in a colour (black) that is more prone to certain cancers. I can say I'm a member of a group called double digit flatcoats, and it's refreshing to see the number of dogs on there that make it through to double figures and well beyond. 

Some of the *breeders* need a bl**dy good shake, I don't care how many years less experience in dogs I have, but they just seem so up themselves! Shetland lover was right about the pug, it was from Germany, but travelled to see the specialist, although how anyone can think that is ok for any breed is just unbelievable, same with the other problems highlighted, already known problems within those breeds. I haven't a foggiest if they are solvable, but at least with some breeds, such as bassets and daschunds, a working population of dogs with less exaggerations exists alongside the show population, there has to be a solution there somewhere. 

I didn't like the constant inferences that it was following PDE that the KC did anything at all, because that's simply untruthful. But I did like the fact that the programme did actually concede that the KC was working towards solutions this time round, not at all mentioned in PDE. 

Unfortunately, Joe Public will most likely still think that the programme shows that pedigree dogs aren't healthy, and the breeders aren't trustworthy; and they most likely couldn't be bothered to find out in any case, so will look elsewhere if it involves the faintest bit of research. 

Sheila Crispin was brilliant, I spoke to her briefly via email a while back, and she was just lovely and so knowledgeable.


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> You obviously don't know what roached means. It comes from 'cockroach'. Google 'roach back german shepherd'. It's got nothing to do with 'sagging behind the withers'. Get over it. It's an upward curve in the back - which is WRONG. As I said before - read the standard for the breed.
> 
> I can't be bothered to go through and answer all the irrelevancies in your post but you carp on about Schutzhund so let me explain it to everyone else so they get an accurate picture. Schutzhund, directly translated, literally means "Protection Dog". Dogs that are involved in this sport are easily adaptable to police work, search & rescue, drug & bomb searching, and any number of other different jobs.
> 
> It is wise to also note that the temperament of a Shepherd bred for Schutzhund will be "harder". That is to say that they will be more wary of stranger's who enter the home and will be less "friendly" (based on obedience training) with strangers. (these aren't my words, they come from the American Kennel Club).
> 
> von Stephanitz did indeed start Schutzhund - but he did it simply because there was a decline in the need for shepherds. But he only started it. It was further developed and changed beyond recognition in the 1920s (30 years later) by the Deutsches Shaeferhund Verein (German Shepherd Dog Club).
> 
> You said "_you think schutzhund is about the dogs learning to attack people? Run away from a schutzhund dog and it wont latch onto your arm_". Well that's going to come as a surprise to all those people who are Schutzhund training their dogs. Here's a picture of the 'protection' phase of Schutzhund
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it comes from the Wikipedia article on Schutzhund. That dog looks pretty well latched on to the helper's arm to me.
> 
> All this is BTW irrelevant to the main thrust of this thread - which is the upcoming 'Exposed' programme. The facts speak for themselves - the frog's legged GSDs in programme 1 were 'German'. The KC's recent film putting their side of the story shows 'English' types. The German type dogs invariably have roach/banana backs, i.e. should be heavily penalised by judges. (But the KC doesn't police GSD judging so the majority of GSD judges now are breeders of 'German' dogs).
> 
> The German type breed clubs threatened to withdraw from the Kennel Club when it made an issue of health testing. The Kennel Club statement on this:
> 
> _A vocal minority in the GSD community seems to continue to attempt to distract attention from the Kennel Clubs main concerns about the soundness of the German Shepherd Dog breed. The Kennel Club remains in no doubt that currently the single biggest threat to the reputation and interest of the breed is the lack of soundness in hindquarters, particularly the hocks.
> 
> The presence of this unsoundness in GSDs is generally recognised by most people in dogs except by some with vested interests in the GSD breed who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem in this area. The Kennel Club remains frustrated that something so patently obvious to many dog people - even those with a limited knowledge of dogs - is being ignored and denied by some people in the breed. Indeed the recent Bateson Inquiry singled out the GSD as an example of a breed where drastic action is required to address conformation and movement._ The whole statement is here.
> 
> The German Breed clubs resolutely opposed this - but the 'English' clubs were all in favour. Why was that? Could it be that the 'German' breed type actually condemns dogs to poor hindquarters?
> 
> You are right that Police etc don't use show dogs. But wrong when you suggest that the all have Eastern European backgrounds. Some forces breed their own. Some take aggressive dogs that their owners can't control - irrespective of breeding/pedigree. (A Police dog must be capable of aggression or it's thrown out - usually to the military). Long-haired GSDs aren't eligible for GSD classes at Champ or Open shows and quite a few service dogs are long-haired.
> 
> Finally - in the heat of the moment I did indeed reverse my dog hip/elbow scores. Sorry about that. And, yes, 3 is a high elbow score. Which is why mates were only used if they had a 0 elbow score. OTOH no dog I've ever bred has had any kind of hip or elbow problem.


The term roach in a GSD is a deritative of the original term used in the 1920s 'Carp back'
and you have used a dog with an elbow score of 3? it should be spayed/castrated which ever sex it is - shame on you
I had my 0:0 male castrated because he has a elbow score of 3
its breeders like you the KC need to stop - how can you slate the show breeders when what you are doing!!!!


----------



## AlbertRoss

Shrap said:


> I would guess if they did that they wouldn't register progeny from your dog with an elbow grade of 3.
> 
> Again, as has been said previously, where do you draw the line? A PRA affected or carrier dog can be bred to a clear.
> What about hip scores? Where do you draw the line there? There are many dogs whose hip scores are above the BMS yet have been proven to reduce hip scores in progeny.


I would have no problem with any sensible health check breeding regulation. But no such check guarantees a good result in the progeny. For example, whatever the average hip score for a breed was it would not be unreasonable to fix a limit 30% above that. (Or perhaps one standard deviation, in statistics speak). However, it's quite possible for 2 dogs with zero scores to produce a puppy with high scores. The point is that at least a check would be made and the statistical likelihood of problems would be reduced.

It's not just hip scores though. There are many other tests across different breeds.


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> I would have no problem with any sensible health check breeding regulation. But no such check guarantees a good result in the progeny. For example, whatever the average hip score for a breed was it would not be unreasonable to fix a limit 30% above that. (Or perhaps one standard deviation, in statistics speak). However, it's quite possible for 2 dogs with zero scores to produce a puppy with high scores. The point is that at least a check would be made and the statistical likelihood of problems would be reduced.
> 
> It's not just hip scores though. There are many other tests across different breeds.


it is welll known if you study the stats on all GSDs hip/elbow scored that high and uneven hips may skip a generation occassionallly 2 but always come back with a vengence and produce even more high and uneven scores
the whole point of using the system is to reduce the breed mean average so therefore dogs/bitches should only be used if they are well below the breed mean average


----------



## AlbertRoss

Wildmoor said:


> The term roach in a GSD is a deritative of the original term used in the 1920s 'Carp back'
> and you have used a dog with an elbow score of 3? it should be spayed/castrated which ever sex it is - shame on you
> I had my 0:0 male castrated because he has a elbow score of 3
> its breeders like you the KC need to stop - how can you slate the show breeders when what you are doing!!!!


I note that your diatribe has nothing whatsoever to do with all the things I pulled you up on earlier. (And your English isn't too clear either).

If your dogs are roach backs perhaps you should castrate all of them and stop destroying the breed.

It's not my dogs like mine that get featured in PDE - that would be roach backs like yours. On the contrary, it's dogs like mine that the KC use as examples of what good dogs are like. I'm quite happy to make sure that my breeding practices are sound - unlike those who continue to produce misshapen dogs. And I'd be quite happy to submit to any imposed rule of the KC on medical conditions. But that isn't true of German breed clubs is it? Perhaps your memory doesn't stretch back long enough to remember the 'German' clubs trying to pull out of the KC because they were insisting on health checks at shows?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Also interested to find out that JH's own dog isn't tested for a condition that can be incredibly painful. If she's so concerned, why not test to make sure?


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> As a breeder of straight backed GSDs I think one has to be very careful about the description. I have no problem with a GSD with a slope back - it's part of the breed standard. The breed standard also says that the back should be STRAIGHT. The 'German' type GSD, bred with a curved back, isn't anything like the original GSD. At Crufts last year (which was ruled by bent backs) I overheard, and agreed with, a person say that he wouldn't trust one of them to guard his outside toilet.
> 
> As far as temperament goes, at the same show there was an 'English' dog lying in one of the aisles being played with by passing toddlers whilst there were several instances of 'German' dogs fighting each other in the benching area. My dogs aren't 'nervy' - we specifically breed for temperament. As for drive - most of the bent back GSDs I've seen don't look as if they could run across a garden, never mind a field.
> 
> I notice that the KC rebuttal of Jemima whatsherface was taken largely at the Richmond show - where the vast majority of the entry were 'English' type GSDs. I don't believe that was an accident. I believer it's because they want to show what a healthy GSD should look like.
> 
> I am very aware that those of us that breed 'English' types are being very selective in terms of bloodline, hip scoring, etc. in trying to improve the breed. Unfortunately, the last lot of hip scores I saw from the KC indicated that the same wasn't true of the 'German' types. However, the unsavoury fact remains that whilst the show judges keep scoring these deformities highly then they will increase in population. There is no question that the KC can control the future of dog health, although it will take several generations to see a marked improvement. Sadly, they won't do it because it will affect the money they take.
> 
> As a final note - see if you can find a photo of last year's GSD Crufts finalist where he's not sitting down. It's very, very rare. And all those photos of him sitting disguise what his back end looks like.


The breed standard " Withers long, of good height and well defined, joining back in a smooth line without disrupting flowing topline, slightly sloping from front to back" not a straight back
what is your affix?
you are not the one I took a photo for my friend are you the dog jumped when I deliberately dropped my camera bag on the floor it flinched when I ran my hand along its back!
why did I do this of course to assess where her dog got its windy temp from
whereas my dog of the german type that you despise is a registered blood donor at 2 veterinary surgeries, he has worked for many years on acute psychiatric wards, he has worked with people who severe LD behavioural problems and autism, he can be taken any where and is also a stooge dog for dogs with behavioural problems/fear aggression, the GSD he replaced was a working gundog flushing pheasant and other game but then again I dont have windy dogs mine are mentally stable and can be trained to do anything I wish and go into any environment "The German Shepherd Dog must be even tempered, well balanced (with strong nerves), self assured, totally at ease (except when provoked) and good natured, as well as attentive and easy to train"


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> I note that your diatribe has nothing whatsoever to do with all the things I pulled you up on earlier. (And your English isn't too clear either).
> 
> If your dogs are roach backs perhaps you should castrate all of them and stop destroying the breed.
> 
> It's not my dogs like mine that get featured in PDE - that would be roach backs like yours. On the contrary, it's dogs like mine that the KC use as examples of what good dogs are like. I'm quite happy to make sure that my breeding practices are sound - unlike those who continue to produce misshapen dogs. And I'd be quite happy to submit to any imposed rule of the KC on medical conditions. But that isn't true of German breed clubs is it? Perhaps your memory doesn't stretch back long enough to remember the 'German' clubs trying to pull out of the KC because they were insisting on health checks at shows?


my English is fine but then again i know more than one language, unlike some maybe pay attention to your dogs what does the standard say:
about overloaded fronts? and by the way the orginal GSD weighed 26KG not 45-55KG like yours


----------



## Nonbred

> Originally Posted by AlbertRoss
> The ONLY people that can stop this are the Kennel Club. They can insist on not registering progeny unless the parents both reach a particular level of health check.


The chances of KC bringing themselves up to date with whats been the norm for all European breed registration clubs for decades are pie in the sky hopes, KC like the reg money & that's where KCs interests end.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Nonbred said:


> The chances of KC bringing themselves up to date with whats been the norm for all European breed registration clubs for decades are pie in the sky hopes, KC like the reg money & thats where KCs interests end.


Interesting first post


----------



## comfortcreature

DoodlesRule said:


> Do you think issues with things like heart disease, cancer, auto immune diseases etc in dogs are the cummulative effects of in-breeding over many years which have finally "caught up" with us or other reasons such as developments in science allow better diagnosis? (I know what I am trying to ask but not sure put it right )





Sleeping_Lion said:


> This is a photo I happen to have of a cocker that was exported to the USA and a founding dog of the Am Cocker breed type, this is what an original working English Cocker Spaniel looks like, and looks like many I see owned by friends and also the spit of one of the OH's dogs. For anyone wondering what an English Show Cocker now looks like, and an American Cocker Spaniel, just google, I'm not going to paste any pics of any just in case I get pulled up by an owner, has happened in the past I'm afraid, once bitten and all that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, look at my sig as the cocker retrieving the pheasant was the son of the dog my OH owns, sadly no longer with us due to an accident involving fishing wire


I'm not afraid to take a bite. Here are some current show examples of American Cockers - found through google image search.

An American Cocker - Plush head (show ring favorite):










cocker spaniel plush head - Google Search

They have the audacity to call this a sporting head:










- The (American) Cocker Spaniel - by Tais Vagostelo, St' James Cockers-Brazil

Oh yes, and what has been done to the coat on this sporting breed!










American Cocker Spaniel Breed Information and Pictures - Dooziedog.com

When it is left - stray Cocker as an example.










Peggy's Pet Place: Hairy Dogs

Off topic photo rant, I know.

CC


----------



## Shrap

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Interesting first post


There will be a lot of people googling and having their attention brought to threads like this after last nights broadcast. Give them a chance


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

comfortcreature said:


> I'm not afraid to take a bite. Here are some current show examples of American Cockers - found through google image search.
> 
> An American Cocker - Plush head (show ring favorite):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cocker spaniel plush head - Google Search
> 
> They have the audacity to call this a sporting head:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - The (American) Cocker Spaniel - by Tais Vagostelo, St' James Cockers-Brazil
> 
> Oh yes, and what has been done to the coat on this sporting breed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Cocker Spaniel Breed Information and Pictures - Dooziedog.com
> 
> When it is left - stray Cocker as an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peggy's Pet Place: Hairy Dogs
> 
> Off topic photo rant, I know.
> 
> CC


It's shocking isn't it, and whilst I applaud these issues being brought to the fore, I wish for the life of me there were more put about those who do care greatly about dog breeding, and ensuring we have dogs that we love in all their shapes and forms for a long time to come.


----------



## Wildmoor

this must be the thread you were referring to in your snide comment - okay seen it now will answer


AlbertRoss said:


> Haven't yet watched it but there are some truly misleading things being said about GSDs in this thread...
> 
> What show? What has it to do with the Kennel Club?
> 
> the Sieger show (UK) not Deutschland, dd I say it was anything to do with the KC I was discussing show breeders of the International type in response to your comment on my thread
> If my memory serves me well one of the earliest 'top' show GSDs in the UK Yes your type English show linessuffered from epilepsy and, if you go far enough back up the pedigrees for many, many GSDs you'll find him represented. So, it is prevalent in show lines too. (I can think of one breeder who is a 'show' breeder who still produces dogs that have exhibited that tendency). you wont find him in my dogs pedigree maybe yours
> 
> Funny, I thought in the first PDE most of her footage came from one show. In fact it was one show and then Crufts PDE1 GSDs. The You Tube video of Crufts 2008 shows precisely what a shambles the breeding of dogs with roach backs has inflicted on the breed. (And has nothing to do with Harrison). If anyone wants to see live evidence of how bad the GSD has become they should go to Crufts this year. AFAIK all the dogs there will be 'German' as all the better known 'English' breeders won't exhibit because of the perceived bias of the judge. You won't see a finer example of bendy backs anywhere in the UK. The comment of the Crufts judge in the PDE1 video shows how far divorced from reality he and 'German' breeders are. why would I want to go to Crufts and see your windy English dogs I am off to Ulm in Aug/Sept where I can see between 3 & 4,000 GSDs of the correct type
> 
> Not quite. It's a prime example of those breeders who won't adhere to the KC standard when breeding their dogs but would rather follow fashion in following the way the dogs have been developed (and ruined) in Germany by breeding which makes a total mockery of what a GSD is supposed to be like. There are a number of us that won't breed roach backs and who continue to try and get the breed back to what it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, the majority of GSD judges now promote the 'German' type to the detriment of the breed. (It's fashion - it's totally different to what the GSD is meant to be).and yours is? my god delussional as well yours are twice the size/weight of what you term as the original GSD
> 
> Twaddle. Most GSD buyers don't give a toss about health checks. I get lots of people stop me when I walk my dogs asking if I know of any puppies for sale. When I ask them what they know about GSDs it's pretty much a catalogue of ignorance and nobody has ever asked me any questions about health. (OTOH I guess my dogs look healthy).what with an overlong back and a dip between whithers and back or maybe they thing breeding from a dog with severe ED is breeding for health as you obviously do
> 
> Funny you missed this bit: There are 195 breeds whose participation in the hobby of dog showing is overshadowed by _*the small minority of people within some high profile breeds who seem to continue to breed, and occasionally reward, unhealthy dogs*_ and who by so doing are bringing down the reputation of the hobby and the rest of the dog showing fraternity."
> missed it from where?
> They specifically singled out the GSD as one such breed. The 'German' breed clubs refused to sign up to the KC's health check programme - until it was made clear to them that they'd lose the chance to offer Championship Certificates at their shows if they didn't. At that point resistance crumbled. (This is all well documented on various 'German' GSD club websites).you will find a lot of clubs refused to sign hence loss of CCs but health is more important to them than CCs unlike your crew
> 
> As a matter of FACT the majority (if not all) the shows this year which will be awarding championship points to GSDs will be judged by people from the ranks of the 'German' style breeders. So, as Pod noted, the show breed will continue to degenerate. Not until the KC actually police GSD judges and make sure that they are judging to the GSD standard (as opposed to their personal preference) will this situation start to become reversed.


and what is yours if not personal preference it certainly isnt about breeding for health or to standard


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Wildmoor said:


> it is welll known if you study the stats on all GSDs hip/elbow scored that high and uneven hips may skip a generation occassionallly 2 but always come back with a vengence and produce even more high and uneven scores
> the whole point of using the system is to reduce the breed mean average so therefore dogs/bitches should only be used if they are well below the breed mean average


Sorry, agree with much of what you're posting, but a BMS is not a benchmark, it's what it says an average. If you cut off dogs above an average it does not necessarily mean it will benefit the gene pool overall, of course every dog needs to be taken on individual merit, but I do not believe in narrowing a gene pool unecessarily, and I think the BMS for hip scores (and elbow grades even) is something that is often mis used in this way.


----------



## Wildmoor

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry, agree with much of what you're posting, but a BMS is not a benchmark, it's what it says an average. If you cut off dogs above an average it does not necessarily mean it will benefit the gene pool overall, of course every dog needs to be taken on individual merit, but I do not believe in narrowing a gene pool unecessarily, and I think the BMS for hip scores (and elbow grades even) is something that is often mis used in this way.


in my type of GSD there are very few that do have high scores hence no shrinking of gene pool although there would in other types


----------



## DoodlesRule

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Why not give it a bash in any case, you never know, and if you get chatting to some of the other owners, you might find out why there's the strange ruling about the white to the ears.
> 
> One thing I will throw out there and this might cause some consternation with the show folk, is that I do know there are corrupt people in showing from first hand experience; I've thought about posting it before and wasn't sure whether to or not, I received a message before I entered Rhuna into her first show, well, before I set off, and was told that we wouldn't get placed. I won't say why, but the message was spot on.


I personally know some one who shows/breeds & because they feel it is not necessary in that breed specifically does not in/line-breed, was not doing well at a show and was repeatedly told by other breeders that obviously their breeding practices did not work. So they were being judged on their ethics not their dogs. Shame.



AlbertRoss said:


> I would have no problem with any sensible health check breeding regulation. But no such check guarantees a good result in the progeny. For example, whatever the average hip score for a breed was it would not be unreasonable to fix a limit 30% above that. (Or perhaps one standard deviation, in statistics speak). However, it's quite possible for 2 dogs with zero scores to produce a puppy with high scores. The point is that at least a check would be made and the statistical likelihood of problems would be reduced.
> 
> It's not just hip scores though. There are many other tests across different breeds.


This is what I cannot get my head round - the genetic side that if you pick two so called perfect specimens it will = another perfect, how long has it been tried in the dog world, if it worked everyone would be a "winner/champion". The same 2 parents can produce very different offspring each time its the luck of the draw - my sister has chronic asthma, brother has chronic hay fever but I have neither why, we all have the same parents? Me and brother look like dads side, sister is like mum. My dad is one of 11 children, 2 have ashthma the rest don't. My sister has 6 children one is severely disabled the rest aren't. You can't alter accidents of birth however much you plan/test


----------



## Shrap

Albert do you breed long coats??


----------



## AlbertRoss

It's a bit difficult to post replies when people don't quote properly. Here's my reply to Wildmoor...



> the Sieger show (UK) not Deutschland, dd I say it was anything to do with the KC I was discussing show breeders of the International type in response to your comment on my thread/
> 
> 
> 
> I saw nothing about international shows - this thread is about PDE in the UK (I know you'd rather be in Germany, and I wish you'd take your freaky dogs with you)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would I want to go to Crufts and see your windy English dogs I am off to Ulm in Aug/Sept where I can see between 3 & 4,000 GSDs of the correct type
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm - that would be dogs of the current 'German' type which bear no relationship to ANY of those that were original GSDs. They aren't even close to the GSD that was revised and won the first Sieger. Not a bendy back there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yours is? my god delussional as well yours are twice the size/weight of what you term as the original GSD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? How much do my dogs weigh? You haven't got a clue. Go look at photos of the original GSDs. Here you go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the first Sieger. Please show me exactly where his roach back is? Funny how von Stephanitz always took straight back dogs for his view of the breed isn't it? Remember he revised the GSD standard to this in 1925.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what with an overlong back and a dip between whithers and back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are totally ignorant aren't you? My dogs don't have overlong backs or dip. Yours, OTOH, definitely do have a roach back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you will find a lot of clubs refused to sign hence loss of CCs but health is more important to them than CCs unlike your crew
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there were 25 clubs initially refused to sign. When asked to attend a meeting with the Kennel club only 11 turned up. If health had been more important than CCs, why weren't they there? Answer, because they are breeding mutants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The breed standard " Withers long, of good height and well defined, joining back in a smooth line without disrupting flowing topline, slightly sloping from front to back" not a straight back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you got that from. The KC standard says:"The topline runs without any visible break from the set on of the neck, over the well defined withers, *falling away slightly in a straight line* to the gently sloping croup". Perhaps you've got a very old edition of the standard?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## AlbertRoss

Wildmoor said:


> in my type of GSD there are very few that do have high scores hence no shrinking of gene pool although there would in other types


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Please have a look at the published hip scores for GSDs. There are enormous numbers of high scores.


----------



## Werehorse

I'd be really interested to see example pictures of "german" and "english" line GSDs, as well as a "working" type. I have to say I think they *look* better the closer they are to that picture of "the first Sieger" that AlbertRoss just posted. I know nothing about the breed but the backs that curve upwards over the loins and the really low stance at the back just looks very odd to me, as an outsider... do they look like that all the time or is it just when put in the show stand? I'd quite like to see a picture of one of those type of dogs stood relaxed?


----------



## Shrap

Dino free standing the other day (German):


----------



## Nicky10

I don't like the look of the west german showlines (no offence) I much prefer the eastern european but they're much too much dog for me. But there does seem to be an emphasis on health testing whereas a lot of the english type kennels I've looked at don't seem to do any  any breeding dogs need to be fully tested for the breed I don't know if it was anyone on this thread but an english breeder on her told me the hip scoring was just a KC means of making money :blink:


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
> 
> Please have a look at the published hip scores for GSDs. There are enormous numbers of high scores.


you realy are a moron, you have the non standard dogs riddled with all sorts of inherent conditions, I do look at the scores both hip and elbows only 3 English showline scored so hence not yours as their scores are 0, 0, 2 yours is 3 so hence why you must have the pet bred ones have you had your pedigrees checked by Chris Hazel because you seriously need to! I wouldnt have one of your type given to me, I suggest you look at the scores are lack of in your case have you a dog with a min of 10 gens hip scored dogs no you dont, you call the KC yet you are a hypocrite with your collie wannabees go back and crawl back into the mire where you belong - you are the type that JH needs to investigate breeding from unsound dogs! How can you do that, oh i forget you dont have a conscous do you? as long as you make money you dont give a dam about the inherent conditions your mutts pass on


----------



## Shrap

A well known dog of working lines:


----------



## Set_Nights

Random q to the GSD fold on here. What is the consensus on this dog:


----------



## Shrap

Set_Nights said:


> Random q to the GSD fold on here. What is the consensus on this dog:


Overstretched American Showlines. Don't like them. They are only bred for the "flying trot" - not for temperament or anything else. Although a lot have been known to be good herders, this doesn't determine nerve.

Would rather have one of these than the English type!


----------



## Wildmoor

Werehorse said:


> I'd be really interested to see example pictures of "german" and "english" line GSDs, as well as a "working" type. I have to say I think they *look* better the closer they are to that picture of "the first Sieger" that AlbertRoss just posted. I know nothing about the breed but the backs that curve upwards over the loins and the really low stance at the back just looks very odd to me, as an outsider... do they look like that all the time or is it just when put in the show stand? I'd quite like to see a picture of one of those type of dogs stood relaxed?


you wont get a GSDs looking like that, at that stage in the development they were still crossbreeds of different Hütehunde


----------



## Nicky10

The american lines are horrific but there are some kennels breeding for dogs much less exaggerated that are still winning thankfully. There's one kennel even breed 9/11 heroes


----------



## Set_Nights

Shrap said:


> Overstretched American Showlines. Don't like them. They are only bred for the "flying trot" - not for temperament or anything else. Although a lot have been known to be good herders, this doesn't determine nerve.
> 
> Would rather have one of these than the English type!


I just wondered . I hadn't seen many American dogs but had always heard that they push the extremes and were more roached... but this dog seems very straight backed, although very sloped! I just find it interesting how the different regions all vary from each other. Is this dog a typical American example (obviously he was a show winner)? Or do Americans have the same straight vs roached arguements over there?


----------



## Set_Nights

Nicky10 said:


> The american lines are horrific but there are some kennels breeding for dogs much less exaggerated that are still winning thankfully. There's one kennel even breed 9/11 heroes


What do people mean by overstretched/exxagerated? Is the slope of their back too steep or is it the far reach of their hind leg that is the problem?


----------



## Shrap

Set_Nights said:


> I just wondered . I hadn't seen many American dogs but had always heard that they push the extremes and were more roached... but this dog seems very straight backed, although very sloped! I just find it interesting how the different regions all vary from each other. Is this dog a typical American example (obviously he was a show winner)? Or do Americans have the same straight vs roached arguements over there?


There are arguments between American vs German vs the same pet bred type we have here. I don't know what the show situation is like over there between American and German but there are a lot of German imports in the US.
They also have czech imports for working kennels etc.

The American type over there is their equivalent to our English type, basically thinking they can do what they want to the breed and **** what the homeland think! Although at least the Americans care about hips and elbows.


----------



## Nicky10

They're not roached the backs basically go straight down and when they move the feet to put them in the stack the backs almost seem to collapse down . Otherwise known as ski-slope gsds this is the herding group winner this year who's not as bad as some








The backs are too sloped they run on their hocks and all sorts but as long as they do the pretty flying trot it doesn't seem to matter


----------



## Paganman

Search Results - British Pathé

Make your own minds up


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> It's a bit difficult to post replies when people don't quote properly. Here's my reply to Wildmoor...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Sieger show (UK) not Deutschland, did I say it was anything to do with the KC I was discussing show breeders of the International type in response to your comment on my thread/
> 
> 
> 
> I saw nothing about international shows - this thread is about PDE in the UK (I know you'd rather be in Germany, and I wish you'd take your freaky dogs with you) and yours arent! they look like oversize collies with erect ears
> 
> Hmm - that would be dogs of the current 'German' type which bear no relationship to ANY of those that were original GSDs. They aren't even close to the GSD that was revised and won the first Sieger. Not a bendy back there.yours bear no relation to the original dogs not in size, coat, colour or weight
> 
> Really? How much do my dogs weigh? You haven't got a clue. Go look at photos of the original GSDs. Here you go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the first Sieger. Please show me exactly where his roach back is? Funny how von Stephanitz always took straight back dogs for his view of the breed isn't it? Remember he revised the GSD standard to this in 1925.
> Established in the first General Meeting at Frankfurt/Main on 20 September 1899 according to suggestions by A. Meyer and Max von Stephanitz and in addition to the amendments of the 6th General Meeting on 28 July 1901, the 23rd General Meeting at Cologne/Rhineland on 17 September 1909, the Executive Board & Advisory Board Meeting at Wiesbaden on 5 September 1930 and the Breeding Committee & Executive Board Meeting on 25 March 1961, revisions were resolved within the framework of the World Union of German Shepherd Dog Clubs (WUSV) Meeting on 30 August 1976.Revisions and catalogued measures were resolved with the Enabling Resolution through the Executive Board and Advisory Board from 23/24 March 1991, amended through the Federal Conventions from 25 May 1997 and 31 May/1 June 2008. WHERE IS 1925 MENTIONED .
> 
> You really are totally ignorant aren't you? My dogs don't have overlong backs or dip. Yours, OTOH, definitely do have a roach back.
> 
> Actually there were 25 clubs initially refused to sign. When asked to attend a meeting with the Kennel club only 11 turned up. If health had been more important than CCs, why weren't they there? Answer, because they are breeding mutants. They have been campaigning for introduction of the schemes that you have only recently started doing long before you were in the breed
> 
> I don't know where you got that from. The KC standard says:"The topline runs without any visible break from the set on of the neck, over the well defined withers, *falling away slightly in a straight line* to the gently sloping croup". Perhaps you've got a very old edition of the standard?
> 
> 
> 
> I dont follow the KC standard I follow the country of orgin SV/FCI standard
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Set_Nights

Nicky10 said:


> They're not roached the backs basically go straight down and when they move the feet to put them in the stack the backs almost seem to collapse down . Otherwise known as ski-slope gsds this is the herding group winner this year who's not as bad as some
> View attachment 85532
> 
> 
> The backs are too sloped they run on their hocks and all sorts but as long as they do the pretty flying trot it doesn't seem to matter


I see , they do seem to be resting on their hocks more so than the GSD show photos I have seen over here. Can't say I have seen one walking, or even standing relaxed.

I think this is a stunning woofler:










If I were inclined to have a GSD I'd have him (apart from Dino of course ). It is also from an American breeder but doesn't seem to be anything like the previous dog .


----------



## Wildmoor

Set_Nights said:


> I see , they do seem to be resting on their hocks more so than the GSD show photos I have seen over here. Can't say I have seen one walking, or even standing relaxed.
> 
> I think this is a stunning woofler:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were inclined to have a GSD I'd have him (apart from Dino of course ). It is also from an American breeder but doesn't seem to be anything like the previous dog .


this pic is West German show lines


----------



## Nicky10

Like I said some of the american kennels breed for obedience dogs etc and still produce dogs for the ring but much less exaggerated

The breed judging from Westminster if you're interested some are pretty unsteady when walking
The Westminster Kennel Club | Videos


----------



## Shrap

Set_Nights said:


> I see , they do seem to be resting on their hocks more so than the GSD show photos I have seen over here. Can't say I have seen one walking, or even standing relaxed.
> 
> I think this is a stunning woofler:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were inclined to have a GSD I'd have him (apart from Dino of course ). It is also from an American breeder but doesn't seem to be anything like the previous dog .


He's German line x


----------



## Nicky10

One of the better american kennels
Heidelberg German Shepherds


----------



## 5rivers79

Iv never seen GSD's with those bent backs in real life. The one i grew up with had a straight back and the ones i see with the Police seem to have straight backs too. What does the banana shape do to improve the dog? Is it for endurance or for sprinting?

In my view this is perfection..how nature intended..not a bent back in sight. Just my opinion..










The documentary has not persuaded me to go looking for a dog from a byb if i was ever to buy a pup again. It has persuaded me to ask what health tests have been carried out to the KC registered parents of the pups. This is not just my view of the doc but also of friends and family who saw it too..they also are members of Joe Public.


----------



## Nonbred

> Go look at photos of the original GSDs.





> I'd be really interested to see example pictures of "german" and "english" line GSDs, as well as a "working" type


Pure German of 70 years ago

Redirect Notice


----------



## Mrs White

5rivers79 said:


> Iv never seen GSD's with those bent backs in real life. The one i grew up with had a straight back and the ones i see with the Police seem to have straight backs too. What does the banana shape do to improve the dog? Is it for endurance or for sprinting?
> 
> In my view this is perfection..how nature intended..not a bent back in sight. Just my opinion..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The documentary has not persuaded me to go looking for a dog from a byb if i was ever to buy a pup again. It has persuaded me to ask what health tests have been carried out to the KC registered parents of the pups. This is not just my view of the doc but also of friends and family who saw it too..they also are members of Joe Public.*




Yep, that's exactly the effect the first PDE had on me. In fact, if I hadn't watched it I wouldn't be here now as it really piqued my interest in learning about dogs as opposed to just having them. As I said on another thread, though, I am possibly too demanding in what I want (in large part due to PDE) so will probably just head down the rescue route in future; my favoured type being the "gripping dog" family, unfortunately there's no shortage of poor wee things in rescue


----------



## Spellweaver

5rivers79 said:


> In my view this is perfection..how nature intended..not a bent back in sight. Just my opinion..


Also perfection - also exactly how nature intended. Note the naturally sloping back - exactly as nature intended it to be


----------



## pod

Spellweaver said:


> Also perfection - also exactly how nature intended. Note the naturally sloping back - exactly as nature intended it to be


Interesting point but a quick look at a hyena skeleton will show how different the structure is. But firstly, the dog is a direct descendant of the wolf, so naturally it would have a similar body structure. The fact that some breeds have diverged from this so far shows the power of artificial selection, but generally, dogs of normal construction are very much like the wolf.

The hyena is not actually a close relative of the dog - different species, different genus, not even in the same Canidae family. So no surprise that the structure is so different and that main difference can be seen in the spinal column. The structure that gives the hyena a sloping topline is the spinous processes of the thoracic vertebrae. They are elongated, presumably for extra muscle attachment which gives the massive strength to this animal.

There are no breeds of dog with this, not even the GSD. The GSD sloping topline actually comes from crouching hindquarters which physically drop the level from front to back, which does of course weaken the hindquarters. Note that unlike the GSD, the actual spinal column of the hyena does remain relatively level, essential for an animal requiring strength and stamina.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...aenaSkelLyd1.png/220px-SpotHyaenaSkelLyd1.png


----------



## Shrap

The point was different shapes for different lifestyles/purposes.

The wolf would be fairly useless at most jobs man has created a breed for.


----------



## pod

Shrap said:


> The point was different shapes for different lifestyles/purposes.
> 
> The wolf would be fairly useless at most jobs man has created a breed for.


 The German GSD shape certainly has a purpose, to win in the showring, not much else. Different shapes for different purposes is fine so long as it doesn't actually impede the animal.

True the wolf is practically useless to man but that's not to do with his structure, that's his behaviour.


----------



## Shrap

I'm really intrigued as to how it impedes them. Dino can run, walk, climb just as any other dog. And dogs with a korung have to pass a 12 mile endurance test. Many do SchH and so deal with 6ft scales etc.
I've yet to see something a WGSL GSD can't do. Yet they can gait beautifully, effortlessly and efficiently.
Just what is it that they are stopped from doing through their sloped topline?


----------



## pod

I'm sorry Shrap but I don't have the same faith in the SV system as you. It is big buisiness and open to abuse.

See this quote from Malcolm Willis -

"The SV has shown good progress with their scheme but in 1998 I was talking to a Dutch breed warden who pointed out that most Dutch GSD breeders sent their hip plates to Germany because the chance of a Normal (A) was higher than in Holland where A's were handed out very sparingly. The number of imports with "a" stamps which have had very high UK scores is not legion but that they exist at all is cause for alarm."

HIP DYSPLASIA SCHEME BY DR. MALCOM WILLIS

And I've read many time of fixing other qualifications. Have you heard of 'midnight trials'?


----------



## pod

The videos of the poor structure causing severe movement faults have already been posted, The sickle hock problem, wobbling hocks, pounding on the forehand. These are all faults that cause premature ageing and joint degeneration.

Obviously the severity varies and temperament has a lot to do with performance too. A stoic dog will override his physical disabilities.


----------



## Shrap

Well considering most GSDs I know are Bloomin drama queens I think we can forget about any being stoic 

There are some cow hocked dogs. Though the ones from my breeder aren't, I don't like hocky GSDs, even if I did pick the hockiest of the litter lol. He's pretty much grown into his hocks now.

I have heard of them, and don't deny that it happens too often. Asking about the SV hip scoring system though you're better directing anything to Wildmoor. She's far more knowledgable than me.

As with anything do your research. I did before getting Dino, I checked the BVA scores for all dogs with the breeders affix. There were only a couple out of MANY that were 20+ with I think 1 case being severe. But I looked into the other dog and it had produced high scores. Most elbow scores 0 with the odd 1.

Unfortunately every English dog I've ever looked at has not had 5 gens of hip scores and as has been brought to the front only 3 are elbow graded. 
If the LC colour brigade I know of a very well used stud with a grade of 3. And another has sired 150 pups with a largely untested pedigree (there are 2 hip scores in the ped, one of them is 93).
I'm gonna go ahead and say, even with the extra a stamps, German dogs are ahead of the rest with regards to health.
And let's not also pretend that English dogs don't have their plates withheld.

It's far too early for this


----------



## HeartofClass

Throughout this thread all along...


----------



## pod

Shrap, you are again pointing the finger elsewhere to draw attention away from the problems in the German type GSD. The breed as a whole has poor hip status and the fact that the majority of hip scored dogs are of the German type is evidence enough that there is a problem. I have already posted the GSDL link showing progeny testing, including many German imports and German bred dogs.

There is a mention of midnight trials on this PDE blog here. Scroll down to post - Aug 16, 2011 07:22 PM

The video that has been removed was of puppies with structure very similar to the ones from the Crufts video. Very sad to see their laboured movement and so different from the next video of working type puppies.

ETA: Ok would help if I included a link  - http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/08/m-is-for.html


----------



## Shrap

No I haven't :s

I told you what I researched about the kennel I got Dino from and pointed you to Wildmoor who has far more knowledge on SV hip scoring.

I can't navigate the site you linked to as I'm on my phone ATM. Will have a look later


----------



## bearcub

Shrap said:


> I'm really intrigued as to how it impedes them. Dino can run, walk, climb just as any other dog. And dogs with a korung have to pass a 12 mile endurance test. Many do SchH and so deal with 6ft scales etc.
> I've yet to see something a WGSL GSD can't do. Yet they can gait beautifully, effortlessly and efficiently.
> Just what is it that they are stopped from doing through their sloped topline?


So are you saying that the sloped topline actually helps the dog?


----------



## 5rivers79

Spellweaver said:


> Also perfection - also exactly how nature intended. Note the naturally sloping back - exactly as nature intended it to be


But hyena are different species? If we go on that basis then i can only see this happening:


----------



## Shrap

bearcub said:


> So are you saying that the sloped topline actually helps the dog?


Yes, it helps the dog to gait more efficiently. And from my personal experience hasn't limited the dogs in anything else. I'm sure there are extreme examples that are limited, but the vast majority are not.



5rivers79 said:


> But hyena are different species? If we go on that basis then i can only see this happening:


How creative.

Are you saying that all dogs should look like wolves no matter what the job?


----------



## 5rivers79

Shrap said:


> Are you saying that all dogs should look like wolves no matter what the job?


No, but what i did ask was what the advantage is of having these sloped and curved backs for the GSD?


----------



## Shrap

And I'm sure it's been said more than once


----------



## 5rivers79

This is an interesting article:

Dumb and Dumpy: Can the German Shepherd Be Saved? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International


----------



## Spellweaver

5rivers79 said:


> But hyena are different species? If we go on that basis then i can only see this happening:


Can't see the pic cos I'm at work and our system won't let us download pics. (I'll look when I get home tonight cos I'm guessing it's good from your emoticons  ) However, you seem to have missed the point I was making, which is that in nature, the sloped back is just as natural as the straight back. (Maybe because Mother Nature has not watched PDE and so doesn't know that she has been doing things wrong all these years in creating animals with - shock horror - sloped backs  )


----------



## Devil-Dogz

5rivers79 said:


> Iv never seen GSD's with those bent backs in real life. The one i grew up with had a straight back and the ones i see with the Police seem to have straight backs too. What does the banana shape do to improve the dog? Is it for endurance or for sprinting?
> 
> In my view this is perfection..how nature intended..not a bent back in sight. Just my opinion..


Lets all walk around with wolves then, mind you I can't see many rounding up sheep and the like 

Conformation is ONE factor ALONE in making perfection and believe me in the dog world there is no such thing as 'perfection'


----------



## Devil-Dogz

pod said:


> Interesting point but a quick look at a hyena skeleton will show how different the structure is. But firstly, the dog is a direct descendant of the wolf, so naturally it would have a similar body structure. The fact that some breeds have diverged from this so far shows the power of artificial selection, but generally, dogs of normal construction are very much like the wolf.


Dogs may well be direct descendants of the wolves. - But the fact is most breeds were created, and established for various reasons. - There for conformation of each breed is different to that of another, and they all have their reasons - If we wanted all breeds to obstain the conformation of the wolf there would be little or no point in having the hundreds of domesticated breeds we have today!

There are MANY breeds of dogs that are of a 'normal' construction that are nothing like wolves.


----------



## DoodlesRule

Well its certainly an alternative view, a sloping rear in a dog is perfectly natural because a hyena has a sloping rear :crazy:


----------



## Shrap

What an utterly ridiculous article, nearly as bad as PDE.

A war will always rage between certain working line people and show people, although equally some working line people are breeding towards a more correct conformation. Hopefully more will meet in the middle


----------



## Spellweaver

DoodlesRule said:


> Well its certainly an alternative view, a sloping rear in a dog is perfectly natural because a hyena has a sloping rear :crazy:


The argument is that sloping backs also occur in nature and are, therefore, as "natural" as straight backs - now what is so hard to understand about that? :blink:


----------



## DoodlesRule

Sloping backs may or may not be natural in dogs no idea, but to use a hyena as an example is just daft, its not a dog


----------



## Shrap

DoodlesRule said:


> Sloping backs may or may not be natural in dogs no idea, but to use a hyena as an example is just daft, its not a dog


Nothing is natural in domestic dogs


----------



## 5rivers79

Shrap said:


> Nothing is natural in domestic dogs


Next stages of breeding evolution

1st Attempt









2nd Attempt...almost!!









Perfection 









lol


----------



## Nicky10

So all the arguments on the gsd, and trust me I'm not a fan of those backs, but something like this is ok? Sloped backs are much more natural than anything about this dog


----------



## 5rivers79

Nicky10 said:


> So all the arguments on the gsd, and trust me I'm not a fan of those backs, but something like this is ok? Sloped backs are much more natural than anything about this dog


LMAO where's the dog??? All i can see there is what i see after 20mins of brushing Sam


----------



## Spellweaver

DoodlesRule said:


> Sloping backs may or may not be natural in dogs no idea, but to use a hyena as an example is just daft, its not a dog


Please go back and read properly - nowhere have I said that because a hyena has a sloping back then it is natural in a dog. :nono:

In reply to a post that said straight backs are just as nature intended, I have pointed out that sloping backs are just as nature intended too.


----------



## 5rivers79

Spellweaver said:


> *In reply to a post that said straight backs are just as nature intended*, I have pointed out that sloping backs are just as nature intended too.


My post about nature was in relation to the Canidae species.


----------



## Goblin

Missed most of the discussion as I wanted to wait until I watched the program and only reviewed the last couple of pages.

Sloped back discussion is potentially solved by stating what extent of sloping back should be acceptable. Ignoring the idea of limited gene pool problems PDE generally complained about the extremes which have now been accepted as normal. Maybe a sloping back is okay, haven't done any research on it but an extremely sloping back isn't I am sure.

I would also suggest that working line breeders are more likely to know what is best simply because their dogs work. If "show line" breeders cannot persuade "working line" breeders that a slope is better backing it up with facts how are they going to persuade Joe Public when they see a dog that appears to have problems simply walking?


----------



## Shrap

The dogs that have problems walking are not correct, and nobody has said they are. But the majority of WGSL, sloped back, GSDs CAN walk just fine.

I said SOME working line people disagree, just as some agree with the sloped back and are also taking conformation into account when breeding now. The ones that say show lines are ruining the breed are normally the same ones breeding from dogs with no elbow grades.

You also have to take note that the working GSDs now are not being bred for perimeter herding and so don't need the same gait.

As I have said before on this forum, my boy's sire is WGSL and trained at a working line Schutzhund club. Dino will be training at a working club too.


WGSL = West German Show Lines


----------



## terencesmum

Shrap said:


> WGSL = West German Show Lines


Could you please explain what you mean by WEST German show lines?
Germany has been a unified country for the better part of 20 years. One would have thought things have unified in the dog world, too.


----------



## Shrap

terencesmum said:


> Could you please explain what you mean by WEST German show lines?
> Germany has been a unified country for the better part of 20 years. One would have thought things have unified in the dog world, too.


I take it I shouldn't call the DDR lines that either then?


----------



## terencesmum

Shrap said:


> I take it I shouldn't call the DDR lines that either then?


That was my question!! 
Are the lines that seperate still, after 20 odd years?


----------



## Shrap

terencesmum said:


> That was my question!!
> Are the lines that seperate still, after 20 odd years?


Yup. That is where the lines originated from, so they are still called that.


----------



## terencesmum

Shrap said:


> Yup. That is where the lines originated from, so they are still called that.


What an odd relic. :lol:
Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Goblin

Hovawarts are also still slightly different between west and east Germany. East german lines tend to be larger and have been worked more than western lines.


----------



## pod

Devil-Dogz said:


> Dogs may well be direct descendants of the wolves. - But the fact is most breeds were created, and established for various reasons. - There for conformation of each breed is different to that of another, and they all have their reasons - If we wanted all breeds to obstain the conformation of the wolf there would be little or no point in having the hundreds of domesticated breeds we have today!
> 
> There are MANY breeds of dogs that are of a 'normal' construction that are nothing like wolves.


If you're speaking of breeds like the sighthounds, then yes they are different in some ways but the basic shape is the same. The limb bones are elongated compared to the wolf but still have the same proportions. There are no bone modifications like the spinous pocesses that give the hyena a sloped topline.

The vast majority of breeds are of normal construction - the collies, droving dogs, most hounds and terriers.....


----------



## pod

Shrap said:


> What an utterly ridiculous article, nearly as bad as PDE.
> 
> A war will always rage between certain working line people and show people, although equally some working line people are breeding towards a more correct conformation. Hopefully more will meet in the middle


It is true that some working lines are tending towards the same exaggerations that plague the showlines and, from what I can gather, this is likely due to the SV ruling on breeding stock needing a conformation grading, and this unfortunately has to be from a show judge.


----------



## Happy Paws2

pod said:


> If you're speaking of breeds like the sighthounds, then yes they are different in some ways but the basic shape is the same. The limb bones are elongated compared to the wolf but still have the same proportions. There are no bone modifications like the spinous pocesses that give the hyena a sloped topline.
> 
> *The vast majority of breeds are of normal construction - the collies, droving dogs, most hounds and terriers.....*




I agree most breeds seem to have the basic wolf shape, large or small.

But I've yet to see a wolf with a flat nose, short stubby legs and a long stretched back with a short curly tail.


----------



## pod

Spellweaver said:


> The argument is that sloping backs also occur in nature and are, therefore, as "natural" as straight backs - now what is so hard to understand about that? :blink:


Going to be a bit pedantic here :blink: It's not the back that's sloping in the Hyena (nor the giraffe). The spinal column is actually level, it's the elongated spinous processes that give the slope to the topline. Unlike the GSD that does actually have a sloping spinal column.


----------



## pod

Nicky10 said:


> So all the arguments on the gsd, and trust me I'm not a fan of those backs, but something like this is ok? Sloped backs are much more natural than anything about this dog


Agree with you Nicky, that's far from ok.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Wildmoor said:


> you wont get a GSDs looking like that, at that stage in the development they were still crossbreeds of different Hütehunde


Total b*llshit. In 1925 the dog was chosen as a Sieger by the man who 'invented' the breed because what was happening in German breeding was a disaster. The 1925 dog was a reversion to how the dog should be. Up until the 1970s ALL the dogs had straight backs. The only GSDs ever to have won the Best in Show at Crufts were all straight backs.

The FACT is that the so-called 'Germanic' types are an aberration bred by people who ought to know better but care more for their "sport" of Schutzhund than they do about dog health. Even Schutzhund was taken away from them. (In 2004 the SV and _Deutscher Hundesportverein_, the German Sporting Dog Association, passed control of Schutzhund to the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI). It is now a sport undertaken by Belgian Malinois, Boxers, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Cane Corso, Giant Schnauzers, Bouvier des Flandres, Dutch Shepherd Dogs, Beaucerons, American Bulldogs, Black Russian Terriers, Airedale Terriers, Australian Cattle Dogs and horror of horrors - crossbreeds).

And, of course, Wildmoor would have you believe that the dogs were always roach backs. So, here's the 1937 Sieger







Pfeffer von Bern. As you can see the dog has a distinct upward curve in its back - NOT.

The 'standard' for GSDs was originally set in 1899, revised in 1901, 1909, 1930 and 1961 according to the records of _Verein fur Deutsche Schaeferhunde_ (known as SV), the original GSD society formed by von Stephanitz and A Meyer. However, the SV then became part of the WUSV (a world body) who in 1976 revised the standard again. The standard Wildmoor quoted is that of the WUSV and is NOT the Kennel Club standard.

(And the point of this thread is about PDE and pedigree dogs in the UK). The KC have tried to address the problem of health in the GSD. The link here shows what happened when they tried. The clubs opposed to this were all 'German' clubs.

The indisputable FACT is that the 'German' breeds have changed the shape of the dog since the 1970's. Here's a link, not to 'English' dogs but to the 'German' dogs that have won the Sieger title. It's quite clear that the dogs are all staight-backed until the 1970's and get progressively worse after 1976. (Don't worry, Wildmoor will claim that up to then they were still using crossbreeds to develop the dog : )

Under Schutzhund rules one of the things that a dog MUST do, if it is to pass the test, is attack. It is taught to attack when surprised by someone waving their arms about and making a lot of noise. So, if you have a small child that's prone to excitement - that is they scream or shout and wave their arms about - don't let it anywhere near one of Wildmoor's dogs. We already covered the rubbish spoken about the idea that they only attack a sleeve. A GSD with the sort of temperament that is desirable for passing a Schutzhund test will attack exactly as it has been trained to. In fact, going by the behaviour of the German dogs at Crufts in 2011 they'll attack each other without the slightest provocation. (It happened 3 times while I was in the benching area).

The German breeders argue that GSDs should be trained in Schutzhund to maintain the working ability of the dog. This is simply fatuous rubbish. Even in Germany a GSD can be registered if it's a sheepdog. Actually, it's ONLY in Germany that they insist on one or the other. It's as relevant as saying that all poodles should only ever be registered if they can prove they can retrieve game from water - after all, that's what they were originally designed to do.

The reality is that Schutzhund is a 'sport' that the German GSD owners indulge in because they think it proves something about their dogs. It does - it proves they are training dogs of unsound temperament that can attack without warning. And it's why, from time to time, you'll get a bunch of news stories about dog attacks that will concentrate on the GSD. After all, if you train them to attack why would you be surprised when they do?


----------



## pod

Happy Paws said:


> [/B]
> 
> I agree most breeds seem to have the basic wolf shape, large or small.
> 
> But I've yet to see a wolf with a flat nose, short stubby legs and a long stretched back with a short curly tail.


Yep, those are the ones with abnormal construction IMO, well apart from the spitz type curly tail, that isn't anywhere near as curled as the Pug. That's more of a soft tissue and behaviour modification and seems to manifest in the early stages of domestication. Many of the pariah and primitive breeds have it.


----------



## 5rivers79

AlbertRoss said:


> Total b*llshit. In 1925 the dog was chosen as a Sieger by the man who 'invented' the breed because what was happening in German breeding was a disaster. The 1925 dog was a reversion to how the dog should be. Up until the 1970s ALL the dogs had straight backs. The only GSDs ever to have won the Best in Show at Crufts were all straight backs.
> 
> The FACT is that the so-called 'Germanic' types are an aberration bred by people who ought to know better but care more for their "sport" of Schutzhund than they do about dog health. Even Schutzhund was taken away from them. (In 2004 the SV and _Deutscher Hundesportverein_, the German Sporting Dog Association, passed control of Schutzhund to the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI). It is now a sport undertaken by Belgian Malinois, Boxers, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Cane Corso, Giant Schnauzers, Bouvier des Flandres, Dutch Shepherd Dogs, Beaucerons, American Bulldogs, Black Russian Terriers, Airedale Terriers, Australian Cattle Dogs and horror of horrors - crossbreeds).
> 
> And, of course, Wildmoor would have you believe that the dogs were always roach backs. So, here's the 1937 Sieger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pfeffer von Bern. As you can see the dog has a distinct upward curve in its back - NOT.
> 
> The 'standard' for GSDs was originally set in 1899, revised in 1901, 1909, 1930 and 1961 according to the records of _Verein fur Deutsche Schaeferhunde_ (known as SV), the original GSD society formed by von Stephanitz and A Meyer. However, the SV then became part of the WUSV (a world body) who in 1976 revised the standard again. The standard Wildmoor quoted is that of the WUSV and is NOT the Kennel Club standard.
> 
> (And the point of this thread is about PDE and pedigree dogs in the UK). The KC have tried to address the problem of health in the GSD. The link here shows what happened when they tried. The clubs opposed to this were all 'German' clubs.
> 
> The indisputable FACT is that the 'German' breeds have changed the shape of the dog since the 1970's. Here's a link, not to 'English' dogs but to the 'German' dogs that have won the Sieger title. It's quite clear that the dogs are all staight-backed until the 1970's and get progressively worse after 1976. (Don't worry, Wildmoor will claim that up to then they were still using crossbreeds to develop the dog : )
> 
> Under Schutzhund rules one of the things that a dog MUST do, if it is to pass the test, is attack. It is taught to attack when surprised by someone waving their arms about and making a lot of noise. So, if you have a small child that's prone to excitement - that is they scream or shout and wave their arms about - don't let it anywhere near one of Wildmoor's dogs. We already covered the rubbish spoken about the idea that they only attack a sleeve. A GSD with the sort of temperament that is desirable for passing a Schutzhund test will attack exactly as it has been trained to. In fact, going by the behaviour of the German dogs at Crufts in 2011 they'll attack each other without the slightest provocation. (It happened 3 times while I was in the benching area).
> 
> The German breeders argue that GSDs should be trained in Schutzhund to maintain the working ability of the dog. This is simply fatuous rubbish. Even in Germany a GSD can be registered if it's a sheepdog. Actually, it's ONLY in Germany that they insist on one or the other. It's as relevant as saying that all poodles should only ever be registered if they can prove they can retrieve game from water - after all, that's what they were originally designed to do.
> 
> The reality is that Schutzhund is a 'sport' that the German GSD owners indulge in because they think it proves something about their dogs. It does - it proves they are training dogs of unsound temperament that can attack without warning. And it's why, from time to time, you'll get a bunch of news stories about dog attacks that will concentrate on the GSD. After all, if you train them to attack why would you be surprised when they do?


So are you saying that training dogs for police or military type attack work is producing dogs with bad temperaments? I would have thought the dog will only attack if the handler tells it to like in this video of a Malinois:

[youtube_browser]gS43GbP44XQ[/youtube_browser]


----------



## Nicky10

Dogs that compete in schutzhund have to be stable they only attack on command some of the most stable gsds when raised right are the old czech/ddr lines and they come mostly from protection/border control backgrounds. Some of the newer lines however are insane prey drive. The gsd was developed to be a moderate dog yes protective when need be but also capable of living in the home with children. Littermates of the war dogs from the second world war were family pets. It's the working malinois and dutch shepherds that have more temperment issues


----------



## leashedForLife

majortom said:


> ...most pedigree breeders [that] i know [do] *health-test for what's required for that breed*,
> & [will] *endorse* pups [who are] not to be breed from, tho [they'll lift] endorsements if certain [criteria are] met,
> [such as health] tests & [show that dog, they hope] this will stop the puppy farmers.
> 
> there are [rogue breeders] in any breed... mostly in the designer cross breeds, cos [those] breeders
> don't have a clue, all [of them cross-breed dogs] for 1 reason, cash.


most pedigree breeders here Do Not test - or only test minimally, such as eye-certificates but *without* 
hip, knee, or elbow rads / OFA or Penn-HIP scoring of joints, cardiac ultrasounds, skin punches for SA, 
& multiple other breed-specific or even dog-generic heritable problems.

For instance:
very few breeds or mixes are NOT at risk for PRA in one form or another, yet most breeders don't test for clear 
or affected dogs before breeding, even if their chosen breed / one breed of the intended cross, has a DNA test 
available. They can't be bothered.

testing only for those tests which are _*required*_ by a breed club is again, a mere drop in the bucket. 
most breed clubs only *require* a test if the specific problem is potentially life-threatening, 
such as the bleeding disorder that was killing USA & Euro Basenjis a few years back, now almost gone.

Another example of breed-specific tests NOT done: 
check to see how many Dalmatians are tested for high uric-acid, among AKC & KC registered dogs. 
it's been around as a known problem since at least the 1970s. DNA tests were developed years ago - 
yet how many test before breeding? How many track their pups to see if they are later affected?

Endorsing pups [UK] AKA limited registration in the USA: 
that's not done nearly enuf, IMO & IME of more than 30-years; many purebred pups sold by petshops 
are sold to APOs with the specific statement that they can later *breed this pup to get back some or all 
of their purchase-price* - which as we all know, is pure manure.  Many petshop pups are poor type, 
don't meet even minimal breed standards, are raised under awful conditions as industrial scale livestock, 
& have not only health, structure, & heritable problems, but often social deficits that make them 
lousy parents & even-worse breeding stock: heritable aggro, heritable shyness, etc, are only a few 
of the all-too-common temp issues that i see, which many vets, trainers, & puppy-buyers have documented.

besides which, *endorsing* AKA limited-registration doesn't prevent anyone from breeding the dog 
& not attempting to register the pups; why should they care? So they can't get purebred prices - they'll take 
chump-change for the pups, & use the dog [stud or dam] as a sideline income - or they'll breed crossbred pups, 
who can't be registered, anyhow. Who cares if the dam or sire has serious issues? They don't!

finally, *only desexing a pup before the sale* can reliably prevent a buyer from breeding a pup. 
once they own the pup, it's beyond the breeder's control. :nonod: They'll do whatever they please, 
even if the breeder has a clause to repossess the animal if they violate it, often that's not possible, 
or so co$tly it's out of reach - particularly in the USA where distances can be enormous, & travel costly.

desex is safe for any pup over 2# weight & healthy - there have been millions of such prepubertal 
surgical sterilizations starting in 1976 in the USA, & the AVMA has already stated that the procedure is both 
safe & ethical, in order to prevent unwanted or unplanned or poorly-bred litters, or simply to prevent 
yet more "surplus" pups & dogs. :yesnod:


----------



## leashedForLife

DoodlesRule said:


> ...I have seen a lot of British Bulldogs... advertised at £1500 to £2000 -- I would not pay that,
> but who I am to criticise anyone [who] does?


just an aside - 
English Bulldogs are so expensive in part because the dam *should be* & usually is delivered via C-section, 
as the pups' skulls are too large to squeeze thru her narrow pelvis - both being bred-for traits: narrow butts, 
massive torsos & heavy, broad skulls. Elective C-sections are scheduled in advance & planned - they cost 
an average of $1200 to $1400 USA-dollars; *emergency C-sections* start there & rise rapidly, 
depending on the dam's condition, cost of drugs, needed interventions [saline IV, etc], & length of recovery.

another factor in the cost of Brit Bully pups - 
they are well-known for small litters, due in part to inbreeding / COI / loss of diversity & the consequent 
drop in bitch's fertility.  One to 3 pups per litter is the average, & the cost of the C-section, stud fee, 
etc, must be covered at least in part by the puppies' sales prices - breeders rarely MAKE money, 
but they cannot be blamed for wanting to cover at least the majority of their costs, surely.


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> Total b*llshit. In 1925 the dog was chosen as a Sieger by the man who 'invented' the breed because what was happening in German breeding was a disaster. The 1925 dog was a reversion to how the dog should be. Up until the 1970s ALL the dogs had straight backs. The only GSDs ever to have won the Best in Show at Crufts were all straight backs. it is you talking rubbish the standard was not revised in 1925 as you state, V. Stephanitz chose him has Sieger due the shortness of the backs the current dogs had, prior to him leaving Czech he was mated to the native Czech herding breeds to develop the East working lines we see now, breeding prior to his input was inbreeding on certain dogs V. Stephanitz owned
> 
> The FACT is that the so-called 'Germanic' types are an aberration bred by people who ought to know better but care more for their "sport" of Schutzhund than they do about dog health. Even Schutzhund was taken away from them. (In 2004 the SV and _Deutscher Hundesportverein_, the German Sporting Dog Association, passed control of Schutzhund to the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI). It is now a sport undertaken by Belgian Malinois, Boxers, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Cane Corso, Giant Schnauzers, Bouvier des Flandres, Dutch Shepherd Dogs, Beaucerons, American Bulldogs, Black Russian Terriers, Airedale Terriers, Australian Cattle Dogs and horror of horrors - crossbreeds).more bull have you never read V. Stephanitz book there is a full chapter to training including protection work
> 
> And, of course, Wildmoor would have you believe that the dogs were always roach backs. very few have roach backs how many have you actualy had your hands on to physically feel for a roach, when stood 4 square out of show stance, you wouldnt believe how many novices to the breed have berated the WGSL to find out when asked the reg name of their dog they actualy own a WGSL So, here's the 1937 Sieger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pfeffer von Bern. As you can see the dog has a distinct upward curve in its back - NOT. if you look carefully you cann see a inward curve between whither and back - mm maybe thats why they got rid to the USA, it is believed that the exagerated steepness in the AKC showline comes from him along with many other faults
> 
> The 'standard' for GSDs was originally set in 1899, revised in 1901, 1909, 1930 and 1961 according to the records of _Verein fur Deutsche Schaeferhunde_ (known as SV), the original GSD society formed by von Stephanitz and A Meyer. However, the SV then became part of the WUSV (a world body) who in 1976 revised the standard again. The standard Wildmoor quoted is that of the WUSV and is NOT the Kennel Club standard. The standard I quoted from is the SV/FCI one, the correct one, the one V. Stephanitz developed
> 
> (And the point of this thread is about PDE and pedigree dogs in the UK). The KC have tried to address the problem of health in the GSD. The link here shows what happened when they tried. The clubs opposed to this were all 'German' clubs.
> 
> The indisputable FACT is that the 'German' breeds have changed the shape of the dog since the 1970's. Here's a link, not to 'English' dogs but to the 'German' dogs that have won the Sieger title. It's quite clear that the dogs are all staight-backed until the 1970's and get progressively worse after 1976. (Don't worry, Wildmoor will claim that up to then they were still using crossbreeds to develop the dog : )again more idiotic comments from someone who supposely knows the breed but has not read the full history
> 
> Under Schutzhund rules one of the things that a dog MUST do, if it is to pass the test, is attack. It is taught to attack when surprised by someone waving their arms about and making a lot of noise. So, if you have a small child that's prone to excitement - that is they scream or shout and wave their arms about - don't let it anywhere near one of Wildmoor's dogs. We already covered the rubbish spoken about the idea that they only attack a sleeve. A GSD with the sort of temperament that is desirable for passing a Schutzhund test will attack exactly as it has been trained to. In fact, going by the behaviour of the German dogs at Crufts in 2011 they'll attack each other without the slightest provocation. (It happened 3 times while I was in the benching area). more likely to be the windy English ones if you attend you will be aware there are both sorts at Crufts, try attending the German Sieger with upto 4,000 dogs present over 3 days no bites there apart from on the sleeve, I was actualy there in 2011 s a friend wanted company the only nasty ones I met were English, maybe thats why they string them up or cover their cages
> 
> The German breeders argue that GSDs should be trained in Schutzhund to maintain the working ability of the dog. This is simply fatuous rubbish. Even in Germany a GSD can be registered if it's a sheepdog. Actually, it's ONLY in Germany that they insist on one or the other. It's as relevant as saying that all poodles should only ever be registered if they can prove they can retrieve game from water - after all, that's what they were originally designed to do.
> again more bull from you all standard coats can be register or LC from standard coat parents! maybe what you actualy mean is that a dog/bitch has to have a minimum working qualification whether that be SchH, HGH or other along with breed survey, hips/elbows scored to be bred from and register progeny
> The reality is that Schutzhund is a 'sport' that the German GSD owners indulge in because they think it proves something about their dogs. It does - it proves they are training dogs of unsound temperament that can attack without warning. And it's why, from time to time, you'll get a bunch of news stories about dog attacks that will concentrate on the GSD. After all, if you train them to attack why would you be surprised when they do?


again more crap from someone who does not know what they are talking about firstly the dog has to be mentaly stable, have a good character and obedient to be able to go onto the protection phase, but then you wouldnt know that as yours arent capable of doing anything


----------



## terencesmum

leashedForLife said:


> finally, *only desexing a pup before the sale* can reliably prevent a buyer from breeding a pup.
> once they own the pup, it's beyond the breeder's control. :nonod: They'll do whatever they please,
> even if the breeder has a clause to repossess the animal if they violate it, often that's not possible,
> or so co$tly it's out of reach - particularly in the USA where distances can be enormous, & travel costly.
> 
> desex is safe for any pup over 2# weight & healthy - there have been millions of such prepubertal
> surgical sterilizations starting in 1976 in the USA, & the AVMA has already stated that the procedure is both
> safe & ethical, in order to prevent unwanted or unplanned or poorly-bred litters, or simply to prevent
> yet more "surplus" pups & dogs. :yesnod:


I am absolutely horrified by this suggestion. Absolutely horrified. I have no words.


----------



## Nicky10

Early spaying/neutering is the cool thing to do in the US seemingly thankfully here we don't feel the need to deprive baby puppies of essential hormones


----------



## Wildmoor

terencesmum said:


> That was my question!!
> Are the lines that seperate still, after 20 odd years?


it isnt just the show lines the WG worklines are different to the DDR dogs


----------



## terencesmum

Wildmoor said:


> it isnt just the show lines the WG worklines are different to the DDR dogs


I do remember that the border-control dogs looked very different to what most people think of as a "typical" GSD. Highly unpleasant dogs, they were, too.


----------



## leashedForLife

Goblin said:


> *The question is* [&... everyone can only give their opinion on it],
> *would the pace of change* [*have*] *been the same,* [*without the first PDE docu*]?
> 
> I believe PDE gave the KC an advantage in dealing with the breed clubs to get them to accept changes,
> & this enabled a [faster] pace [for] change.


i think this is true - Heaven knows the KC & the AKC & the FCI & CKC, etc, were all warned by various 
geneticists, many long-term dog breeders, k9-fertility specialists, & other knowledgeable professionals 
that dogs' health & long-term viability as breeds were being rapidly compromised, & would soon 
be destroyed if some practices did not STOP - such as widespread use of matador sires.

they ignored it, or engaged in 'discussions', taking no actions to slow or stop the loss of gene-diversity.


----------



## Wildmoor

terencesmum said:


> I do remember that the border-control dogs looked very different to what most people think of as a "typical" GSD. Highly unpleasant dogs, they were, too.


The original Border Patrol dogs were the Chodsky Pes but they became to soft in temperment (more human friendly) hence the crossing and development of the DDR lines of German Shepherd


----------



## Nicky10

Wildmoor said:


> The original Border Patrol dogs were the Chodsky Pes but they became to soft in temperment (more human friendly) hence the crossing and development of the DDR lines of German Shepherd


Those are the short legged dogs aren't they? Sort of like mini gsds


----------



## Snoringbear

Nicky10 said:


> Early spaying/neutering is the cool thing to do in the US seemingly thankfully here we don't feel the need to deprive baby puppies of essential hormones


The RSPCA have been doing this.

RSPCA Shock Admission. Neutering Dogs At Six Weeks


----------



## Nicky10

Snoringbear said:


> The RSPCA have been doing this.
> 
> RSPCA Shock Admission. Neutering Dogs At Six Weeks


It's the RSPCA that's hardly a surprise


----------



## Wildmoor

Nicky10 said:


> Those are the short legged dogs aren't they? Sort of like mini gsds


they arent short legged they are just overall smaller same height to length ratio as a GSD, size at withers max for male 55cm whereas GSD 65cm
weight 18-24 KG my bitches are 18kg and 19kg 52cm


----------



## Nicky10

That's it I knew they were smaller anyway people were talking about them on another forum they're gorgeous


----------



## leashedForLife

Spellweaver said:


> [PDE-1] didn't... point out that cases like [syringomyelia in CKCS] were in the minority, that there were good
> breeders around, & inform viewers where to go to find good breeders.
> 
> ...she didn't do that because, despite this *one bad show breeder*, most good breeders are show breeders
> & she didn't want to have to admit that. Instead, she left viewers thinking that all show breedrs are bad,
> &... non-show breeders were good. IOW, she led people towards puppy farmers.


as we've seen from the WKC show results, it's not *one bad show breeder* -

the leading sire of AKC Rough Collies & #1 producer of AKC champions is a *deaf & blind, poorly structured stud* - 
a double-merle who was deliberately bred, born as a litter of one in order to serve as a stud for his owners 
& breeders - & he sired the winner of BOB at Westminster. Dozens of breeders chose that DoG-awful 
example of unethical breeding to use on their bitches... that's hardly _'one bad show breeder'._

this despite their mealy-mouthed assertions that THEY would NEVER produce a double-merle litter!  
no... but they sure did snap at the chance to use a double-merle sire, didn't they? Even one with severe 
visual & hearing deficits, who can't move well front OR rear. : Other than color - what's left 
of that sire that's *desirable*? Ear set? Ear tipping? Tail set? ANYthing?

And good old "Avalanche" isn't alone - other dogs with serious heritable problems become matadors, 
too. It's true of epilepsy in BSD-Tervurens, vertical fronts in Boxers [a so-called 'head' breed]  , 
dysplastic joints in GSDs where ridiculously exaggerated rear structure combines with massy torsos, etc.


----------



## Nicky10

That was digusting I can't understand anyone breeding a deaf/blind dog deliberately. I've met a double dapple daschund who was blind (I think it's the same problem) and she was a sweetheart but she had been purpose bred  they got her from a rescue though. I've also been hearing a lot about show mills over there churning out dogs shipping them off to handlers to get the championship and then getting thrown back into the filthy cages so the people can make money


----------



## comfortcreature

leashedForLife said:


> as we've seen from the WKC show results, it's not *one bad show breeder* -
> 
> the leading sire of AKC Rough Collies & #1 producer of AKC champions is a *deaf & blind, poorly structured stud* -
> a double-merle who was deliberately bred, born as a litter of one in order to serve as a stud for his owners
> & breeders - & he sired the winner of BOB at Westminster. Dozens of breeders chose that DoG-awful
> example of unethical breeding to use on their bitches... that's hardly _'one bad show breeder'._
> 
> this despite their mealy-mouthed assertions that THEY would NEVER produce a double-merle litter!
> no... but they sure did snap at the chance to use a double-merle sire, didn't they? Even one with severe
> visual & hearing deficits, who can't move well front OR rear. : Other than color - what's left
> of that sire that's *desirable*? Ear set? Ear tipping? Tail set? ANYthing?
> 
> And good old "Avalanche" isn't alone - other dogs with serious heritable problems become matadors,
> too. It's true of epilepsy in BSD-Tervurens, vertical fronts in Boxers [a so-called 'head' breed]  ,
> dysplastic joints in GSDs where ridiculously exaggerated rear structure combines with massy torsos, etc.


Even in the Cavalier it was not just 'one bad show breeder'. The stud dog owner was joined by other breeders as he produced 32 more litters AFTER his diagnosis. These were judges and people at the top of the breed that used him and that still defend those breedings, claiming the recommendations allow the use of asymptomatic dogs. What they leave out in this spin is that the recommendations allow the use ONLY of asymptomatic OLDER dogs and ONLY with grade A girls. This dog was used with girls too young to be meaningfully tested for anything following his scan proving he conferred high risk at 16 months of age.

He produced 140 puppies with 40 litters.

These are the same breeders that spread rumor through the breed to vilify Margaret Carter and as well Carol Fowler. These are the same breed club committee members who worked to get Margaret kicked off the committee while they excused what they and Beverly Costello did.

They are continuing, right now, on an open forum, to vilify those that spoke out, specifically Margaret claiming she knew her Champion dog, Mareve Indiana, had trouble while she was still breeding from him (that is a lie) and blaming scientists and researchers for their poor breeding decisions.

You can read the lying post from Jenny here, and those that run with it.

_". . .Oh and by the way - we all know of a certain person who knew her dog had problems (NOT Bev Costello) and yet that dog sired 57 known registered litters....and that person still behaves as if they are the 'saviour' of our breed .........and hasn't made an effort to advise the people who bought those puppies that they may have problems which need diagnosing. . ."

BBC i player - Pedigree Dogs Exposed_​
Margaret's reply is here.

_"There is a Cavalier Breeders Forum where, in the wake of PDE2 it is being suggested that I used my Champion dog at stud despite knowing he had SM.

This is untrue and the people writing this are liars.

I have Ch. Mareve Indiana's veterinary records. They show him to be a healthy dog until old age.

The people writing these lies will need to have proof that a dog that was winning Veteran classes at Crufts and the Cavalier Club Show at nine and ten years old was known to be suffering from health problems.

If they cannot do that then they would be wise to remove these libellious remarks.

I would be grateful if any member here who is also a member of that forum would crosspost this on to the relevant thread for me.

I will be contacting the forum's owner & moderators separately."

This is what they do when you speak out about health issues._​
THAT is NOT just 'one bad show breeder'!

--------------------------------------------

Regarding that comment about the number of litters Mareve Indiana (Monty) produced, this is what Cavalier popular sires were producing in the time he was being used at stud,

Cavaliegh Alexander b. 29 Jan 1989
*293 puppies from 82 litters* have been registered with this dog as the sire
Lymrey Royal Reflection Of Ricksbury b. 16/01/1993
*209 puppies from 58 litters* have been registered with this dog as the sire.
*Lymrey Royal Scandal At Ricksbury b.16/01/1993
*183 puppies from 51 litters* have been registered with this dog as the sire
Linjato Ace Of Base b. 19/12/1993
*314 puppies from 97 litters* have been registered with this dog as the sire.
*Mareve Indiana b. 05/10/1992
*251 puppies from 68 litters* have been registered with this dog as the sire
Telvara Top Hat b. 14/02/1989 (full sibling died of epilepsy at young age - finish database)
*219 puppies from 48 litters* have been registered with this dog as the sire.
Telvara Karbon Kopy b. 07/06/1992 - grandson to Telvara Top Hat - three years younger.
*455 puppies from 112 litters* have been registered with this dog as the sire.

They also have not learned:

Maibee Montrose b. 02 Jan 2001 - Grandson of Lymrey Royal Reflection
*493 puppies from 145 litters* have been registered with this dog as the sire.
Pascavale Enchanted b. 08 July2001- son of Tameline Northern Dancer
*392 puppies from 125 litters* have been registered with this dog as the sire. There are more in the USA. He is the sire the dog outed on PDE - Beauella Radzinski.
Aranel Cosmic b. 28 Mar 2005 - son of Miletree Nijinsky
*298 puppies from 85 litters* have been registered with this dog as the sire.

CC


----------



## DoodlesRule

leashedForLife said:


> just an aside -
> English Bulldogs are so expensive in part because the dam *should be* & usually is delivered via C-section,
> as the pups' skulls are too large to squeeze thru her narrow pelvis - both being bred-for traits: narrow butts,
> massive torsos & heavy, broad skulls. Elective C-sections are scheduled in advance & planned - they cost
> an average of $1200 to $1400 USA-dollars; *emergency C-sections* start there & rise rapidly,
> depending on the dam's condition, cost of drugs, needed interventions [saline IV, etc], & length of recovery.
> 
> another factor in the cost of Brit Bully pups -
> they are well-known for small litters, due in part to inbreeding / COI / loss of diversity & the consequent
> drop in bitch's fertility.  One to 3 pups per litter is the average, & the cost of the C-section, stud fee,
> etc, must be covered at least in part by the puppies' sales prices - breeders rarely MAKE money,
> but they cannot be blamed for wanting to cover at least the majority of their costs, surely.


Dreadful. They can be blamed for continually breeding dogs that the majority are unable to whelp naturally


----------



## Nicky10

DoodlesRule said:


> Dreadful. They can be blamed for continually breeding dogs that the majority are unable to whelp naturally


There is a big push now to get them to where they can whelp naturally it's not just english bulldogs it's any breed with a big head and narrow pelvis pekes are very prone to needing them as well. I think they've brought in a rule saying they won't register puppies after two c-sections I wouldn't be breeding a dog again that needed two anyway but any breed can need one


----------



## Wildmoor

Nicky10 said:


> That's it I knew they were smaller anyway people were talking about them on another forum they're gorgeous


please pm me tell me where I am in contact with people in many countries that own and breed these, love the breed hence why I have 2


----------



## Nicky10

They don't breed or own them they were jokingly talking about bringing them into the US I'll see if I can find the thread for you


----------



## Wildmoor

Nicky10 said:


> They don't breed or own them they were jokingly talking about bringing them into the US I'll see if I can find the thread for you


there are 2 in the US, puppy farmers and bybs wont be interested they only have small litters 2-6


----------



## Nicky10

That can only be a good thing the fewer breeds kept out of the hands of puppy farmers the better


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle

Well I guess it time for me to say what I think...

Never been a breeder.
I own a pedigree breed (although I have no papers as he was a rescue)
I also own a cross breed

It is a worry to me that Bedlington Terriers suffer from Copper Toxicosis which can be tested for before breeding, I don't know why they (the KC) don't insist on any Bedlington being proven clear before they can even enter a show never mind win it. 

Dog shows only judge whats on the outside if there are known problems then these should be judged as well and any dog than can not prove that it is good on the inside shouldn't even be looked at on the outside.


----------



## Nicky10

The only compulsory health tests are the CLAD tests for the two irish setter breeds I think but the breed clubs tend to have much more strict rules however the bad breeders aren't going to be members


----------



## Alice Childress

DoodlesRule said:


> Dreadful. They can be blamed for continually breeding dogs that the majority are unable to whelp naturally


The breeders that are not doing anything to address this can be blamed, however, other breeders that are doing everything in their power to breed way from this should be supported and applauded IMO. There are now lines which can self whelp and only need a c-section in a rare emergency just as in any other breed.


----------



## leashedForLife

Wildmoor said:


> ...one of my breeds, the GSD:
> Highlighting the breeding lines responsible for epilepsy ... through testing by Dr P. Croft.
> 
>  Introduction of a *Voluntary* Hip Scoring Scheme.
>  *Voluntary* Tattoo ID (& Microchipping)
>  *Voluntary* Haemophilia tests (males only)
>  *Voluntary* Elbow X-rays & grading.
>  *Voluntary* DNA-Parentage identification.
>  Other Parentage tests, work in progress..
>  *Voluntary* Breed Surveys
>  Groundbreaking GSD-Sieger event, for the 4th year... only GSDs with mandatory Health & Working
> qualifications are promoted to the highest awards. (2008)
> 
>  Mandatory Judges Training scheme... to [be] sponsored by the GSD Breed Council judging lists,
> not mandatory for eligibility to Judge KC shows however.


all of those are voluntary - & i'd bet that all or 90% are *closed* to anyone but the owner.  for just one good 
example, as bitches carry the haemophilia gene, why not test for carrier Fs vs affected Ms? 
affected Ms are an after-the-fact result, not a proactive assessment. We can't *UNcreate* them.

it does no good to have tests done, if no one can see the results of those tests - we cannot assess a breed 
with no statistics, & solid data means open registries - which AKC breeders often fight, tooth & nail. 
A few use the OPEN registries - most test & file the results in closed registries, or only publish 
the dogs who are clear / pass / exceed minimums, etc. Dogs who fail / are carriers are often never listed.


----------



## leashedForLife

EmCHammer said:


> ...a Pug come into the rescue whose eye fell out.
> 
> Dunno what his breeding was - _ was more upset by the eye incident. _


_

sadly, this is not rare anymore - Pugs, Boston [BULL AND] terriers, Pekes, & several other toy breeds 
with oversized eyeballs & shallow forward-facing eye sockets are very prone to this - also to eye injuries 
such as cat scratches, corneal scratches & infections, cherry eye, etc, as their eyes protrude & are exposed 
to any passing objects, without a bony setting / brow & cheekbone to protect them. 

i've now seen 3 toy-dogs who had an eyeball fall to their cheek after jumping from a bed or sofa - 
1 went blind, 1 lost about 50% of vision, 1 seems OK. Very sad, & IMO entirely unnecessary.

also horrifying for owners & vet-staff, & extremely painful for the dogs, of course!_


----------



## rocco33

> all of those are voluntary - & i'd bet that all or 90% are closed to anyone but the owner.


I'm not sure what you mean, but in the UK all results are published by the KC whether the owner wants them to be or not - is it not the same in the US?


----------



## Nicky10

I'm sure I've heard of people not submitting plates to be scored because they were high


----------



## Wildmoor

leashedForLife said:


> all of those are voluntary - & i'd bet that all or 90% are *closed* to anyone but the owner.  for just one good
> example, as bitches carry the haemophilia gene, why not test for carrier Fs vs affected Ms?
> affected Ms are an after-the-fact result, not a proactive assessment. We can't *UNcreate* them.
> 
> it does no good to have tests done, if no one can see the results of those tests - we cannot assess a breed
> with no statistics, & solid data means open registries - which AKC breeders often fight, tooth & nail.
> A few use the OPEN registries - most test & file the results in closed registries, or only publish
> the dogs who are clear / pass / exceed minimums, etc. Dogs who fail / are carriers are often never listed.


tesing of females in the UK is less acurate - is there an acurate test in the US? 
the hip and elbow results are open for anyone to view
the Breed Council hold the list for Heamophilia but it is recommend that anybody using a stud dog sees a copy of the certificate likewise anyone buying a pup, they have campaigned to make these tests mandatory but the KC wont especialy when there is opposition from breeders of other types of GSD, many of the pd carriers have been published online and open to view also
so I am unclear on your point


----------



## Wildmoor

Nicky10 said:


> I'm sure I've heard of people not submitting plates to be scored because they were high


in certain types they dont score or ignore results anyhow and breed regardless, I go to a reputable vet who gets you to sign before x-rays and wont do unless you agree to submit regardless of results


----------



## Nicky10

Wildmoor said:


> in certain types they dont score or ignore results anyhow and breed regardless, I go to a reputable vet who gets you to sign before x-rays and wont do unless you agree to submit regardless of results


Like the english type breeder on here who told me hip scoring was just a money making scheme by the KC : that's the right way any breeding stock should be hip scored I know there was even a case in cairns because they have it there on the breed club website. Especially in a breed like gsds I was told it's pretty much etched into the genes in the breed. I don't like the west german type but they seem to be the ones doing all the health testing and that's to be commended


----------



## rocco33

Nicky10 said:


> I'm sure I've heard of people not submitting plates to be scored because they were high


That is true and in the cases I've heard it was actually the VET that advised them not to send them in  

However, they are not tested, they are xrays. Once the plates have been submitted for testing the results will be published.


----------



## Goblin

Myfynwy said:


> The breeders that are not doing anything to address this can be blamed, however, other breeders that are doing everything in their power to breed way from this should be supported and applauded IMO. There are now lines which can self whelp and only need a c-section in a rare emergency just as in any other breed.


Breeders such as this should be encouraged by everyone. However "healthy versions" must start to win at shows. This is something even the breeders breeding healthier versions admit isn't likely to happen soon.


----------



## leashedForLife

Nicky10 said:


> ...some breeds are awful the way they are now - like Pekes - *but they're the minority of breeds. *


every dog-breed should have some basic tests done - 
such as EYE certificates from a DVM board-certified as a k9-opthalmologist, for just one example.

PRA is only one of a dozen common eye-conditions which are heritable, & which do not get tested, 
in the vast majority of dogs, breeds, & breeders - whether of purebreds or cross-breds. 

all breeds have dog-generic issues - "dog STDs" such as Brucellosis are one such. 
BREED SPECIFIC stuff is added to the generic dog-problems - & again, many breeders never test.

SA in Poodles & Akitas? 
hypo- or hyper-thryroid in many, many breeds? 
food allergies / atopy in ALL breeds & mixes? ... it's enormous & ignored.


----------



## Nicky10

All breeding dogs should be fully tested no question about that. Isn't SA one of the reasons they don't allow cross mating in the poodle sizes? Because the minis and toys don't have it?


----------



## Wildmoor

yes they should but how many do, I always advise the following
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/222741-buying-gsd-puppy.html


----------



## Alice Childress

Goblin said:


> Breeders such as this should be encouraged by everyone. However "healthy versions" must start to win at shows. This is something even the breeders breeding healthier versions admit isn't likely to happen soon.


Indeed. Although I was encouraged and surprised that two of the top show kennels breeding to the new standard of Bulldogs with self whelping lines are still winning championships... Maybe their reputation in the show world meant judges were more accepting of the changes they made


----------



## comfortcreature

rocco33 said:


> I'm not sure what you mean, but in the UK all results are published by the KC whether the owner wants them to be or not - is it not the same in the US?


No. To publish results the owners permission must be given.

CC


----------



## leashedForLife

Argent said:


> My Shih-Tzu is meant to be one of the offending breeds too, he does have a short muzzle,
> but... definitely has a snout & doesn't have to snort & hack, just to trot from A to B.


stenotic nares, overlapping or misaligned teeth, extended soft-palate which occludes the airway 
[especially when the dog sleeps & the muscles relax in the throat - hence snoring while sleeping, 
but often not snoring whilst awake]... are all brachy-generic issues, as are STENOTIC ear-canals.

stenosis = narrowing - it restricts breathing from the nostrils all the way thru the sinuses, as the nostrils 
are the outer sign of a skull-wide problem.








notice the lapping teeth & cockeyed angle - the jaw is too crowded - 










Argent said:


> ... over the past [few] weeks, Oscar's been chewing on his back-end & back legs, etc.
> I suggested to my mum it could be mites or fleas [vs] grass allergy, & since it's been 4-mos since he last had it,
> she gave him a Frontline treatment.
> 
> It's barely been [30-mins] & he's hiding under chairs & whimpering every now and then, looks restless
> & rather bothered. Bit worried... he's looking more uncomfortable than before the treatment


this could be allergenic or a drug-reaction - & both can be heritable. 


Argent said:


> his *hip dysplasia* & *luxating patella* are known to us & we have Metacam to control the pain,
> which we have given him to see if he calms down.


ditto - both heritable. HD is currently believed to be 60% rearing - diet, calories in, 
traction or lack of it, too rapid weight gain, forced exercise on young joints which have not calcified, 
etc - Vs 40% genetic / inherited. 


Argent said:


> His eyes are all puffy now and he's relishing getting his chest, neck and belly itched.
> We've given him a Piriton and a shower, and we're hoping it keeps him comfortable for tonight.


again, drug-intolerances are heritable.  Hope he's all better!


----------



## leashedForLife

Malmum said:


> * All that talc* can't be good for the dogs sensitive noses...


just an FYI - 
talcum is a mineral, & sadly it is found side-by-side with *asbestos* & is often contaminated with it.

i never use or recommend talcum for anything; *corn starch* is safe, hydrophobic [repels moisture], 
it reduces friction, & so long as the wearer isn't allergic to corn, extremely safe, indeed. :001_smile:


----------



## leashedForLife

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So how come you defend Sammy's breeder all the time? Someone who is a BYB, breeds... a non-KC registered bitch
> to a KC registered dog, ...happens to own both & does no health tests that you know of?
> How responsible is that?
> 
> ...if you have this sort of view, it needs to be applied across the board, you can't slate one set of breeders
> & say *it's ok for the rest, because they're not *show* dogs.*


:thumbup: show or not, health tests matter - as do structure, coat health, skin, etc.


----------



## leashedForLife

Argent said:


> *Inbreeding* & *line breeding* [won't] always... produce horrific genetically-impaired monsters.
> 
> *When used properly*, these methods... 'set'... desired characteristics... & breed-out undesirable ones...
> without the risk of contaminating the gene pool with yet more unknown genes
> to rifle through, to remove
> all the bad bits & retain the good.


 - *INbreeding* & *line* breeding are merely gradations of the same practice - 
any dogs who share any forebears are to a degree, inbred, as they're related.

ONLY C-o-I gives us the data to determine just how related any 2 dogs are, or what's the number 
of dogs in a given breed, in the EFFECTIVE breeding-popn --- as contrasted with the actual popn.

if we have for Ex, 70-million Goldens around the world, but an *effective breeding popn* of 30-M, 
that's not good!



Argent said:


> Sometimes it's... needed to improve a line or a breed altogether, sometimes the opposite is needed,
> & an outcross will occur, to replace lost or damaged genes or characteristics.


if even LUA-Dals are too 'contaminated' to allow on the registry or choose for breeding stock, 
IMO breeders are slicing off dog-breeds' noses to spite *our* all too fallible human-faces -

but it's the dogs as always, who actually suffer. :nonod:


----------



## Argent

leashedForLife said:


> stenotic nares, overlapping or misaligned teeth, extended soft-palate which occludes the airway
> [especially when the dog sleeps & the muscles relax in the throat - hence snoring while sleeping,
> but often not snoring whilst awake]... are all brachy-generic issues, as are STENOTIC ear-canals.
> 
> stenosis = narrowing - it restricts breathing from the nostrils all the way thru the sinuses, as the nostrils
> are the outer sign of a skull-wide problem.
> View attachment 85587
> 
> 
> notice the lapping teeth & cockeyed angle - the jaw is too crowded -
> View attachment 85588
> 
> 
> this could be allergenic or a drug-reaction - & both can be heritable.
> 
> ditto - both heritable. HD is currently believed to be 60% rearing - diet, calories in,
> traction or lack of it, too rapid weight gain, forced exercise on young joints which have not calcified,
> etc - Vs 40% genetic / inherited.
> 
> again, drug-intolerances are heritable.  Hope he's all better!


Wow, I never said he was perfect! My mum went and viewed a litter advertised in the newspaper before I'd had a chance to do any proer research and before I knew it, he was here. Not my choice and my mum knows better now - I was only saying how glad I am that he can breathe! (Yes he does snore lightly in certain positions, but it's nothing like some shortnosed dogs!)

I am however gutted about his HD and luxating patella, though since having a few hydrotherapy sessions, changing his diet to raw, and working out how much daily exercise is right for him, we've not had any trouble with his hips or knees for almost a year now.

His underbite doesn't affect him in any way and he happily munches down raw bones without any trouble whatsoever.

Another point, the itching, the vet thinks, is due to an allergy to flea saliva, which tbh, can happen in just about any dog. I'm not defending his background, I don't support it, and never wish to buy a 'homebred' puppy ever again, I was merely pointing out that he does not suffer with the same short nose as many other flat faced dogs do, showing that it is possible to have dogs of these breeds with less exaggerated features.

I know he's not perfect, but he's here and I love him, his 'ailments' are minor in comparison to what some dogs end up with, we are lucky in that respect, and it doesn't generally affect his day to day life.


----------



## Goblin

Whilst I fully appreciate that many breeders test for all recommended tests I still find it disappointing that the majority of health tests from the KC are only "recommended". http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf Is this because breed clubs have the say in what is mandatory? If the Assured Breeder Scheme is to work surely the KC needs to dictate to the breed clubs what is and isn't required? Is this an example of breed clubs slowing down what they don't want?


----------



## Nicky10

The breed clubs in general have much higher health test requirements than the KC does. I know they were all painted as pure evil and uncaring and deliberately producing sick dogs but they're not. The cairn club has every condition that has been diagnosed in the breed on it's page


----------



## Goblin

Nicky10 said:


> The breed clubs in general have much higher health test requirements than the KC does. I know they were all painted as pure evil and uncaring and deliberately producing sick dogs but they're not. The cairn club has every condition that has been diagnosed in the breed on it's page


So why not compulsory. Is the kennel club preventing it? There is a difference after all in writing about something and actually doing things about it.


----------



## Nicky10

I don't know they are compulsory for the members of the club if they want to stay members and they also have to be KC reg of course but the KC has lower requirements for most breeds. For example a lot of the bulldog breeders, yes those evil people breeding disabled dogs I'm not a fan either, do tests whereas the KC just says get a health check from a bulldog vet :blink:


----------



## Spellweaver

Snoringbear said:


> The RSPCA have been doing this.
> 
> RSPCA Shock Admission. Neutering Dogs At Six Weeks





Nicky10 said:


> It's the RSPCA that's hardly a surprise


I'm not surprised either. It says in the article that they have been doing it since 2007. Now, who was the chief vet advisor of the RSPCA then? None other than Mark Evans, the prannock going on (and on and on and on and on) about show dogs being mutants on both PDE films.

So has this high and mighty know-it-all about the health and welfare of dogs actually been responsible for advocating a procedure on dogs at an age when it can cause growth abnormalities, cruciate problems, and hip and elbow dysplasa? How many puppies will have been damaged, crippled and sentenced to a life of pain by these policies?

Am I alone in finding it ironic and very, very sad that the vet who called pedigree dogs a parade of mutants could actually be responsible for policies that will have caused more malformed dogs than any breeder?


----------



## Nicky10

The RSPCA are useless anyway especially with more exotic animals a lot of their recommendations for them would kill the animals . They don't care about animal welfare more about the politics and taking down "rival" rescues


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> I'm not surprised either. It says in the article that they have been doing it since 2007. Now, who was the chief vet advisor of the RSPCA then? None other than Mark Evans, the prannock going on (and on and on and on and on) about show dogs being mutants on both PDE films.


Yet another diversion from the real issues of PDE I see. It's a problem yes, but not connected with this thread.


----------



## Nicky10

Ok shall we sum it up some of the breeds are in a real mess either through conformation issues pekes, bulldogs, neapolitan mastiffs etc or inherited health problems like cavaliers. But the breeders are working to try and correct these especially with the new standards

However some people care more about trophies/money than their animals and breed for extremes or breed from unhealthy dogs aka the cavalier stud


----------



## leashedForLife

pod said:


> ...that one - GSD Movement in slow motion - YouTube is Crufts 2008
> according to Jemima. Note the green carpet.


the first 30-secs show a dog, who far from a _"*flying trot*"_ is actually shown pacing - 
legs on each side swing forward & back TOGETHER, as if they are hobbled in *parallel*.

a TROT is a *diagonal* gait: left fore & rt-rear move together, Rt-fore & left-rear move together.

a WALK is a 4-beat gait, as each paw is placed & lifted solo.

a CANTER is a 3-beat gait - each foreleg lands & lifts alone, whist the rear legs come down 
together, but on an angle to one another - there is a right-lead or left-lead in a canter.

the GALLOP is also a 4-beat gait, thud-dud-dud-dup, etc; cheetah & sighthounds both have 
a double-suspension gallop, where all 4 legs are off the ground twice in each stride; they use their 
flexible spines to help whip their bodies forward, like a slingshot effect.


----------



## Snoringbear

Spellweaver said:


> I'm not surprised either. It says in the article that they have been doing it since 2007. Now, who was the chief vet advisor of the RSPCA then? None other than Mark Evans, the prannock going on (and on and on and on and on) about show dogs being mutants on both PDE films.
> 
> So this high and mighty know-it-all about the health and welfare of dogs has actually been responsible for advocating a procedure on dogs at an age when it can cause growth abnormalities, cruciate problems, and hip and elbow dysplasa? How many puppies will have been damaged, crippled and sentenced to a life of pain by his policies?
> 
> Am I alone in finding it ironic and very, very sad that the vet who called pedigree dogs a parade of mutants is actually responisble for policies that will have caused more malformed dogs than any breeder?


Mark Evans is a self servicing z-list celebrity. He's more interested in presenting car shows and furthering his career than doing anything about dogs. I've watched some of them and they're awful. I wasn't sure watching PDE2 whether his repeated rantings were to reinforce a point or make him look like an idiot, although I'm leaning towards the latter. Probably best he just goes into the garage he's fixing a landrover up with a bag of spanners and throw away the key.


----------



## leashedForLife

Devil-Dogz said:


> Dogs may well be *direct descendants of... wolves*.


Arrrgggh. :mad2: NOT "direct descendants OF wolves" -- Wolves did not give birth to dogs, drabbit.

WOLVES & DOGS *share* a common ancestor, just as humans & chimps, humans & gorillas, 
humans & orangs, humans & bonobos do. Dogs & wolves are at best, very distant cousins - 
with over 100k years as separate breeding popns, according to mDNA tests.


----------



## Snoringbear

leashedForLife said:


> the first 30-secs show a dog, who far from a _"*flying trot*"_ is actually shown pacing -
> legs on each side swing forward & back TOGETHER, as if they are hobbled in *parallel*.
> 
> a TROT is a *diagonal* gait: left fore & rt-rear move together, Rt-fore & left-rear move together.
> 
> a WALK is a 4-beat gait, as each paw is placed & lifted solo.
> 
> a CANTER is a 3-beat gait - each foreleg lands & lifts alone, whist the rear legs come down
> together, but on an angle to one another - there is a right-lead or left-lead in a canter.
> 
> the GALLOP is also a 4-beat gait, thud-dud-dud-dup, etc; cheetah & sighthounds both have
> a double-suspension gallop, where all 4 legs are off the ground twice in each stride; they use their
> flexible spines to help whip their bodies forward, like a slingshot effect.


I didn't watch that before when Pod posted it, must have missed it, but that is some truly horrific construction and movement.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> Yet another diversion from the real issues of PDE I see. It's a problem yes, but not connected with this thread.


These are policies which cause damage to dogs - surely that is one of the real issues of PDE? (or are the only dogs the program has issues with pedigree show dogs?)

These are policies which harm dogs and are advocated by one of the largest animal organisations in the country. Surely that is one of the real issues of PDE? (or is the KC the only large animal organisation whose policies are one of the real issues of PDE?)


----------



## leashedForLife

> Originally Posted by *leashedForLife*
> 
> finally, only *desexing a pup before the sale* can reliably prevent a buyer from breeding a pup.
> 
> once they own the pup, it's beyond the breeder's control. They'll do whatever they please,
> even if the breeder has a clause to repossess the animal if they violate it, often that's not possible,
> or so co$tly it's out of reach - particularly in the USA where distances can be enormous, & travel costly. :nonod:
> 
> desex is safe for any pup over 2# weight & healthy - there have been millions of such prepubertal
> surgical sterilizations starting in 1976 in the USA, & the AVMA has already stated that the procedure is both
> safe & ethical, in order to prevent unwanted or unplanned or poorly-bred litters, or simply to prevent
> yet more "surplus" pups & dogs. :yesnod:





terencesmum said:


> I am absolutely horrified by this suggestion. Absolutely horrified. I have no words.


the AVMA position statement on juvenile desex - 
Animal Welfare AVMA policy - Pediatric Spay/Neuter Of Dogs And Cats

summary of findings posted on PetFinder - 
Pediatric Spay/Neuter: Shelter Medicine: For Shelters

a PDF on early-age AKA juvie AKA pediatric desex - 
http://tinyurl.com/6r3me6k

Australian shelters have done juvie-desex for over a decade, now - 
[PDF] 
Dept Of Primary Industries & Fisheries GPO BOX 2482 ...
www.uq.edu.au/ccah/docs/15309finalreport.pdf 
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
_Report on the Validity & Usefulness of Early-Age Desexing in Dogs & Cats... pounds in Australia 
are taken into account, it's believed that the annual ... also known as prepubertal gonadectomy, 
paediatric or juvenile desexing, is ..._

a thread on juvie-desex with multiple journal links, vets' articles, etc - 
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/114631-pediatric-s-n-pediatric-desex.html


----------



## leashedForLife

Nicky10 said:


> Early S/N is the cool thing to do in the US, seemingly...


Nicky, 
i don't get this snarky remark. The average *compliance rate* of adopters, even with a contract 
signed that swears they'll desex by 7-MO, listing penalties & the re-possession of the dog or cat, 
is only 40%.

given that pet-adopters simply do not S/N, even if they face hefty fines & the loss of the pet - 
what should shelters do?  Kill all the pups & kittens? KEEP THEM ALL for 6-mos?!? *Where? *

What would U suggest? 
Anyone else have a brilliant idea to stop sloppy pet-adopters from churning out unwanted litters? 
i'm listening. Meanwhile, shelters & rescues all over the USA & Australia are doing juvie S/N.

millions & millions of pups & kittens have already been desexed, beginning in 1976. 
if it caused serious health issues, i think the AVMA & vets across the country would have noticed, by now.


----------



## 5rivers79

leashedForLife said:


> Arrrgggh. :mad2: NOT "direct descendants OF wolves" -- Wolves did not give birth to dogs, drabbit.
> 
> WOLVES & DOGS *share* a common ancestor, just as humans & chimps, humans & gorillas,
> humans & orangs, humans & bonobos do. Dogs & wolves are at best, very distant cousins -
> with over 100k years as separate breeding popns, according to mDNA tests.


Humans and chimps dont share a common ancestor, the chimp was around first which then split off causing the missing link that scientists talk about..well thats my understanding anyway...then after this came the human.

I thought the same of wolves? If dogs and wolves share a common ancestor..then what was that? Or do you mean wolves came about first which then split off to some kind of missing link that formed dogs?


----------



## dodo bird

Nicky10 said:


> I'm sure I've heard of people not submitting plates to be scored because they were high


Canine Hip Dysplasia:The Disease and Its Diagnosis


> The true prevalence of CHD by breed in the general population is unknown. Most hip registries worldwide permit voluntary submission of hip radiographs. Understandably, this practice encourages prescreening of films such that only the best (most normal-looking) films get submitted for evaluation. The resulting bias in the registry understates the true prevalence of CHD within breeds of pedigreed dogs. Data suggest that this bias is large and breed dependent. A random sampling of subjectively scored hip radiographs from 200 golden retrievers and 132 rottweilers showed the prevalence of CHD to be 74% and 69%, respectively. These figures are 2 to 3 times higher than comparable figures reported in the United States by the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA).


From second link. "Radiographs with normal-appearing hips were 8.2 times as likely to be submitted to the OFA"


----------



## BlueBeagle

5rivers79 said:


> Humans and chimps dont share a common ancestor, the chimp was around first which then split off causing the missing link that scientists talk about..well thats my understanding anyway...then after this came the human.
> 
> I thought the same of wolves? If dogs and wolves share a common ancestor..then what was that? Or do you mean wolves came about first which then split off to some kind of missing link that formed dogs?


No, humans and chimps had a common ancestor and that split into 2 groups- the chimps and our bipedal ancestors.

Taken from the BBC website:

Chimp cousins
Chimpanzees are our closest relatives. Genetic studies show humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor that lived in the African rainforest 7-8 million years ago. The descendants of this common ancestor split into two lineages - one that led to chimps and another that led to us.

Full article: BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man

I assume the same happened for wolves and dogs but I haven't really researched that. Human evolution is my interest tbh.


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> These are policies which cause damage to dogs - surely that is one of the real issues of PDE? (or are the only dogs the program has issues with pedigree show dogs?)


Not walking dogs enough is an issue and can cause damage for dogs. Should that be included in this thread? Instead you have a snide remark to discredit an opinion rather than actually post anything constructive. Typical method to divert attention from the main discussion points which are very hard to defend.

Instead lets look at one of your main arguments against PDE. This being that no where in the original PDE was it acknowledged issues due to "looks" were being dealt with. Why then did it take over 20 years to make and I hate calling it "major" as it isn't really, changes to the breed standards which could have a positive effect? Is this your idea of "sorting the problems out". Why is it that it was possible to make changes shortly after PDE after a comprehensive review? Ok changes were things like "relatively short" instead of "short" but at least it is a step in the right direction.

If you want make arguments as an ambassador for the KC you would be better posting :
[youtube_browser]rrWjVFKuAg8[/youtube_browser]
I still maintain it's an advert but a good one. Between this and PDE I feel people can get a good impression of what is going on although some of what was mentioned was in PDE2 anyway. I personally admire the bulldog breeder at around 15 minutes, although not convinced the facial structure of the "healthier" bulldog would not still cause problems.

So why PDE ? In relation to the bulldog breeder.. It is my opinion none of his "healthier bulldogs" would ever have won a prize at a show in his lifetime without it.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> Not walking dogs enough is an issue and can cause damage for dogs. Should that be included in this thread? Instead you have a snide remark to discredit an opinion rather than actually post anything constructive. Typical method to divert attention from the main discussion points which are very hard to defend.


Not a snide remark at all but a genuine concern that someone who had been given a massive amount of airtime to speak volubly and at length about the damage the KC and breeders who show their dogs have done/are doing to dogs, can himself be responsible for a policy in a_ national_ organisation that can cripple the poor dogs unfortunate enough to be operated on by said organisation.

This is blatant double standards. A comparable situation would be if, for example, the breeder who had allowed the cav with SM to sire many litters voiced an opinion at great length, over a large amount of airtime in both programs, that breeders should not breed from dogs with a hereditary disease. If that had happened (which thankfully it didn't), would you not think that was a blatant contradiction and that such an opinion should be discredited? Would you be saying that it is the same kind of issue as dogs not being walked enough? Of course you wouldn't.

The fact that you advocate that any opinion held by someone with such double standards should not be discredited just because he was speaking against showing and the KC, shows that you are more concerned with KC bashing than with the welfare of dogs. And that is highlighted by the fact that, rather than addressing the issue, you prefer to make your own snide remarks about non-constructive posting.



Goblin said:


> Instead lets look at one of your main arguments against PDE. This being that no where in the original PDE was it acknowledged issues due to "looks" were being dealt with. Why then did it take over 20 years to make and I hate calling it "major" as it isn't really, changes to the breed standards which could have a positive effect? Is this your idea of "sorting the problems out". Why is it that it was possible to make changes shortly after PDE after a comprehensive review? Ok changes were things like "relatively short" instead of "short" but at least it is a step in the right direction.


You give yourself the answer in your question when you admit that changes to the breed standards after PDE were not major. Such changes to the breed standards have been happening for many years, not just after PDE. That, along with all the research and development of DNA tests the KC has funded, has done more for the health of all dogs - not just pedigrees - than PDE can ever hope to achieve. As for it taking over 20 years - genetic changes cannot happen in a couple of years. I would rather have a genuine change that makes a difference than a knee-jerk reaction to "shock horror" journalism that, a couple of years down the line, may prove to have a more detrimental effect than beneficial effect on dogs.

After all, we have such a good example of how changes brought about by knee-jerk reactions have been detrimental to dogs when, because of the tabloids stirring up public reaction to dog attacks, the government brought in the DDA bill. We should learn from our mistakes, and not end up doing something detrimental to dogs by a knee-jerk reaction to PDE stirring up public reaction. Instead, we should effect real and lasting change, and recognise that such real and lasting change takes time to effect.



Goblin said:


> I personally admire the bulldog breeder at around 15 minutes,


So do I. The dogs he breeds are much improved on the "old-style" bull dog. Funny that above you were wanting a quick knee-jerk change, yet here you are admiring a change that has taken a good number of years to achieve, and that was started before PDE!



Goblin said:


> It is my opinion none of his "healthier bulldogs" would ever have won a prize at a show in his lifetime without it.


Well, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I don't know very much at all about bull-dog judging so instead of plucking an opinion out of thin air, I will repost what someone who seems to know more about me on the subject has already posted. This would seem to contradict your opinion.



Myfynwy said:


> Indeed. Although I was encouraged and surprised that two of the top show kennels breeding to the new standard of Bulldogs with self whelping lines are still winning championships... Maybe their reputation in the show world meant judges were more accepting of the changes they made


----------



## DoodlesRule

DoodlesRule said:


> Thank you
> The KC now have the tool for calculating COI and no longer register litters from certain close family matings ie mother/son, father/daughter or brother/sister mating (though believe they will in "special cases) so presumably it is accepted that inbreeding is a bad thing? Presumably it is still accepted for grandfather/grandaughter, uncle/neice etc.
> 
> Just a couple of questions:
> 
> why were such close matings ever thought to be suitable?
> 
> Would breeders here be prepared to say whether they have ever done such close matings when they could be registered and/or what is the closest "family" ever mated.
> 
> The programme did give the impression that its widespread throughout pedigree breeders and I am genuinely interested to know whether that is true or not.


How strange that only two breeders answered this. 
Particularly surprised by you Spellweaver as you have jumped on every other comment I have made like a rash, would have expected you to at least claim I had some hidden agenda


----------



## pod

leashedForLife said:


> the first 30-secs show a dog, who far from a _"*flying trot*"_ is actually shown pacing -
> legs on each side swing forward & back TOGETHER, as if they are hobbled in *parallel*.
> 
> a TROT is a *diagonal* gait: left fore & rt-rear move together, Rt-fore & left-rear move together.
> 
> a WALK is a 4-beat gait, as each paw is placed & lifted solo.
> 
> a CANTER is a 3-beat gait - each foreleg lands & lifts alone, whist the rear legs come down
> together, but on an angle to one another - there is a right-lead or left-lead in a canter.
> 
> the GALLOP is also a 4-beat gait, thud-dud-dud-dup, etc; cheetah & sighthounds both have
> a double-suspension gallop, where all 4 legs are off the ground twice in each stride; they use their
> flexible spines to help whip their bodies forward, like a slingshot effect.


Absolutely correct. Many GSDs of this type are actually incapable of achieving the flying trot as the poor structure is so imbalanced that they are unable to do the normal trot as a two beat gait. Instead it's a sort of shuffling four beat, somewhere between a walk and a trot, even at a fast pace, with no period no suspension.

This video is of the progeny of Zamp, a dog held up as a legend in the GSD show world. Note how all of the dogs are sickle hocked. A serious fault that prevents normal extension of the hock joint to the rear.

Zamp Thermodos Nachkommengruppe 2010 Nürnberg - YouTube


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> The fact that you advocate that any opinion held by someone with such double standards should not be discredited just because he was speaking against showing and the KC, shows that you are more concerned with KC bashing than with the welfare of dogs. And that is highlighted by the fact that, rather than addressing the issue, you prefer to make your own snide remarks about non-constructive posting.


Where do I condone the policy of the RSPCA? I don't but that is not the topic of this thread. Rather than focus on the real matter concerning PDE you complain of double standards. As an aside I don't agree with the policy at all but I do understand why some may think it's necessary.



> You give yourself the answer in your question. Changes to the breed standards after PDE were not major. Such changes to the breed standards have been happening for many years, not just after PDE.


So it takes 20 years to make minor changes that may make a small amount of difference. Not good enough.



> That, along with all the research and development of DNA tests the KC has funded, has done more for the health of all dogs - not just pedigrees - than PDE can ever hope to achieve.


We are not talking about general health, we are talking about specific instances of health which, by inaction the KC and breed clubs have accepted as normal and supported. It's taken outside awareness to ensure things have changed. One question you refuse to answer. Why was it allowed to get to this state to begin with?



> As for it taking over 20 years - genetic changes cannot happen in a couple of years. I would rather have a genuine change that makes a difference than a knee-jerk reaction to "shock horror" journalism that, a couple of years down the line, may prove to have a more detrimental effect than beneficial effect on dogs.


20 years to make minor changes to breed standards concerning looks, not genetics? Please explain how "relatively short" instead of "short" is knee-jerk reaction. After 3+ years many feel "relatively short" is still not enough. I would personally love to see how the bulldog standard has changed over the past 50 years. I would expect to see little to do with things concerning health.



> After all, we have such a good example of how changes brought about by knee-jerk reactions have been detrimental to dogs when, because of the tabloids stirring up public reaction to dog attacks, the government brought in the DDA bill. We should learn from our mistakes, not give a knee-jerk reaction to PDE stirring up public reaction, and accept that real change takes time.


Real changes such as corrections to conformation take time yes but we are not talking about that, or genetic changes in this example. You can destroy a dog in 100 years but in 20 years you can't make positive changes which are generally accepted in the show ring? Show me progress in the show ring correcting faults prior to PDE?



> So do I. The dogs he breeds are much improved on the "old-style" bull dog. Funny that above you were wanting a quick knee-jerk change, yet here you are admiring a change that has taken a good number of years to achieve, and that was started before PDE!


Where do I say I want knee jerk reactions. I want to see positive results in a meaningful timeframe about the issues addressed by PDE. This is one breeder who is to be admired. The dally owner, another breeder to be admired and look at the resistance she had. There is a obvious culture resistant to change but one some breeders are prepared to make a stand against for the sake of their breed.



> Well, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I don't know very much at all about bull-dog judging so instead of plucking an opinion out of thin air, I will repost what someone who seems to know more about me on the subject has already posted. This would seem to contradict your opinion.


The kennel concerned are winning. Is this with the actual new lines and how far are they different? As for my opinion I'm only going by the KC's own video and the breeders own comments. Are you saying they don't know what's going on and the politics involved?


----------



## Elles

> Maybe their reputation in the show world meant judges were more accepting of the changes they made


You do realise what's being said there? The implication is that the judges are looking at the wrong end of the lead and only placing the healthier dogs (and are they healthy enough?) because they're bred by top show kennels.

Would the dogs have been bred by the top show kennels without the recent pressure? I daresay that previously they were happy to breed the less healthy ones and did so, or they probably wouldn't be top show kennels.

I don't really think it matters much what Mark Evans does or says, we saw the dogs at the shows and the opinions of other respected experts and can make up our own minds.

When breed clubs behave in the way that was shown in PDE, one vet's opinion isn't going to make a difference either way I think.

Most programmes about animals get a vet or two's opinions as most people respect what vets have to say. For myself I wouldn't give many of them the time of day, with their pushing to sell expensive dog food and over-vaccinating. So one vet rolling his eyes on the programme wouldn't make any difference to my opinion of the pug rolling his.


----------



## pod

leashedForLife said:


> Arrrgggh. :mad2: NOT "direct descendants OF wolves" -- Wolves did not give birth to dogs, drabbit.
> 
> WOLVES & DOGS *share* a common ancestor, just as humans & chimps, humans & gorillas,
> humans & orangs, humans & bonobos do. Dogs & wolves are at best, very distant cousins -
> with over 100k years as separate breeding popns, according to mDNA tests.


Have to disagree here. All the latest research show dog origin to be ~15k ya. The wolf may have been a bit different then but undoubtedly the same species. There have also been many instances along that 15k of backcrossing, new wolves brought into the dog population.

Not so with humans and chimps which do have a common ancestor with the split ~5 million ya. Over that time period a major a change in chromosomes occurred that prevented any further interbreeding of the two species. Unlike the dog which is a subspecies of the wolf and can still interbreed.


----------



## terencesmum

leashedForLife said:


> the AVMA position statement on juvenile desex -
> Animal Welfare AVMA policy - Pediatric Spay/Neuter Of Dogs And Cats
> 
> summary of findings posted on PetFinder -
> Pediatric Spay/Neuter: Shelter Medicine: For Shelters
> 
> a PDF on early-age AKA juvie AKA pediatric desex -
> http://tinyurl.com/6r3me6k
> 
> Australian shelters have done juvie-desex for over a decade, now -
> [PDF]
> Dept Of Primary Industries & Fisheries GPO BOX 2482 ...
> www.uq.edu.au/ccah/docs/15309finalreport.pdf
> File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
> _Report on the Validity & Usefulness of Early-Age Desexing in Dogs & Cats... pounds in Australia
> are taken into account, it's believed that the annual ... also known as prepubertal gonadectomy,
> paediatric or juvenile desexing, is ..._
> 
> a thread on juvie-desex with multiple journal links, vets' articles, etc -
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/114631-pediatric-s-n-pediatric-desex.html


Since this is a thread about pedigree dogs and not about rescues, I won't start an argument now about this. Let's just say, I think, it is a completely inappropriate statement in completely the wrong place.


----------



## Elles

> Wolves did not give birth to dogs


What about wolf dogs?

They have to be more closely related than chimps and humans, or we'd have Planet of the Apes and it wouldn't be pretty.


----------



## Spellweaver

DoodlesRule said:


> How strange that only two breeders answered this.
> Particularly surprised by you Spellweaver as you have jumped on every other comment I have made like a rash, would have expected you to at least claim I had some hidden agenda


Some hidden agenda like deliberately flaming, as you are doing here, you mean? 

The post you are talking about was posted on a day when I was working a 13 hour shift, and when I did read it during the course of catching up, your questions had already been answered more than adequately by those who had replied. Your impression of your own importance is sadly exaggerated if you think I have nothing better to do than trawl through the forum for things you post. :lol:


----------



## L/C

5rivers79 said:


> Humans and chimps dont share a common ancestor, the chimp was around first which then split off causing the missing link that scientists talk about..well thats my understanding anyway...then after this came the human.


That's really, really wrong - unless you think that chimps have stayed in evolutionary stasis for the past 5/6 million years? The last common ancestor _may_ have been more chimp like then human like but it wasn't a chimp - the current oldest fossil remains that can be considered a hominid (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) actually has a face that morphologically is more similar to **** then pan.


----------



## Alice Childress

Goblin said:


> *
> Between this and PDE I feel people can get a good impression of what is going on although some of what was mentioned was in PDE2 anyway*. I personally admire the bulldog breeder at around 15 minutes, although not convinced the facial structure of the "healthier" bulldog would not still cause problems.
> 
> So why PDE ? In relation to the bulldog breeder.. *It is my opinion none of his "healthier bulldogs" would ever have won a prize at a show in his lifetime without it*.


The thing is Goblin, Norman Davis was breeding for the healthier bulldog before PDE came into place. His work has been on going for many years because of his personally observations not because of PDE. His kennel is one of the leading in the UK and he is very admired throughout the Bulldog community.

Also, PDE was aired on bbc4, to my knowledge 'a healthy future' has not been aired on TV so to say "between this and pde people get a good impression of the situation" isn't quite accurate as it hasn't been equally available for the general public to view.

I was equally disgusted by the breeders on PDE as you were and as I suspect everyone of this forum was. However, the fact that as an outcome people are coming on here saying "all theses breeds should be eradicated" just shows, that for all the good the show might do, it also does an awful lot of damage (which could have been avoided if the show had given a better over view of the real situation). A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing and sadly I fear a lot of people will have viewed the show, without then researching the other side of the argument, and tar all breeders with the same brush. If even dog educated people on here are making such sweeping statements (and I am not referring to Goblin here) what chance does the general public with little knowledge have.


----------



## Galadriel17

colliewobble said:


> Just a thought - if the number of good breeders really does outweigh the number of bad ones, why have the good ones not overpowered and squoze out the bad? If as we keep hearing it's only a 'small' percent of bad breeders, why do they have enough of them and they have enough power to be able to have someone removed from the breed club for trying to improve things? If say 25 people were part of a club, and one was voted out 20-4, that means the majority of 20 won the decision to remove that person. If you think of these as good and bad breeders, with 20 'bad' and 4 'good' the bad ones ones have won as that is what there was more of/ what was thought of as right by the club members. Therefore it is quite possible that there are more bad breeders than they'd like people to believe and unfortunately they're the ones with the power:frown5:.


This is something that crossed my mind and has already been asked a few times yet no one (to my knowledge) that's argued against PDE on has answered.



EmCHammer said:


> Surely people knew longer back than a decade ago that it was not a good idea to breed with close relatives?


Well I know Charles Darwin was worried about the health of his children after marrying his cousin and that was about 150 years ago. Humans were obviously aware of the potential detrimental effects of inbreeding amongst humans then and it doesn't take a genius to work out if it's not great for humans, it probably isn't great for other animals either!


----------



## Alice Childress

Elles said:


> You do realise what's being said there? The implication is that the judges are looking at the wrong end of the lead and only placing the healthier dogs (and are they healthy enough?) because they're bred by top show kennels.
> 
> Would the dogs have been bred by the top show kennels without the recent pressure? I daresay that previously they were happy to breed the less healthy ones and did so, or they probably wouldn't be top show kennels.


Yes, I realise what was being said  It was merely speculation as people were suggesting that a healthy version would not win at shows, which simply isn't true (although I agree it is not as universal as it should be and trust me I dislike the judges/breeders that are to blame as much as anyone).

In response to your second point, I refer you to my last post. Norman Davis was trying to breed healthier dogs before PDE. I am sure there are some breeders that were not though, but to me they are back yard breeders, regardless of what prizes they won.

Why would you daresay that they were happy to breed less healthy ones?? Most breeders care an incredibly amount about their dogs and the breed, why would they want to breed ill animals?? Some may well have been in denial at the detriment to their dogs but I think it highly unlikely that _most_ were actively, consciously breeding ill animals. Even the average back yard breeder is more likely breeding ill animals out of ignorance than malice.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> Where do I condone the policy of the RSPCA? I don't but that is not the topic of this thread. Rather than focus on the real matter concerning PDE you complain of double standards. As an aside I don't agree with the policy at all but I do understand why some may think it's necessary.


Where do I say you do? Go back and actually read what I put - I was talking about you advocating that Mark Evan's policies which cause untold damage to dogs on a national scale should not be brought up in a discussion about PDE, despite the fact that he was given a lot of airtime on PDE to denigrate breeders who, in his view, are causing very similar damage to pedigrees by their breeding methods.



Goblin said:


> We are not talking about general health, we are talking about specific instances of health which, by inaction the KC and breed clubs have accepted as normal and supported. It's taken outside awareness to ensure things have changed. One question you refuse to answer. Why was it allowed to get to this state to begin with?


But you cannot talk about specific instances of health without talking about DNA testing because DNA tests were developed to combat specific instances of health - instances of health that PDE would have been highlighting in the program had those test not been funded by the KC, developed by the AHT, and hence allowed breeders to health test and breed away from those conditions. For example, if the tests for things such as PRA and PLL (to name but two) had not been developed, and breeders were unable to health test and so breed away from them, think of how many dogs JH would have been able to film running around the show rings half blind. So it has not taken outside awareness to effect change. That awareness was already there, and change was being effected, well-documented change (just look at the AHT website) long before PDE. I cannot understand your refusal to see this.

As for why it was allowed to get into such a state to begin with - well, views on animal welfare have changed greatly over the years. Things were acceptable forty, fifty, sixty years ago that are abhorrent to us now. That does not mean, however, that since awareness grew of what was happening and how wrong it was, that change did not begin way back then. It obviously did, or we would not have the genetic tests in order to breed away from hereditary conditions that we have now.



Goblin said:


> I would personally love to see how the bulldog standard has changed over the past 50 years. I would expect to see little to do with things concerning health.


I have no idea how the bulldog standard has changed over the years. However, unlike you, I'm not going to specualte and express an opinion based purely on that speculation. Perhaps, insetad of speculating, you should do the research, form a proper opinion based on that research, post your findings, and then we can discuss the matter properly.



Goblin said:


> Real changes such as corrections to conformation take time yes but we are not talking about that, or genetic changes in this example.


Yes we are. However, you are trying _not to_ include them in this discussion because if we do include them then your theories about nothing being done about the health of dogs until PDE fall to pieces.

And if you do accept that breeders are now using genetic tests to improve their breeding by breeding away from hereditary illnessess, then your demand to show you progress in the show ring by correcting faults prior to PDE becomes redundant - all you have to do is look at footage of any show to see many, many more breeds of dogs that have progressed in this way than the odd few breeds that haven't.

That still doesn't mean we should stop highlighting these few breeds - but it is as silly to pretend no progress was made before PDE as it is to deny there is work still to be done.


----------



## dodo bird

Spellweaver said:


> This is blatant double standards.


This is nothing but an appeal to hypocrisy. A logical fallacy that attacks the person rather than the argument. If his claims are wrong, take them apart. Even if you are right (you are not. early spay neuter is safe.) about his double standard, it does nothing to disprove his claims. If a murderer says murder is wrong, he would still be right.


----------



## 5rivers79

L/C said:


> That's really, really wrong - unless you think that chimps have stayed in evolutionary stasis for the past 5/6 million years? The last common ancestor _may_ have been more chimp like then human like but it wasn't a chimp - the current oldest fossil remains that can be considered a hominid (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) actually has a face that morphologically is more similar to **** then pan.


I knew i might have been wrong somewhere lol hence the confused face lol

Great threads are the ones you learn something from..like this one


----------



## Spellweaver

dodo bird said:


> This is nothing but an appeal to hypocrisy. A logical fallacy that attacks the person rather than the argument. If his claims are wrong, take them apart. Even if you are right (you are not. early spay neuter is safe.) about his double standard, it does nothing to disprove his claims. If a murderer says murder is wrong, he would still be right.


Putting to one side the separate argument about whether or not early neutering is safe - which I disagree most vehemently with you on but that is an argument for another thread - I have to laugh at your attempt at logic.

First of all, your own presentation of my argument is wrong. You are saying I said:
_Premise: the vet said pedigrees are mutants
Premise: when the vet was chief vet advisor to a national organisation, policies were put in place that could cripple many dogs
Conclusion: therefore the vet is wrong about pedigrees being mutants_

This is not what I said at all. What I _did_ say was:
_Premise: the vet said pedigrees are mutants
Premise: when the vet was chief vet advisor to a national organisation, policies were put in place that could cripple many dogs
Conclusion: therefore if the vet was rsponsible for these policies, the vet has double standards._

This a perfectly logical argument and in no way fallacious. Neither is it hypocrisy. I can't for the life of me see where you think I am being hypocritical - the only place I can see where hypocrisy comes into it is that it is very hypocritical of someone to denigrate one form of abuse to dogs, whilst an organisation to which he was chief vet advisor deliberately performs another form of abuse on diogs.

As for attacking the person rather than avoiding the argument, you are a newbie to this forum so if you read more than this one post of mine you will find arguments about the two programs liberally spread around. Avoiding arguing the subject matter is hardly something you can accuse me of. And if you read my original post (#805) you'll find that I did not actually say he was responsible for the policies - I asked the question whether or not he was the one responsible.



Spellweaver said:


> So has this high and mighty know-it-all about the health and welfare of dogs actually been responsible for advocating a procedure on dogs at an age when it can cause growth abnormalities, cruciate problems, and hip and elbow dysplasa? How many puppies will have been damaged, crippled and sentenced to a life of pain by these policies?
> 
> Am I alone in finding it ironic and very, very sad that the vet who called pedigree dogs a parade of mutants could actually be responsible for policies that will have caused more malformed dogs than any breeder?


All I am doing is questioning the apparent double standards of someone who spoke at length in both PDE programs. And as the programs were talking about double standards in the dog world, a comment on the apparent standards of one of its supporters is a very fitting comment to make. Or are you suggesting that it is wrong to question things and that we should just believe everything a TV program tells us without thinking about it?


----------



## Ewan

Personally I feel that the issues in the show needed addressed and as far as boxers in Scotland it didn't go far enough. There is a major problem with the boxers being produced in show kennels here that goes way beyond just JKD. Having being part of a boxer rescue for years we often get pedigree certificates coming in with the dogs, so we know exactly where the dogs are being bred. All too often we are seeing boxers with horrific health problems coming from show kennels and those involved in bred clubs etc. I'm talking about dogs that have terrible allergies, heart problems, epilepsy, bad hips, spondylosis, MCT,etc. Many of these dogs have 4 or 5 of these conditions and they are all appearing far too often. These are dogs that we can directly trace back to show kennels. Of course even with good breeding practices you are going to get the odd dog with health problems and cancer but you shouldn't be getting the numbers of dogs that we are seeing with these conditions and especially not the high number that have multiple conditions. Something is seriously wrong and it's time people stopped hiding their heads in the sand and blaming it all on puppy farms & backyard breeders.


The problem does exist and needs addressing.


Unfortunately there is only so much you can show in an hour program, it did show positive things that some breeders and the KC were doing but there is no way it could spend much longer talking about good breeders and positive steps that where being taking with out the central issues disappearing.


I whole heartedly agree that puppy farms/byb, people breeding their pets and the rise of free online ads is causing so many problems and really need dealt with. I also know first hand of the problems coming from show kennels/breed clubs/"respected" breeders...I have seen the problems in dogs from their, I have personally had to take dogs to be put to sleep at a young age because of health problems they should never have had and it's absolutely heart breaking. They are coming as much from "respected" breeders as puppy farms.


There is no denying that there is people out there breeding dogs that do it for the love of the breed and that the health and the future health of the dogs are the most important thing to them. Unfortunately the problem with bad/reckless breeding is such that it is the others that its this group we need to concentrate on.


----------



## Goblin

Myfynwy said:


> The thing is Goblin, Norman Davis was breeding for the healthier bulldog before PDE came into place. His work has been on going for many years because of his personally observations not because of PDE. His kennel is one of the leading in the UK and he is very admired throughout the Bulldog community.


A view I can and do respect. His opinion of the judges however is a pointer to the "old guard mentality" which has existed and needs to be changed not just in his breed. How many "young judges" would have felt they would be supported had it not been for PDE and the public condemnation?



> Also, PDE was aired on bbc4, to my knowledge 'a healthy future' has not been aired on TV so to say "between this and pde people get a good impression of the situation" isn't quite accurate as it hasn't been equally available for the general public to view.


It's on the web, advertised quite a lot by people who are acting in the interests of the KC. You'll note the interest in PDE to those who have no access originally to it also on the web. The web can be a far better tool for spreading knowledge than the TV.



> I was equally disgusted by the breeders on PDE as you were and as I suspect everyone of this forum was. However, the fact that as an outcome people are coming on here saying "all theses breeds should be eradicated" just shows, that for all the good the show might do, it also does an awful lot of damage (which could have been avoided if the show had given a better over view of the real situation).


This is the thing about PDE. Little was said about the realities (still haven't had a response to question why healthy future wasn't made 3 years ago). Instead the public sees personal attacks on the makers and anyone daring to criticize things. We get people saying the program is a "farce" and a general denial of the problems highlighted. I think this has been more damaging to people's perceptions of the KC and breed clubs than PDE alone. This process is still going on. Lets not ignore the "stop PDE2 being shown" facebook group which to anyone interested and keeping an eye on the subject only enforces the idea, dont like criticism, hide things.


----------



## Alice Childress

Goblin said:


> A view I can and do respect. His opinion of the judges however is a pointer to the "old guard mentality" which has existed and needs to be changed not just in his breed. How many "young judges" would have felt they would be supported had it not been for PDE and the public condemnation?


And you may well be right. This is one of the positives to come out of PDE. Anything which exposes those awful breeders I support. It's just I feel that the show could have done this without causing damage to the good breeders reputation as well.



Goblin said:


> It's on the web, advertised quite a lot by people who are acting in the interests of the KC. You'll note the interest in PDE to those who have no access originally to it also on the web. The web can be a far better tool for spreading knowledge than the TV.


I really don't think that's enough though. Anyone with a serious interest in dogs may well have come across it on the internet but not the general public. I have only come across 'a healthy future' through dog forums. Most people are not active members of the online dog community. I hear your point but I think you are overestimating how many people will see 'a healthy future'. At the moment the youtube clip only has 39,970 views. I also do not understand why PDE could not have included the same information so that there was no need for people to have to search out the other side of the argument anyway. I know they gave a more balanced view than last time, but it still wasn't representative in my opinion.



Goblin said:


> This is the thing about PDE. Little was said about the realities _(still haven't had a response to question why healthy future wasn't made 3 years ago_). Instead the public sees personal attacks on the makers and anyone daring to criticize things. We get people saying the program is a "farce" and a general denial of the problems highlighted. I think this has been more damaging to people's perceptions of the KC and breed clubs than PDE alone. This process is still going on. Lets not ignore the "stop PDE2 being shown" facebook group which to anyone interested and keeping an eye on the subject only enforces the idea, dont like criticism, hide things.


I suspect that it was made because of pressures from PDE1 and the KC wanted to demonstrate where their priorities lie. That seems fair enough to me.

I agree that we should not be denying the issues but at the same time we should not be ignoring the work good people are doing (which I know you agree with too). If only everyone researched fully both sides of any argument before making their minds up on a subject, I think we'd live in a much nicer world. Sadly, as I said before, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing and people seem to be inclined to feel that their opinion, even if it is based on very little information, is worthy.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> . We get people saying the program is a "farce" and a general denial of the problems highlighted.


Sorry, I have to disagree with you on this. Not the farce bit - I've said that about it many times - but about a denial of the problems highlighted. I have seen no-one deny the problems - merely a) the program's intimation of the extent of the problems, and b) the fact that the program gives no credit for the fact that problems were already being dealt with before either program was aired.

Show me where you think somone has denied the problems highlighted.



Goblin said:


> Lets not ignore the "stop PDE2 being shown" facebook group which to anyone interested and keeping an eye on the subject only enforces the idea, dont like criticism, hide things.


So by your own brand of logic, the closed group, "We support PDE" must also be enforcing the idea of "don't like criticism, hide things" to anyone interested. :lol: Now, do tell, what do you think these 300 supporters of PDE are hiding?


----------



## L/C

5rivers79 said:


> I knew i might have been wrong somewhere lol hence the confused face lol
> 
> Great threads are the ones you learn something from..like this one


Hah - no worries. I like any excuse to take a thread off topic! :lol:

My name is Charlotte and I'm a human evolution nerd.


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> I was talking about you advocating that Mark Evan's policies which cause untold damage to dogs on a national scale should not be brought up in a discussion about PDE


So rather argue the opinion you mentioned in PDE, you resort to attacking the person and other policies he has made. Still doesn't invalidate his opinion on the specific issue in question.



> But you cannot talk about specific instances of health without talking about DNA testing because DNA tests were developed to combat specific instances of health


But not the issues at question, that of the breed standards and "looks" directly causing health problems and the acceptance of them. To push genetic and health testing is simply diverting discussion away from the issue. If you really wanted to go that route in another thread you could start with why so few health tests are mandatory.



> As for why it was allowed to get into such a state to begin with - well, views on animal welfare have changed greatly over the years. Things were acceptable forty, fifty, sixty years ago that are abhorrent to us now.


Ok I can accept this which leads to the evidence shown and the outrage because of it. Modern values on animal welfare have been shown to not exist in some circles. If it was shown people were embracing change it wouldn't of been so bad. Even the Healthy Future Video indicates resistance to what simply needs to be done.



> However, unlike you, I'm not going to speculate and express an opinion based purely on that speculation.


This is a forum, most of it is opinion including yours.



> And if you do accept that breeders are now using genetic tests to improve their breeding by breeding away from hereditary illnessess, then your demand to show you progress in the show ring by correcting faults prior to PDE becomes redundant - all you have to do is look at footage of any show to see many, many more breeds of dogs that have progressed in this way than the odd few breeds that haven't.


The key is health was secondary to looks and it is still going on in some areas. That is the most disgusting thing. At the end of the day a dog doesn't care about a ribbon or a cup. Why should their health suffer for it?



> is as silly to pretend no progress was made before PDE as it is to deny there is work still to be done.


PDE forced the pace of change which makes it far more important than you are prepared to admit for whatever reason.


----------



## DoodlesRule

Myfynwy said:


> If only everyone researched fully both sides of any argument before making their minds up on a subject, I think we'd live in a much nicer world. Sadly, as I said before, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing and people seem to be inclined to feel that their opinion, even if it is based on very little information, is worthy.


Its not that easy though if one side isn't open - PDE gave the impression that all pedigree dogs are very in-bred so I asked the questions whether any breeders here were willing to say what was the closest family mating they had ever done. Only 2 responded so that just leaves every one to draw their own inference


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> So rather argue the opinion you mentioned in PDE, ............. .
> 
> But not the issues at question, ................
> 
> The key is health was secondary to looks ...............
> 
> PDE forced the pace of change ..............


As these are all merely a reshashed form of questions and statements you have aready asked/put top me, and which I have replied to fully already, I refer you to my previous threads for anwers and comments.


----------



## Spellweaver

DoodlesRule said:


> Its not that easy though if one side isn't open - PDE gave the impression that all pedigree dogs are very in-bred so I asked the questions whether any breeders here were willing to say what was the closest family mating they had ever done. Only 2 responded so that just leaves every one to draw their own inference


I didn't see this - so I went back and looked and found it tucked away on the breeding COI post you were accusing me of not replying to earlier. Now if I haven't seen it even though you made a fuss about the post to me, what's the betting that others havene't seem it either? Why not try just asking the qustion in plain english? You may get more replies then.

Just for the record - the closest family mating I have done is mating Evie - she and the sire I chose had one great-grandparent the same.


----------



## Alice Childress

DoodlesRule said:


> Its not that easy though if one side isn't open - PDE gave the impression that all pedigree dogs are very in-bred so I asked the questions whether any breeders here were willing to say what was the closest family mating they had ever done. Only 2 responded so that just leaves every one to draw their own inference


But this forum isn't the "other side". It's just one forum with comparatively very few people on it. Which is why I wish 'a healthy future' had been shown on TV as well as PDE, or even better, that PDE had shown a more balanced argument. After all it is called 'pedigree dogs exposed' - surely that should include the whole story?

Inbreeding is a very complicated business and people often have a knee jerk reaction against it. If done correctly it can be used for positive by ridding the gene pool of disorders. I am not defending careless inbreeding or what it has done to many animals, but theoretically a small gene pool is not in itself a bad thing _as long as_ that gene pool doesn't contain genetic disorders.

DISCLAIMER: I am purely stating the geneticist point of view here - I am not supporting unethical, dangerous or thoughtless breeding.


----------



## DoodlesRule

Am sure its nothing to do with PDE that "a healthy future" wasn't on TV Surely if the KC had a bit of gumption they would get the channel that screens crufts to put it on?


----------



## comfortcreature

Myfynwy said:


> . . . I am not defending careless inbreeding or what it has done to many animals, but theoretically a small gene pool is not in itself a bad thing *as long as that gene pool doesn't contain genetic disorders. *
> DISCLAIMER: I am purely stating the geneticist point of view here - I am not supporting unethical, dangerous or thoughtless breeding.


Any geneticist will tell you that THAT is am impossibility if looking at it in any practical sense. There is no such thing as a gene pool of mammals that "doesn't contain genetic disorders" that is not completely immuno-compromised or that has not suffered drastic hits to its ability to reproduce, and which hasn't been produced on the backs of huge numbers of suffering ancestors to get there.

Inbred strains of animals used for science have incredibly short lifespan expectations, incredibly low viability (for reproduction) and have to be kept isolated from the environment as they are so immuno-compromised.

Every geneticist will tell you that a small gene pool 'in itself' is a bad thing, always recommending at least that a minimum viable population be kept.

_. . .So if you're interested in breeding dogs that burn out young, are riddled with disease, have nasty temperament issues, have trouble conceiving, develop horrible diseases young, etc., then believe that you too can develop an inbred strain and it'll all turn out just dandy, just like those inbred lab mice. Just be sure to buy yourself a nice dog bubble and some bio-hazard gear to wear around your dog while you keep it in a perfectly sterile environment after burying a truck load of its siblings and ancestors who died in the process of making your inbred little mess. . .

Those Inbred Lab Mice_​
CC


----------



## AlbertRoss

DoodlesRule said:


> Am sure its nothing to do with PDE that "a healthy future" wasn't on TV Surely if the KC had a bit of gumption they would get the channel that screens crufts to put it on?


The KC might want that but it's like anything else - bad news is much more televisual than good news. And the KC aren't in a position to demand airtime. Harrison, OTOH, is a programme maker and has used her previous documentary and the fuss it caused to do No 2 which, understandably, the BBC have bought because it is likely to get a fair few viewers outside the 'dog world'. The KC rebuttal is simply a programme about all the 'good stuff' the KC say they are doing. Because the KC have pretty much refused to engage with any outside body looking at dog health (other than their funding of some research) they present themselves as insular know-it-alls. Sadly, as an organisation representing pedigree dogs to the world at large they are a disaster.


----------



## Alice Childress

comfortcreature said:


> Any geneticist will tell you that THAT is am impossibility if looking at it in any practical sense. There is no such thing as a gene pool of mammals that "doesn't contain genetic disorders" that is not completely immuno-compromised or that has not suffered drastic hits to its ability to reproduce, and which hasn't been produced on the backs of huge numbers of suffering ancestors to get there.
> 
> *ALL inbred strains of animals used for science have incredibly short lifespan expectations, incredibly low viability (for reproduction) and have to be kept isolated from the environment as they are so immuno-compromised.*
> CC


I studied genetics for three years as part of my undergraduate degree, so I guess technically I am sort of a geneticist (my aim being to complete a phd in part, about genetics). If you look, I was careful to put *"theoretically"*.

What you are talking about that I have highlighted in bold, is all relative. Using inbreeding very selectively to ensure a disorder is breed away from, is very different from repeatedly breeding very close relatives.

In theory you could achieve a healthy *relatively* small gene pool without compromising the immune system - until of course natural mutations took place, in which case new disorders would simply develop, but that's evolution for you.

I am simply stating this as theory because people have a moral knee jerk reaction about inbreeding which is unscientific.


----------



## Galadriel17

Myfynwy said:


> And you may well be right. This is one of the positives to come out of PDE. Anything which exposes those awful breeders I support. It's just I feel that the show could have done this without causing damage to the good breeders reputation...


I didn't think PDE2 did damage good breeders, if anything, showing the owner of Fiona for example, made me for one want to support breeders like her by buying when it comes to getting my next dog; whereas I've always been of the mind the most ethical way for me to source a dog was from a rescue centre.



Spellweaver said:


> Sorry, I have to disagree with you on this. Not the farce bit - I've said that about it many times - but about a denial of the problems highlighted. I have seen no-one deny problems...


When calling something a farce, it gives the impression the whole thing is rubbish. "Farce: n. 1. A light dramatic work in which highly improbable plot situations, exaggerated characters, and often slapstick elements are used for humorous effect. *2. A ludicrous, empty show; a mockery."*



DoodlesRule said:


> Am sure its nothing to do with PDE that "a healthy future" wasn't on TV Surely if the KC had a bit of gumption they would get the channel that screens crufts to put it on?


Yes, and if what someone had said earlier in this thread was true about the KC turning down the BBC (not the other way round) with regards to the screening of Crufts and choosing to go with more4 (is it?) over the other offers they apparently had then surely with such bargaining power they could have just said we'll go with you providing you screen a healthy future - after all it's only half an hour long?!


----------



## Goblin

AlbertRoss said:


> Sadly, as an organisation representing pedigree dogs to the world at large they are a disaster.


Sad but true. Communication is lacking. Some of the responsibility lies in those on this forum as lets face it, we all tend to like dogs here. Being honest they are better than they used to be  Threads such as http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/196881-kc-news.html I feel are vital and a great start but far more needs to be done by the KC themselves to reach Joe Public. Frequently it's not just the information getting out it is how it is presented that needs to change. Also like the phrase "insular know-it-alls" as this directly hits to why PDE had such an impact with Joe Public.

Just realized considering most posters are female maybe that should be Joanne Public but can't be bothered to be PC.


----------



## Alice Childress

Galadriel17 said:


> I didn't think PDE2 did damage good breeders, if anything, showing the owner of Fiona for example, made me for one want to support breeders like her by buying when it comes to getting my next dog; whereas I've always been of the mind the most ethical way for me to source a dog was from a rescue centre.


I am glad it had that affect on you, I wish everyone saw it that way! However, the fact that people have come on here and said that ALL bulldogs should be eradicated ie no longer breed, as a result of watching PDE, in my opinion is evidence of the damage.


----------



## Galadriel17

Myfynwy said:


> I am glad it had that affect on you, I wish everyone saw it that way! However, the fact that people have come on here and said that ALL bulldogs should be eradicated ie no longer breed, as a result of watching PDE, in my opinion is evidence of the damage.


Sadly I fear there will always be ignorant people but you can't put all the blame on JH for the uneducated conclusions some people will draw from her program.

I wouldn't say bulldog breeders should stop breeding but I personally would never buy one whilst they are so exaggerated, however some people need to buy them from good breeders who are breeding away from that whilst the extremes are being bred out in order for there to be a market I guess...


----------



## leashedForLife

5rivers79 said:


> Humans and chimps dont share a common ancestor, the chimp was around first which then split off,
> causing the missing link that scientists talk about... well, that's my understanding anyway...
> then after this came the human.
> 
> I thought the same of wolves? If dogs and wolves share a common ancestor... then what was that?
> Or do you mean wolves came about first, which then split off to some kind of missing link, that formed dogs?


missing links don't _*form*_ - a 'missing link' is a prehistoric or historic intermediate type, 
that we have not yet found, or have not seen, & they're still looking - since evolution happens every day. 
the PEPPERED MOTH of the UK is one of the best-documented examples of visible evolution - changing 
both color & pattern as it coped with the onset of the Industrial Age, then with the post-industrial. 
if U want to know more, go to Google Images & enter "peppered moth".

modern humans share a common ancestor with all modern apes - our closest living relative is the chimp, 
or possibly the bonobo, both of whom share over 98% of our DNA.

primate family-tree - 








interactive primate family-tree - 
NOVA | The Last Great Ape | Our Family Tree | PBS

human origins with a helpful graphic - 
Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

human family-tree - 








modern-day wolves are NOT the 'ancestors' of modern-day domestic dogs - 
wolves & dogs share a common ancestor, but dogs have been a separate breeding-popn 
for approx 100k years, according to mDNA studies.

see the 3-part graphic here - 
http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Heredity_Dog_Paper_1999.pdf



> _
> Phylogenetic trees of dog & wolf sequences show that dog-sequences cluster into 4 clades... either long-ago
> wolves were domesticated in several places & at different times, or there was one domestication event,
> followed by several episodes of admixture between dogs & [then-]wolves. Whichever... the results imply
> that dogs have a diverse origin, involving more than one wolf-population.
> 
> ...clade 1 included 18 of 26 [dog-]haplotypes... the time required to attain such diversity was estimated to be
> 135,000 years. ...Studies of Japanese dogs... found 4 distinct dog-clades that shared a common ancestry approx
> 76,000 to 121,000 years ago. _


----------



## Galadriel17

> Originally Posted by colliewobble:
> Just a thought - if the number of good breeders really does outweigh the number of bad ones, why have the good ones not overpowered and squoze out the bad? If as we keep hearing it's only a 'small' percent of bad breeders, why do they have enough of them and they have enough power to be able to have someone removed from the breed club for trying to improve things? If say 25 people were part of a club, and one was voted out 20-4, that means the majority of 20 won the decision to remove that person. If you think of these as good and bad breeders, with 20 'bad' and 4 'good' the bad ones ones have won as that is what there was more of/ what was thought of as right by the club members. Therefore it is quite possible that there are more bad breeders than they'd like people to believe and unfortunately they're the ones with the power.





> Originally posted by Galadriel17:
> This is something that crossed my mind and has already been asked a few times yet no one (to my knowledge) that's argued against PDE on has answered.


No responses yet then...


----------



## leashedForLife

pod said:


> All the latest research show dog origin to be ~15k ya. The wolf may have been a bit different then
> but undoubtedly the same species.


 - not "approx 15k" - multiply that by a factor of almost-10: 
dogs' origin is approx 120 to 135k years behind us.

- dogs & wolves have approx 100k years as separate breeding-popns, according to mDNA samples, 
based on the rate of change in mitochondrial-DNA, which is known.


----------



## leashedForLife

terencesmum said:


> Since this is a thread about pedigree dogs and not about rescues, I won't start an argument now about this.
> Let's just say [IMO] it is a completely inappropriate statement in completely the wrong place.


 = i stated that *the only way to prevent puppy-buyers from breeding a pup once they'd bought it, 
was to DESEX the puppy before they took her or him from the breeder's home.*

i wrote - 


> Originally Posted by *leashedForLife *
> 
> finally, only *desexing a pup before the sale* can reliably prevent a buyer from breeding a pup.
> once they own the pup, it's beyond the breeder's control. They'll do whatever they please,
> even if the breeder has a clause to repossess the animal if they violate it, often that's not possible,
> or so co$tly it's out of reach - particularly in the USA where distances can be enormous, & travel costly.
> 
> desex is safe for any pup over 2# weight & healthy - there have been millions of such prepubertal
> surgical sterilizations starting in 1976 in the USA, & the AVMA has already stated that the procedure is both
> safe & ethical, in order to prevent unwanted or unplanned or poorly-bred litters, or simply to prevent
> yet more "surplus" pups & dogs.


U replied - 


terencesmum said:


> I am absolutely horrified by this suggestion. Absolutely horrified. I have no words.


now U claim this DOESN'T BELONG on this thread? 
what about those endorsed pups, not supposed to be bred? 
what about limited registration under AKC rules, which registers the dog 
but *will not register* any progeny of that dog?

that is why juvie-desex is highly pertinent to this thread: If we want to prevent unhealthy pups, 
or badly-structured pups, or sickly pups from being BRED, or we simply want to prevent APOs from adding 
more unplanned or surplus litters / pups / dogs to the popn, Juvie Desex is an apropos tool.

juvenile or prepubertal desex is commonly done by *shelters & rescues* to prevent adopted pets 
from being bred by the adopter or anyone else; it would also prevent *puppy-buyers 
from breeding an endorsed, limited-reg, or pet dog - permanently*. That is my point.

Have i made myself clear? :001_smile: i hope so.


----------



## Alice Childress

Galadriel17 said:


> Sadly I fear there will always be ignorant people but you can't put all the blame on JH for the uneducated conclusions some people will draw from her program.
> 
> I wouldn't say bulldog breeders should stop breeding but I personally would never buy one whilst they are so exaggerated, however some people need to buy them from good breeders who are breeding away from that whilst the extremes are being bred out in order for there to be a market I guess...


I don't put all the blame on JH for people's reaction to bulldogs but the show didn't help as certain forum members reactions have demonstrated. People are going to be ignorant until educated. I just think PDE missed an opportunity to fully educate people.


----------



## comfortcreature

Myfynwy said:


> I don't put all the blame on JH for people's reaction to bulldogs but the show didn't help as certain forum members reactions have demonstrated. People are going to be ignorant until educated. I just think PDE missed an opportunity to fully educate people.


You say it didn't help by suggesting certain forum members reactions indicate that to you, while ignoring the forum members whose statement are that it did help.

Posters here have ALSO said, it has helped some. I'm sure we all could argue for days about which side outnumbers the other as our experiences are going to be different, but I know I believe it helped more than it hurt.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by colliewobble:
> Just a thought - if the number of good breeders really does outweigh the number of bad ones, why have the good ones not overpowered and squoze out the bad? If as we keep hearing it's only a 'small' percent of bad breeders, why do they have enough of them and they have enough power to be able to have someone removed from the breed club for trying to improve things? If say 25 people were part of a club, and one was voted out 20-4, that means the majority of 20 won the decision to remove that person. If you think of these as good and bad breeders, with 20 'bad' and 4 'good' the bad ones ones have won as that is what there was more of/ what was thought of as right by the club members. Therefore it is quite possible that there are more bad breeders than they'd like people to believe and unfortunately they're the ones with the power.


Quote:


> Originally posted by Galadriel17:
> This is something that crossed my mind and has already been asked a few times yet no one (to my knowledge) that's argued against PDE on has answered.





Galadriel17 said:


> No responses yet then...


I know in the Cavalier Clubs they demonstrated soundly that the bad outnumber the good when they kicked Margaret Carter off of committees and elected club representatives that show no concern for health through their breeding practices.

CC


----------



## rocco33

DoodlesRule said:


> How strange that only two breeders answered this.
> Particularly surprised by you Spellweaver as you have jumped on every other comment I have made like a rash, would have expected you to at least claim I had some hidden agenda


I have been working so didn't see your post - only just catching up. Nothing strange about that except that some of us have to work too 

No, I have never done or considered such a close mating and I'm not a fan of close mating either. And yes, I do work out the COI of any potential breeding (over 10 generations - it should be pointed out that COI can change a lot depending on how many generations it is over). I have working dogs, not show ones, and I have never found that there is any benefit in line breeding. I do have a breed with a large gene pool though.


----------



## Goblin

colliewobble said:


> Just a thought - if the number of good breeders really does outweigh the number of bad ones, why have the good ones not overpowered and squoze out the bad?


Has semi been answered. When I posted:


> you are judged if you belong to a group by the worst elements not the best. Indirectly everyone in the group is responsible for the standard across all elements within that group.


The answer:


XXX said:


> What a ridiculous statement - using this logic all parents are responsible for the behaviour of other peoples children, all men are responsible for wife beaters and all doctors should be judged on the behaviour of Harold Shipman !!!


To be fair it isn't easy as it's all different breed clubs and how would one breed club pressure another, but it appears the feeling or acknowledgement of responsibility isn't there.


----------



## AlbertRoss

5rivers79 said:


> So are you saying that training dogs for police or military type attack work is producing dogs with bad temperaments?


I'm saying that the Schutzhund training _requires_ dogs to have an aggressive temperament. Police dogs are thrown out of training if they don't have sufficient aggression. It's not producing bad temperaments, the dogs must have the required aggression before they can pass the test.



Nicky10 said:


> Dogs that compete in schutzhund have to be stable they only attack on command some of the most stable gsds when raised right are the old czech/ddr lines and they come mostly from protection/border control backgrounds. Some of the newer lines however are insane prey drive. The gsd was developed to be a moderate dog yes protective when need be but also capable of living in the home with children. Littermates of the war dogs from the second world war were family pets.


In theory you are right. If a dog is not with it's handler, however, and it's put in exactly the situation it's been trained for - what will it do? Schutzhund stresses that the dog must show aggression. Which is why I'd let any of my dogs play with children and move any child miles away from a dog that's either trained in Schutzhund or bred from any dogs holding Schutzhund registration.



Wildmoor said:


> again more crap from someone who does not know what they are talking about firstly the dog has to be mentaly stable, have a good character and obedient to be able to go onto the protection phase, but then you wouldnt know that as yours arent capable of doing anything


Isn't it funny that all you are capable of is a string of laughable insults. Not to mention total distortion of the truth.

For example:



> it is you talking rubbish the standard was not revised in 1925 as you state, V. Stephanitz chose him has Sieger due the shortness of the backs the current dogs had


I never mentioned revision of the standard in 1925. I said EXACTLY when the standard revisions took place and I didn't include 1925. I pointed out that von Stephanitz chose a particular dog as Sieger because the SV was running away with different breeding.

I say that Schutzhund was taken away from the SV and you put in stuff about von Stephanitz's book.  I assume you mean the _Körbuch_. The _Korbuch_ is the basis for the 'breed survey' - e.g. the Sieger. It has relevance only in Germany - unless you want to breed dogs that adhere to German rules it's totally irrelevant. It simply isn't used by the ruling bodies of ANY other countries. It's becoming painfully obvious that I know a damn sight more about GSD history than you do.

You rave on about the WGSL - and totally ignore the FACT that the breed has been ruined by the change in it since the 1970s. You don't (can't) refute the photographic evidence, after all those are all Siegers. Please explain to me how it is that for 70 odd years (from the start of the GSD) or even for 45 years (from von Stephanitz's choice of Sieger in 1925) up to the 1970s that ALL the Sieger dogs had straight backs - yet now you think that a banana back is correct? Who decided that von Stephanitz was wrong? Exactly how do you come to that conclusion? Do answer the question - not go off on one of your off the point raves.



> The standard I quoted from is the SV/FCI one, the correct one, the one V. Stephanitz developed


 Which is absolutely and totally irrelevant to the show standard in the UK which is set by the Kennel Club. And it's not "the one V. Stephanitz developed". The SV standard has been changed twice since his death - in 1961 and 1976. Isn't it funny how it was changed in 1976 - just as the bendy backs started to appear?



> if you attend you will be aware there are both sorts at Crufts


 Indeed, I was by the benching area for GSDs at Crufts 2011 from the start of judging until well after the judging had finished. During that time I saw three instances of German line GSDs fighting. Not just snarling and barking but actually fighting each other. I also saw an English line Champion laying down in one of the aisles being petted by very small children. Which type is preferable? Dogs that can't be controlled - like the fighting Germans or dogs that are well socialised?

I note that you don't explain why the 'German' clubs tried to stop the KC improving the breed health - or comment on the link to the KC statement which clearly says that a number of (German) breed clubs refuse to do anything about improvements to 'soundness in hindquarters and hocks'. Would that be because the German line breeders have a vested interest? After all if you are breeding and selling puppies now that are sub-standard it's going to take several generations to breed out those problems, isn't it?

And, do try and learn to quote properly - it's really not hard.


----------



## Galadriel17

comfortcreature said:


> ...I know in the Cavalier Clubs they demonstrated soundly that the bad outnumber the good when they kicked Margaret Carter off of committees and elected club representatives that show no concern for health through their breeding practices.
> 
> CC


Yes, what was it 200-and-something to 30 odd?


----------



## Goblin

Galadriel17 said:


> Yes, what was it 200-and-something to 30 odd?


That's the approximate number I heard. Full credit must go to those 30 though especially if it was an open ballot.


----------



## Elles

Myfynwy said:


> Yes, I realise what was being said  It was merely speculation as people were suggesting that a healthy version would not win at shows, which simply isn't true (although I agree it is not as universal as it should be and trust me I dislike the judges/breeders that are to blame as much as anyone).
> 
> In response to your second point, I refer you to my last post. Norman Davis was trying to breed healthier dogs before PDE. I am sure there are some breeders that were not though, but to me they are back yard breeders, regardless of what prizes they won.
> 
> Why would you daresay that they were happy to breed less healthy ones?? Most breeders care an incredibly amount about their dogs and the breed, why would they want to breed ill animals?? Some may well have been in denial at the detriment to their dogs but I think it highly unlikely that _most_ were actively, consciously breeding ill animals. Even the average back yard breeder is more likely breeding ill animals out of ignorance than malice.


I'm way behind, been out all day, but will answer, before I read on. 

Norman Davis himself (he was the breeder in the KC film?) said that he didn't compete his healthier bulldogs as they won't win.

To be a top show kennel you have to win at top shows? Healthier bulldogs (according to one breeder) don't win at shows, hence the less healthy ones do, hence a top show kennel breeds (or bred) the less healthy bulldogs and I'm sure was proud of them.

They may well have been quite innocent, but how anyone can think that an animal who can't breed or whelp naturally, (or breathe or run about without overheating etc) is an ethical animal to breed and something to show off and be proud of I don't know. How they can also think it's an improvement on a dog breed, completely flummoxes me.

As there has been an attempt to say that PDE could only find an unhealthy pug in Germany or Sweden or whatever (with the then following assertion that it wasn't the dog, but rather the pioneering surgery they were looking at) one could also point out that to find a healthy bulldog the Kennel Club, who have thousands of records of top show dogs, looked not at shows, but at an admirable breeder who gave up showing in order to breed a healthier dog?


----------



## Wildmoor

comfortcreature said:


> No. To publish results the owners permission must be given.
> 
> CC


no in the UK when you sign to submit to BVA for the score you also agree to publication of the result, they are published quartley in the BRS, you can purchase hip/elbow results on CD for your breed and if you go to the KC website and you know KC number or registered name you are able to get results, the results of sire/dam are also now put on the pedigree issued by KC for pup


----------



## rocco33

> hey may well have been quite innocent, but how anyone can think that an animal who can't breed or whelp naturally, (or breathe or run about without overheating etc) is an ethical animal to breed and something to show off and be proud of I don't know. How they can also think it's an improvement on a dog breed, completely flummoxes me


Considering in order to breed so many dishonestly use AI (something the KC does not allow), then I suspect ethics aren't high up on their agendas.


----------



## leashedForLife

Goblin said:


> [200 against, vs 30 for] - that's the approximate number I heard.
> Full credit must go to those 30, tho, especially if it was an open ballet.


ballet 








ballot 








:001_smile:


----------



## terencesmum

leashedForLife said:


> = i stated that *the only way to prevent puppy-buyers from breeding a pup once they'd bought it,
> was to DESEX the puppy before they took her or him from the breeder's home.*
> 
> now U claim this DOESN'T BELONG on this thread?
> what about those endorsed pups, not supposed to be bred?
> what about limited registration under AKC rules, which registers the dog
> but *will not register* any progeny of that dog?
> 
> that is why juvie-desex is highly pertinent to this thread: If we want to prevent unhealthy pups,
> or badly-structured pups, or sickly pups from being BRED, or we simply want to prevent APOs from adding
> more unplanned or surplus litters / pups / dogs to the popn, Juvie Desex is an apropos tool.
> 
> juvenile or prepubertal desex is commonly done by *shelters & rescues* to prevent adopted pets
> from being bred by the adopter or anyone else; it would also prevent *puppy-buyers
> from breeding an endorsed, limited-reg, or pet dog - permanently*. That is my point.
> 
> Have i made myself clear? :001_smile: i hope so.


You've made yourself very clear. 

Now let me make myself clear.
1) You say early neutering is okay, and that it is frequently done by American shelters. You then link some studies by said organisations. And, wow, who'd have thunk it, they conclude their practise is perfectly safe. :
I'm sorry if I sound really cynical, but that's a bit like McDonalds saying that Hamburgers are good for you. :nono:

2)I have also noticed that the primary concerns of the studies are how pups cope with GA's and if there are complications after. Surely, the main concern should be that you are lopping off puppy's bits and will never give him/her the chance to mature properly. Interestingly, almost all the pro early neutering sites I have found were America-based. :
I also can't think of a single ethical breeder who would ever do that to their puppies. In fact, most breeders have it in their contract to NOT neuter early. I wonder why that is. Personally, I would run a mile and warn all my friends, if somebody tried to sell me an 8-week old neutered pup. Maybe, for a UK perspective, you should read this:
Stan Rawlinson explains the dangers of Spaying and Castration (Neutering) young Dogs
There are also many excellent threads on this very forum, which I suggest you read at some stage.

3)I also sense a high level of hypocrisy here. After harping on for ages about animal welfare, you then go on to suggest a completely UNNECESSARY operation for tiny puppies. Are you going to tell me now that it would be for "the greater good"?? Oh please, that is almost as deluded as some of those breeders that were shown on PDE2.

4) Re the dog population concern: IF someone wants to breed, do you think they would go to a rescue to get their dog? No. Where do they go? That's right. A puppy farm or BYB. Are those "breeders" going to give a stuffed monkey about what happens to the pups? Hell no. And there's your problem. Not ethical breeders, it's all the ones who want to line their pockets.

I hope I have made myself equally clear.


----------



## Nicky10

Compared to the american dogs I think ours are much better in a lot of ways I watched the bulldog breed judging on the live stream and every one of them had to be wrapped in cooling jackets and be beside fans when not waddling around the ring and some of the other breeds the neapolitan mastiff for example (the ones here aren't fantastic either by a long way) was dreadful.

Oh and the Schutzhund dogs aren't guard dogs I remember hearing about a Schutzhund 3 rottie that just lay and watched a burglar break into it's home they should only attack on command


----------



## Nicky10

Oh and to say the options are kill all the puppies or mandatory spay/neuter is disgusting . Sounds like the kind of argument the psychos at PETA would put across


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> I'm saying that the Schutzhund training _requires_ dogs to have an aggressive temperament. Police dogs are thrown out of training if they don't have sufficient aggression. It's not producing bad temperaments, the dogs must have the required aggression before they can pass the test.
> 
> In theory you are right. If a dog is not with it's handler, however, and it's put in exactly the situation it's been trained for - what will it do? Schutzhund stresses that the dog must show aggression. Which is why I'd let any of my dogs play with children and move any child miles away from a dog that's either trained in Schutzhund or bred from any dogs holding Schutzhund registration.
> you realy havent got a clue have you what you say is laughable
> 
> Isn't it funny that all you are capable of is a string of laughable insults. Not to mention total distortion of the truth. I believe you are refering to yourself here
> 
> For example:
> 
> I never mentioned revision of the standard in 1925. I said EXACTLY when the standard revisions took place and I didn't include 1925. I pointed out that von Stephanitz chose a particular dog as Sieger because the SV was running away with different breeding. I see you also have a poor memory see post 685 when you state "Remember he revised the GSD standard to this in 1925."
> 
> 
> I say that Schutzhund was taken away from the SV and you put in stuff about von Stephanitz's book.  I assume you mean the _Körbuch_. The _Korbuch_no I am not refering to the stud book, I was refering to V. Stephanitz book and his section on training including protection work is the basis for the 'breed survey' - e.g. the Sieger the Sieger Shau is not a breed survey. It has relevance only in Germany - unless you want to breed dogs that adhere to German rules it's totally irrelevant. It simply isn't used by the ruling bodies of ANY other countries. It's becoming painfully obvious that I know a damn sight more about GSD history than you do. :lol::lol:
> 
> You rave on about the WGSL - and totally ignore the FACT that the breed has been ruined by the change in it since the 1970s. You don't (can't) refute the photographic evidence, after all those are all Siegers. Please explain to me how it is that for 70 odd years (from the start of the GSD) or even for 45 years (from von Stephanitz's choice of Sieger in 1925) up to the 1970s that ALL the Sieger dogs had straight backs - yet now you think that a banana back is correct? Who decided that von Stephanitz was wrong? Exactly how do you come to that conclusion? Do answer the question - not go off on one of your off the point raves.
> 
> Which is absolutely and totally irrelevant to the show standard in the UK which is set by the Kennel Club. And it's not "the one V. Stephanitz developed". The SV standard has been changed twice since his death - in 1961 and 1976. Isn't it funny how it was changed in 1976 - just as the bendy backs started to appear? the UK breed standard as been changed from the start to allow you to breed your windy dogs, what was it yours used to say about suspicion! that just to cover uo the weak temps you guys have
> 
> Indeed, I was by the benching area for GSDs at Crufts 2011 from the start of judging until well after the judging had finished. During that time I saw three instances of German line GSDs fighting. Not just snarling and barking but actually fighting each other. I also saw an English line Champion laying down in one of the aisles being petted by very small children. Which type is preferable? Dogs that can't be controlled - like the fighting Germans or dogs that are well socialised?I was also by the benches and saw the numerous English ones having to be covered up on the benches to stop them attacking every dog passed never saw any german ones maybe you are refering to the mixes of the 2 types as some of these have the windy temps that have come through from your type
> 
> I note that you don't explain why the 'German' clubs tried to stop the KC improving the breed health - or comment on the link to the KC statement which clearly says that a number of (German) breed clubs refuse to do anything about improvements to 'soundness in hindquarters and hocks'. Would that be because the German line breeders have a vested interest? After all if you are breeding and selling puppies now that are sub-standard it's going to take several generations to breed out those problems, isn't it?
> mm you are pityfull who has none tested dogs of weak characters that need to be strung up in the ring to stop them backing away from the judges, so who as substandard dogs? think you need to look closer to home - you still havent said what your affix is have you?
> 
> And, do try and learn to quote properly - it's really not hard.


if you dont like the way I reply tough!


----------



## Angel pedigrees

Would you like me to play some relaxing music and pour you all a voody


----------



## Shrap

Angel pedigrees said:


> Would you like me to play some relaxing music and pour you all a voody


A double please


----------



## Wildmoor

Angel pedigrees said:


> Would you like me to play some relaxing music and pour you all a voody


sorry Angel I dont consume alcohol but you can make me a nice strong lavazza


----------



## Angel pedigrees

Ok off to pour them  see thats all that was needed :thumbup:


----------



## Spellweaver

Angel pedigrees said:


> Would you like me to play some relaxing music and pour you all a voody


Thought I smelt voddy! Can I have mine with lime please?


----------



## Nicky10

I'll have some please with diet coke


----------



## dodo bird

terencesmum said:


> You've made yourself very clear.
> 
> Now let me make myself clear.
> 1) You say early neutering is okay, and that it is frequently done by American shelters. You then link some studies by said organisations. And, wow, who'd have thunk it, they conclude their practise is perfectly safe. :
> I'm sorry if I sound really cynical, but that's a bit like McDonalds saying that Hamburgers are good for you. :nono:
> 
> 2)I have also noticed that the primary concerns of the studies are how pups cope with GA's and if there are complications after. Surely, the main concern should be that you are lopping off puppy's bits and will never give him/her the chance to mature properly. Interestingly, almost all the pro early neutering sites I have found were America-based. :
> I also can't think of a single ethical breeder who would ever do that to their puppies. In fact, most breeders have it in their contract to NOT neuter early. I wonder why that is. Personally, I would run a mile and warn all my friends, if somebody tried to sell me an 8-week old neutered pup. Maybe, for a UK perspective, you should read this:
> Stan Rawlinson explains the dangers of Spaying and Castration (Neutering) young Dogs


Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs
Long-term outcome of gonadectomy performed at an early age or traditional age in dogs

Actual peer reviewed studies tend to be more reliable than one behaviorist and his fellow trainers' personal observations.

Here's a rebuttalto the article "Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete" which is regular referenced by anti-early age neuter folks.


----------



## Shrap

Currently sitting in my flat with no tv and no laptop (on my phone) - but staring at a bottle of Russian standard vodka, cinzano, tequila and a bottle of jack. Hmm..... I wonder where this night is going lol!!

I CBA getting further involved in the PDE chat on my phone. Pain in the arse quoting and replying.


----------



## leashedForLife

terencesmum said:


> You say early neutering is okay, and that it is frequently done by American shelters.
> You then link some studies by said organisations. And, wow, who'd have thunk it, they conclude
> their practise is perfectly safe. :


let's take a look at those 'shelters' whose self-congratulating *opinions* i supposedly posted: 


> Originally Posted by *leashedForLife *
> 
> the *AVMA* position statement on juvenile desex -
> *Animal Welfare AVMA policy* - Pediatric Spay/Neuter Of Dogs And Cats


the American Veterinary Medical Assoc is not a *shelter*.


> Originally Posted by *leashedForLife *
> 
> summary of findings posted on PetFinder -
> *Pediatric Spay/Neuter*: Shelter Medicine: For Shelters


Dr. Lila Miller of the ASPCA is a vet - not a *shelter*. 
i quote from her article - 


> _
> On July 18,1993, the AVMA House of Delegates approved a resolution on early age spay/neuter which stated,
> *Resolved -
> that the AVMA supports the concept of early (8-16 weeks of age) ovariohysterectomies / gonadectomies
> in dogs and cats, in an effort to stem the overpopulation problem in these species.*
> Aware of the controversy surrounding this statement, they also added that, "The concept is for the benefit of animal shelter & humane society spay/neuter programs.
> Individual veterinarians have the right/responsibility to decide at what age they will perform the procedure."
> 
> Throughout the 1990s, groups such as *AAHA, the ASPCA, AHA, Cat Fanciers Association (CFA),
> AKC, HSUS*, & the *California Veterinary Medical Association* approved pediatric neutering.
> 
> Despite these endorsements & the body of evidence that has already been gathered through research
> & anecdotal information from over 20 years of performing the procedures, the debate still goes on."_


The AVMA & CVMA are vets' organizations - one national, one state.

AAHA is a vet-hospital credentialing organization, with oversight & standards of practice.

AHA, HSUS & ASPCA are animal-welfare organizations; all are non-profit NGOs.

CFA & AKC are purebred registries, one for cats, one for dogs. 
no shelters found yet.

Dr Miller concludes - 


> _
> ADVANTAGES TO PEDIATRIC NEUTERING
> - Veterinarians familiar with the surgery insist that it's *much less physiologically stressful* on younger patients.
> - Animals are *fasted for only an hour or two*, rather than overnight to prevent hypoglycemia,
> so owners who forget to fast them overnight can still have the surgery performed the same day.
> - Animals are *awake & ambulatory usually within an hour* of completion of the surgery, so they can be fed
> a small meal & then sent home the same day.
> - The surgery is much *faster*, so it is less stressful on both the patient and the surgeon.
> - The surgery is *much cheaper*... fewer materials, & less staff time... for surgery & postoperative monitoring.
> - If the procedure is performed with the last vaccination at 3 to 4 months of age, the veterinarian does not
> have to worry about the client forgetting to return, or shopping around and going elsewhere for surgery.
> It can be included as part of a puppy care package of vaccinations, deworming & neutering.
> The delay in neutering often results in production of accidental litters, that end up at shelters._


all of that sounds reasonable - 
it's not mentioned above, but juvie-desex also causes LESS blood-loss & LESS pain. 
the genitals aren't as heavily knitted with blood-vessels as in older animals, & have fewer nerves.


> Originally Posted by *leashedForLife *
> 
> a PDF on early-age AKA juvie AKA pediatric desex -
> http://tinyurl.com/6r3me6k


a white-paper published by the WSPA for vets - *again, not a shelter.*
their references, found at the end of the PDF - 


> _
> References and further reading
> 
> *Early Spay-Neuter in the Cat*: Effect on Development of Obesity and Metabolic Rate
> Root MV, Veterinary Clinical Nutrition 1995; 2:132-134
> 
> *Effect of prepubertal & postpubertal gonadectomy on heat production measured by
> indirect calorimetry in male & female domestic cats*
> Root MV, et al. Am J Vet Research 1996; 57:371-374
> 
> *Early Spay-Neuter in the Cat:* Effect on Development of Obesity and Metabolic Rate
> Root MV, Veterinary Clinical Nutrition, Vol 2, no 4, pp132-4,1993
> 
> *Effect of prepubertal & postpubertal gonadectomy on penile extrusion & urethral
> diameter in the domestic cat*
> Root MV, Johnston SD, Johnston GR, Olson PN ,
> Veterinary Medicine & Surgery, (Small Animal) Vol 10 (1) 8-12, 1995,
> Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound 1996; 37:363-366
> 
> *Castration and Physeal Closure in the Cat*
> Houlton JEF, McGlennon NJ, Veterinary Record (1992) 131, pp 466-7
> 
> *Effects of Prepubertal Gonadectomy on Physical & Behavioural Development in Cats*
> Stubbs WP, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille VM, Lane TJ, JAMVA 209 (11) 1864-1871, 1996
> 
> *Short-term results & complications of prepubertal gonadectomy in cats & dogs*
> Howe LM, JAMVA 211 (1) 57-62 July 1997
> 
> *Early-age neutering of dogs & cats*
> Theran P, JAMVA, Vol 202, No 6, March 15 1993
> 
> *Gonadectomy in immature dogs: Effects on skeletal, physical, & behavioural development*
> Salmeri KR, et al , JAVMA 1991; 198:1193-1203
> 
> JAVMA News: *Spaying/neutering comes of age*,
> JAVMA 1993; 203:591-593
> 
> *Surgical techniques for neutering 6 to 14 week-old kittens*
> Aronsohn MG, Faggella AM, JAVMA 1993; 202:53-55
> 
> *Anaesthetic techniques for neutering 6 to 14 week-old kittens*
> Faggella AM, Aronsohn MG, JAVMA 1993; 202:56-62
> 
> *Evaluation of anaesthetic protocols for neutering 6 to 14-week-old pups*
> Faggella AM, Aronsohn MG, JAVMA 1994; 205:308-314
> 
> *When to Neuter: the Controversy*
> Guarneri-Boe MA, Lange D, Iowa State Univ. Veterinarian 1995; 57:6-9.
> 
> *Its Time For Early-Age Neutering*
> Mackie WM, California Veterinarian 1992; 46:19-21
> 
> *Should dogs in animal shelters be neutered early?*
> Crenshaw WE, Carter CN, Veterinary Medicine 1995; 90:756-760
> 
> *Early Spay/Neuter: Risks & Benefits for Shelters*
> Moulton C, American Humane Shoptalk 1990; 7:1-6 and 8:1-9
> 
> *Illinois Veterinary Bulletin*, Volume 6, Number 1, April 1998
> 
> *Early Neutering of the Dog & Cat: Pros & Cons*
> Johnston SD, BSAVA Congress, Birmingham, April 1998
> 
> *What about early neutering?*
> Haughie A, Feline Advisory Bureau Journal, Vol 36, 1998
> 
> *Paediatrics: Dogs and Cats from Birth to Six Months*, Second Edition
> Hoskins J, DVM Magazine, November 1996
> 
> *Implications of Early Neutering in the Dog & Cat*
> Stubbs WP, Bloomberg MS, Seminars in Vet-Medicine & Surgery (Small Animal),
> Vol 10, No 1; pp 8-12, February 1995
> 
> *Short-term results & complications of prepubertal gonadectomy in cats & dogs*
> Howe LM, Olson PN, Johnston SD, JAMVA, Vol 202, No 6, March 15 1993, JAMVA 211 (1) 57-
> 62 July 1997
> 
> *Early neutering of cats & dogs*
> Poole C, Vet Rec 1997, Dec 6; 141(23):608
> 
> AVMA News: *Spaying/neutering comes of age*
> JAVMA 1993; 203:591-593
> 
> *Early spay/neuter in the cat*
> Summary by Diana Cruden, PhD; A progress report on a study funded by The Winn Feline Foundation,
> 1991, continuation funded February 1992
> 
> *World Society for the Protection of Animals* is an international
> organisation working in over
> 90 countries with a network of more than 400 member societies. WSPA has representation at United Nations,
> Council of Europe, & works in co-operation with the World Health
> Organisation & the Federation
> of European Companion Animal Veterinary Associations.
> 
> *Pet Respect* is a department of WSPA which seeks to improve the status & treatment of companion animals.
> 
> 89 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP, UK.
> Tel: +44(0)20 7587 5000 Fax: +44(0)20 7793 0208
> e-mail: [email protected]
> The latest news on animal welfare and animal cruelty_


any shelters listed as authors, etc? Not a one; all vets. 


> Originally Posted by *leashedForLife *
> 
> Australian shelters have done juvie-desex for over a decade, now -
> [PDF]
> *Dept Of Primary Industries & Fisheries* GPO BOX 2482 ...
> www.uq.edu.au/ccah/docs/15309finalreport.pdf
> File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
> *Report on the Validity & Usefulness of Early-Age Desexing in Dogs & Cats*... pounds in Australia
> are taken into account, it's believed that the annual ... also known as prepubertal gonadectomy,
> paediatric or juvenile desexing, is ...


the *Dept Of Primary Industries & Fisheries* of Australia isn't a 'shelter', either.

so where's that self-interest & the blatant mistruths, omissions, & flat-out lies to promote it? 



terencesmum said:


> I also sense a high level of hypocrisy here. After harping on for ages about animal welfare, you then go on
> to suggest a completely UNNECESSARY operation for tiny puppies. Are you going to tell me now that it would be
> for "the greater good"?? Oh please, that is almost as deluded as some of those breeders that were shown on PDE2.


i have not seen PDE-II, so i cannot speak to the level of 'delusion' or indeed if there is any delusion.

however, if the pup is NOT TO BE BRED & is sold as such, desex is a simple & safe procedure which prevents 
anyone - the original purchaser, any person who later buys, adopts, steals, finds stray, etc - from breeding 
that dog. 
similarly, if the pup / kitten is adopted by someone & not to be bred, juvie-desex again assures they won't.

unlike ear-crops or tail-docks, S/N actually serves a purpose: preventing breeding.


terencesmum said:


> Re the dog population concern:
> IF someone wants to breed, do you think they would go to a rescue to get their dog? No. Where do they go?
> That's right. A puppy farm or BYB. Are those "breeders" going to give a stuffed monkey about what happens
> to the pups? Hell no. And there's your problem. Not ethical breeders, it's all the ones who want to line their pockets.


i was referring to breeders who sell direct to the buying public, not industrial scale slimeballs who sell pups 
or kittens wholesale to bunchers or brokers, who then part them out to pet-shops.

And yes, some breeders already do this: they desex the pup while still in their possession.
see this thread - 
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/114631-pediatric-s-n-pediatric-desex.html

a breeder of Irish Wolfhounds offers a *free desex* to any puppy-buyer, & does the S/N 
before the pup leaves their home for the buyer's home. :001_smile:


----------



## leashedForLife

Nicky10 said:


> ...to say the options are kill all the puppies *or* mandatory S/N is disgusting


shelters accept approx 7-million pet dogs, cats, kittens & pups every year in the USA. 
that's not counting pocket-pets, bunnies, birds, horses, etc - just felines & canines.

if they did NOT desex the young pups & kittens before releasing them to the adopters, 
given the average 40% compliance with a S/N contract, what other options would U offer?

they cannot *warehouse* all those pups & kittens till they reach traditional desex-age 
at 6-MO; they don't have the space, the budget for food & staff, etc.

the floor is Urs - what is left? 
we will do what, with literally millions of pups & kittens?

U don't want them desexed & sent home with approved adopters at 7-WO & up [in VA] 
or 8-WO & up [in other states]. What do U feel would be *better*?

Don't say, _*have the adopter desex the pup or kitten, later.*_ they tried that for 30-years, 
& 40% compliance sucks. :thumbdown:


----------



## terencesmum

leashedForLife said:


> i was referring to breeders who sell direct to the buying public, not industrial scale slimeballs who sell pups
> or kittens wholesale to bunchers or brokers, who then part them out to pet-shops.
> 
> And yes, some breeders already do this: they desex the pup while still in their possession.
> see this thread -
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/114631-pediatric-s-n-pediatric-desex.html
> 
> a breeder of Irish Wolfhounds offers a *free desex* to any puppy-buyer, & does the S/N
> before the pup leaves their home for the buyer's home. :001_smile:


I'll be honest, that really shocks me. 
I can only assume (hope) that this is the absolute minority.

For me, this is an irresponsible breeder. Would be interesting to know how many people would actually buy a puppy like that in the UK. I would guess not many.
(This is really for a different thread, though)


----------



## leashedForLife

> Originally Posted by *leashedForLife*
> 
> i was referring to breeders who sell direct to the buying public, not industrial scale slimeballs who sell pups
> or kittens wholesale to bunchers or brokers, who then part them out to pet-shops.
> 
> And yes, some breeders already do this: they desex the pup while still in their possession.
> see this thread -
> pediatric S/N or pediatric desex
> 
> a breeder of Irish Wolfhounds offers a free desex to any puppy-buyer, & does the S/N
> before the pup leaves their home for the buyer's home.





terencesmum said:


> I'll be honest, that really shocks me.
> I can only assume (hope) that this is the absolute minority.
> 
> For me, this is an irresponsible breeder. Would be interesting to know how many people would actually
> buy a puppy like that in the UK. I would guess not many.
> (*This is really for a different thread, though*)


Why is it for a *"different thread"*?

Irish Wolfhounds sold to pet-homes on a desex contract are not 'purebred' enuf? 
what's the problem? We are discussing unhealthy heritable traits in dogs, & similar problems, 
such as bad structure, dystichia, entropion/ectropion, etc.

*The pet-overpopn problem* is a related issue, since many APOs don't "intend" to breed - they breed accidentally, 
by putting off the spay or neuter surgery, not supervising adequately, being ignorant as rocks about dog-biology, 
etc. Suddenly they realize that FiFi is in heat - *cuz she's tied to the male dog from 2-streets over.* 
Duh. : Do they get the mismate jab, or an immediate spay within 7-days time? Nooooo...

~sigh. I'm done; do whatever. Ta.


----------



## Goblin

Have to agree it's a topic for a different thread. It doesn't relate to the contents of PDE or PDE2.


----------



## Megan_M

AlbertRoss said:


> Under Schutzhund rules one of the things that a dog MUST do, if it is to pass the test, is attack. It is taught to attack when surprised by someone waving their arms about and making a lot of noise. So, if you have a small child that's prone to excitement - that is they scream or shout and wave their arms about - don't let it anywhere near one of Wildmoor's dogs. We already covered the rubbish spoken about the idea that they only attack a sleeve. A GSD with the sort of temperament that is desirable for passing a Schutzhund test will attack exactly as it has been trained to. In fact, going by the behaviour of the German dogs at Crufts in 2011 they'll attack each other without the slightest provocation. (It happened 3 times while I was in the benching area).
> ......................................
> The reality is that Schutzhund is a 'sport' that the German GSD owners indulge in because they think it proves something about their dogs. It does - it proves they are training dogs of unsound temperament that can attack without warning. And it's why, from time to time, you'll get a bunch of news stories about dog attacks that will concentrate on the GSD. After all, if you train them to attack why would you be surprised when they do?





AlbertRoss said:


> I'm saying that the Schutzhund training _requires_ dogs to have an aggressive temperament. Police dogs are thrown out of training if they don't have sufficient aggression. It's not producing bad temperaments, the dogs must have the required aggression before they can pass the test.
> 
> In theory you are right. If a dog is not with it's handler, however, and it's put in exactly the situation it's been trained for - what will it do? Schutzhund stresses that the dog must show aggression. Which is why I'd let any of my dogs play with children and move any child miles away from a dog that's either trained in Schutzhund or bred from any dogs holding Schutzhund registration.


Again Schutzhund dogs are not the same as Police dogs.

All the dogs at our club apart from 5 (2 owned by one person 3 owned by another) live in the house as part of the family, They either live with kids (one of our trainers and helpers, a couple, have a 10/11 year old and a 2 year old with 2 schH3 dogs and a 10 month old pup thats being trained right now) or have kids coming in and out of their houses, we have either my 4 year old neice or 2 year old nephew stay most friday or saturday nights and trust Z (our gsd who is training in Schutzhund) with both of them, aswell as friends kids and stranger's kids, whether they are calm or excited. Other members have their grandkids of various ages coming in and out of their houses and again the dogs don't bother.

Our trainer/helpers 2 year old comes to training every weekend and none of the dogs even so much as glance at him, even when he's running around and shouting/screaming.
Our other trainer has had many sch dogs and also has two adult daughters who grew up with these dogs and haven't been attacked by any of his dogs.

Z has been on a walk offlead with our friend and her 7/8year old boy who likes to run ahead and back and shout etc and again he's never tried to attack him or even looked at him like he wanted to.

Call it rubbish all you want the dogs are trained to bite the sleeve.

I'm going to ask again, 
How many Schutzhund dogs do you have? Have you trained? Met? 
How many Schutzhund clubs have you been to? How many Schutzhund trials have you been to?
How many times have you watched Schutzhund training in person? In particular the protection aspect? Adult dogs and from puppy upwards?

Also under the rules of Schutzhund ....Taken from the Schutzhund wikipedia page.


> Additionally, before a dog can compete for a SchH1, he must pass a temperament test called a B or BH (Begleithundprüfung, which translates as "traffic-sure companion dog test"). The B tests basic obedience and sureness around strange people, strange dogs, traffic, and loud noises. A dog that exhibits excessive fear, distractibility, or aggression cannot pass the B and so cannot go on to schutzhund.





Nicky10 said:


> Oh and the Schutzhund dogs aren't guard dogs I remember hearing about a Schutzhund 3 rottie that just lay and watched a burglar break into it's home they should only attack on command


Yup heard about that one and a couple others.
Our schutzhund trained gsd Z loves everyone, especially likes going to the pet obed class I take my pup to as he gets loves from everyone and loves getting to have a wee play with the other dogs in the waiting area


----------



## terencesmum

leashedForLife said:


> let's take a look at those 'shelters' whose self-congratulating *opinions* i supposedly posted:


Yeah, let's.



leashedForLife said:


> the AVMA position statement on juvenile desex -
> Animal Welfare AVMA policy - Pediatric Spay/Neuter Of Dogs And Cats
> 
> I don't know why you posted this to be honest. Just because it's their policy doesn't make it right.
> 
> summary of findings posted on PetFinder -
> Pediatric Spay/Neuter: Shelter Medicine: For Shelters
> 
> a PDF on early-age AKA juvie AKA pediatric desex -
> http://tinyurl.com/6r3me6k
> 
> If you have a look who performed these "studies", they are vets who work for the ASPCA and the WSPA, rescue organisations. Which is what I said in my original posts. They are obviously not going to say that their employers' policy is wrong. Really quite sweet that you don't seem to question these at all.
> They also only look at dogs up to 4 years after their early neuter. Says it all really.
> 
> Australian shelters have done juvie-desex for over a decade, now -
> [PDF]
> Dept Of Primary Industries & Fisheries GPO BOX 2482 ...
> www.uq.edu.au/ccah/docs/15309finalreport.pdf
> File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
> _Report on the Validity & Usefulness of Early-Age Desexing in Dogs & Cats... pounds in Australia
> are taken into account, it's believed that the annual ... also known as prepubertal gonadectomy,
> paediatric or juvenile desexing, is ..._
> 
> I find it pretty funny that you post this to support your view. The study actually concludes that it does not recommend early neutering for puppies. Have you read these links?? :lol:
> 
> a thread on juvie-desex with multiple journal links, vets' articles, etc -
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/114631-pediatric-s-n-pediatric-desex.html


I didn't look at a lot of those studies after the general quality of the studies you post became apparent. So, I'll just say, studies on cats aren't relevant here. Studies with data provided by rescues are biased. Vets who work for rescues are biased. And studies with very few dogs can hardly be considered conclusive.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Wildmoor said:


> if you dont like the way I reply tough!


As eloquent as always  [It's really just good manners to reply properly. But I guess such things pass you by. And I don't see why I should waste my time extracting all your ranting if you can't be bothered to follow forum etiquette].

Let's boil this down to the really simple (i.e. something you can understand). As far as PDE1 was concerned the GSDs shown (from Manchester and Crufts) had awful frogs legs. All the dogs shown were German type shapes e.g. roach backs. I've never, ever, seen an English type dog which looked like that.

So, one easy question.

Click this link and look at the photos. All of these dogs were the 'top' dog under SV rules (when they existed). From 1899 to the early 1970s ALL those dogs have straight backs (e.g they are pretty much the same as the English type of dog now). ALL those dogs conform to the standard set down by Von Stephanitz. And then, along comes the bendy back. Just who decided that von Stephanitz was wrong and that bendy backs were right?

Is that simple enough for you?

You've avoided this 3 times now. Try not to avoid it again. I've even made the link for you to click big enough for you not to miss it.


----------



## Nicky10

Not in the UK of course but in the US they brought in earthdog trials for the smaller terriers and those poor deformed crippled dachshunds (and trust me after looking after three for a week they're plenty athletic :blink where they go down a fake warren and sniff out a rat (in a cage). The assumption was the breeds with recent working history would be the ones to excel the parson russell for example the breed that regularly wins is the westie out of generations of show dogs. Even some of the toys do it like yorkies the show ring hasn't changed the terriers that much that they can't do their job. People liked the temperment the cockiness and fiestiness so they kept it


----------



## Snoringbear

Nicky10 said:


> Not in the UK of course but in the US they brought in earthdog trials for the smaller terriers and those poor deformed crippled dachshunds (and trust me after looking after three for a week they're plenty athletic :blink where they go down a fake warren and sniff out a rat (in a cage). The assumption was the breeds with recent working history would be the ones to excel the parson russell for example the breed that regularly wins is the westie out of generations of show dogs. Even some of the toys do it like yorkies the show ring hasn't changed the terriers that much that they can't do their job. People liked the temperment the cockiness and fiestiness so they kept it


Until 1968 the Irish Kennel Club used to do a similar thing with all terriers before being awarded Champion status. It was called the Teastas Mor, or Certificate of Gameness, but it was a real badger sett with a real badger in it.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Megan_M said:


> Again Schutzhund dogs are not the same as Police dogs.


I agree. I posted the answer to an earlier question about aggression and drew a clear distinction. However, as you should admit - there are three essential parts to Schutzhund training of which the third is attack.



> All the dogs at our club apart from 5 (2 owned by one person 3 owned by another) live in the house as part of the family, They either live with kids (one of our trainers and helpers, a couple, have a 10/11 year old and a 2 year old with 2 schH3 dogs and a 10 month old pup thats being trained right now) or have kids coming in and out of their houses, we have either my 4 year old neice or 2 year old nephew stay most friday or saturday nights and trust Z (our gsd who is training in Schutzhund) with both of them, aswell as friends kids and stranger's kids, whether they are calm or excited. Other members have their grandkids of various ages coming in and out of their houses and again the dogs don't bother.
> 
> Our trainer/helpers 2 year old comes to training every weekend and none of the dogs even so much as glance at him, even when he's running around and shouting/screaming.
> Our other trainer has had many sch dogs and also has two adult daughters who grew up with these dogs and haven't been attacked by any of his dogs.
> 
> Z has been on a walk offlead with our friend and her 7/8year old boy who likes to run ahead and back and shout etc and again he's never tried to attack him or even looked at him like he wanted to.


And in all of those situations either the dog's handler is present or the dogs are familiar with the people he/she is with.



> Call it rubbish all you want the dogs are trained to bite the sleeve.


 No - they are trained to bite a _padded_ sleeve which is worn for protection. If that padded sleeve isn't there they will bite the arm



> I'm going to ask again,
> How many Schutzhund dogs do you have? Have you trained? Met?
> How many Schutzhund clubs have you been to? How many Schutzhund trials have you been to?
> How many times have you watched Schutzhund training in person? In particular the protection aspect? Adult dogs and from puppy upwards?


I don't really see any point in answering this as it has nothing to do with the subject in hand but the answer is that I went to a Schutzhund meeting once. I was so appalled by what I saw that I would never go back. Nor would I ever have a Schutzhund dog.

Despite all your protests - the FACT is that Schutzhund trained dogs do go for the arm. Here's some quotes on a forum devoted to dogs, and these are all from the Schutzhund part of it: "_I happen to agree with the schutzhund dog going for the sleeve, mine when he first goes on a threat goes to the arm. I am lucky he does not care if there is a sleeve._". Not enough? Same forum: "_My 11month old bitch scared a stray dog! He was coming towards me and my bitch intervened. She leapt for him and almost bit him. The dog of course ran away. Oh and btw she is a showline bitch_!" and "_as long as you catch them in the same split second when they are contemplating coming at you or someone else, you can stop it....but if you are even a split second off and they go from thinking about it to planning on doing it, in their minds, they're halfway there and you are really powerless to control them mentally at that point._"

Every one of those was an owner of a Schutzhund trained dog. 'Nuff said.


----------



## Shrap

And as I have already said. There is a great difference between a dog trained using its prey drive and a dog trained in defence drive. Where the hell the Smokeybear??

The unstable dogs are ones with high defence and low threshold.

Christ do your research.


----------



## 5rivers79

If breed standards state a dog must be fit for purpose then why is there a separation between showlines and working lines? Why cant a showline GSD be good at herding or police work or Schutzhund? 

Albert Ross, i know you dont like Schutzhund but would your dogs be able to work in that field or herding etc?


----------



## Paganman

AlbertRoss said:


> Here's some quotes on a forum devoted to dogs, and these are all from the Schutzhund part of it: "_I happen to agree with the schutzhund dog going for the sleeve, mine when he first goes on a threat goes to the arm. I am lucky he does not care if there is a sleeve._". Not enough? Same forum: "_My 11month old bitch scared a stray dog! He was coming towards me and my bitch intervened. She leapt for him and almost bit him. The dog of course ran away. Oh and btw she is a showline bitch_!" and "_as long as you catch them in the same split second when they are contemplating coming at you or someone else, you can stop it....but if you are even a split second off and they go from thinking about it to planning on doing it, in their minds, they're halfway there and you are really powerless to control them mentally at that point._"
> 
> Every one of those was an owner of a Schutzhund trained dog. 'Nuff said.


do you have a link to this forum so we can see if the sensible people replied to the above posts?

In the interests of balance and all that


----------



## Wildmoor

5rivers79 said:


> If breed standards state a dog must be fit for purpose then why is there a separation between showlines and working lines? Why cant a showline GSD be good at herding or police work or Schutzhund?
> 
> Albert Ross, i know you dont like Schutzhund but would your dogs be able to work in that field or herding etc?


I will read back after to catch up but you will find many showline dogs in Germany with HGH qualifications including dogs working the sheep on a daily basis.


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> As eloquent as always  [It's really just good manners to reply properly. But I guess such things pass you by. And I don't see why I should waste my time extracting all your ranting if you can't be bothered to follow forum etiquette].
> 
> Let's boil this down to the really simple (i.e. something you can understand). As far as PDE1 was concerned the GSDs shown (from Manchester and Crufts) had awful frogs legs. All the dogs shown were German type shapes e.g. roach backs. I've never, ever, seen an English type dog which looked like that.
> 
> So, one easy question.
> 
> Click this link and look at the photos. All of these dogs were the 'top' dog under SV rules (when they existed). From 1899 to the early 1970s ALL those dogs have straight backs (e.g they are pretty much the same as the English type of dog now). ALL those dogs conform to the standard set down by Von Stephanitz. And then, along comes the bendy back. Just who decided that von Stephanitz was wrong and that bendy backs were right?
> 
> Is that simple enough for you?
> 
> You've avoided this 3 times now. Try not to avoid it again. I've even made the link for you to click big enough for you not to miss it.


I am not interested in your links just from your answers it proves you have little knowledge re crufts/manchester this was 6 dogs including pups from how many she viewed in the year to gather her evidence, and she admitted she did go after the wrong type, you have still not answered the many Qs I have asked you have you. Again I will state the English dogs d not look like the early dogs far from it not just in shape but height length ratio and Weight.

again who are you? what is your Affix? thats if you have one - no one here appears to know you, instead of just copying and pasting information you get from 1 or 2 sites engage your brain


----------



## Paganman

Wildmoor said:


> again who are you? what is your Affix?


you have asked often enough that I would have thought someone so knowledgeable and passionate would proudly state their Affix?

Would be interesting to know, the GSD world, both show and working is very small  maybe that's why they are not fessin up  if they have one :


----------



## Megan_M

AlbertRoss said:


> I agree. I posted the answer to an earlier question about aggression and drew a clear distinction. However, as you should admit - there are three essential parts to Schutzhund training of which the third is attack.
> 
> And in all of those situations either the dog's handler is present or the dogs are familiar with the people he/she is with.
> 
> No - they are trained to bite a _padded_ sleeve which is worn for protection. If that padded sleeve isn't there they will bite the arm
> 
> I don't really see any point in answering this as it has nothing to do with the subject in hand but the answer is that I went to a Schutzhund meeting once. I was so appalled by what I saw that I would never go back. Nor would I ever have a Schutzhund dog.
> 
> Despite all your protests - the FACT is that Schutzhund trained dogs do go for the arm. Here's some quotes on a forum devoted to dogs, and these are all from the Schutzhund part of it: "_I happen to agree with the schutzhund dog going for the sleeve, mine when he first goes on a threat goes to the arm. I am lucky he does not care if there is a sleeve._". Not enough? Same forum: "_My 11month old bitch scared a stray dog! He was coming towards me and my bitch intervened. She leapt for him and almost bit him. The dog of course ran away. Oh and btw she is a showline bitch_!" and "_as long as you catch them in the same split second when they are contemplating coming at you or someone else, you can stop it....but if you are even a split second off and they go from thinking about it to planning on doing it, in their minds, they're halfway there and you are really powerless to control them mentally at that point._"
> 
> Every one of those was an owner of a Schutzhund trained dog. 'Nuff said.


There isn't three essential parts there is only three parts total, Tracking, Obedience and Protection not "attack".

The 2 yr old wasn't a known child to any of the dogs other than their own (at the time 2 dogs) when they first moved here, all the dogs never bothered about him.... Z is great with strangers kids aswell as ones he knows, we take him alot of places and have had kids come and run up and just hug him or shout in his face and he's not bothered. 
Of course the handler/owner is present the only time any dog i know personally schutzhund or not is left without their handler/owner is when the owners go out of the house or to work, last I checked dogs shouldn't be wondering around the streets by themselves.

It's relevant as it shows what your basing your opinion of Schutzhund dogs on which is going to a meeting once and reading stuff in books/online. Where as I'm basing mine on real life experience having attended a Schutzhund club for a little over 2 years, nearly every sunday and most saturdays aswell, Attending 6 trials and the last two nationals to watch/support members of our club. Aswell as reading stuff/researching stuff online. And of course living with a gsd thats been going to Schutzhund since he was 10/11 weeks old.

It's not 'Nuff said, Taking quotes from one site and posting them here without the rest of the thread takes them out of context, prehaps you could post a link to that site so I can read the whole threads?

I was going to reply to your bit about german dogs at crufts going for each other earlier but decided not to, however with the above one about scaring a stray dog away, I don't see how dog to dog aggression is relevant to Schutzhund dogs supposedly being trained to go for the arm.

But to round this post up the dogs are trained to bite the sleeve, you have been to one meeting(assuming you mean training session?) and appears everything else you get from books/online, Not real life experience.



Wildmoor said:


> again who are you? what is your Affix? thats if you have one - no one here appears to know you, instead of just copying and pasting information you get from 1 or 2 sites engage your brain


Yeah I'm wondering the same thing... Albert do you have any pics of your dogs so as I can see what you mean about the difference between your dogs and the other showline/WGSL ones as our boy is working line and when I was showing my oldest rottie I never payed attention to the gsd rings.


----------



## leashedForLife

> _
> originally posted by *leashedForLife* -
> 
> a PDF on early-age AKA juvie AKA pediatric desex - _
> http://tinyurl.com/6r3me6k





terencesmum said:


> If you have a look who performed these "studies", they are vets who work for the ASPCA & the WSPA,
> rescue organisations.


no, they're not. 
the studies were published in peer-reviewed journals - the DATA may have come from shelters, 
as shelters perform an abundance of juvie-desex surgeries, but the vets were not in their employ. 
*J E F Houlton - *
Interview with J.E.F. Houlton | Orthovetsupersite

*N J McGlennon - * citations & links: 
*The Diagnosis and Prognosis of Synovial Tumors in Dogs: 35 Cases*
vet.sagepub.com/content/39/1/66.full.pdf 
by LE Craig - 2002 - Cited by 48 - Related articles
14 Madewell BR, Pool R: Neoplasms of joints and related structures. Vet Clin North Am 8:511521, 1978. 15 
*McGlennon NJ*, Houlton JEF, Gorman NT: *Synovial ...*

Clinical biochemistry of domestic animals - Jiro J. Kaneko, John W. Harvey, Michael Bruss - Google Books

Tumors in domestic animals - Donald J. Meuten - Google Books

Cancer in dogs and cats: medical and surgical management - Wallace B. Morrison - Google Books

Textbook of small animal surgery - Douglas H. Slatter - Google Books

Dogs : Acute idiopathic polyradiculoneuritis | Vetstream

that's just 2 of the vets whose papers were cited - would U like more? :001_smile: i'm willing.

what about the various veterinary-orgs, which approved juvie-desex as safe & ethical? 
The AVMA & CVMA are vets' organizations - one national, one state.

AAHA is a vet-hospital credentialing organization, with oversight & standards of practice.

animal-welfare orgs / NGOs don't count?
AHA, HSUS & ASPCA are animal-welfare organizations; all are non-profit NGOs.

purebred registries don't count, either?
CFA & AKC are purebred registries, one for cats, one for dogs.

the American College of Theriogenologists list of references - 
theriogenologists are *fertility specialists*, BTW - another Board-certified specialty. 
note that the papers which i cited, so far as i can see, are all included on this prestigious list, 
which i just found. 
page 1 - 
American College of Theriogenologists

page 2 - 
American College of Theriogenologists

the ACT would not list a paper that was considered suspect, tainted, ethically conflicted, etc.


----------



## Paganman

leashedForLife said:


> no, they're not.
> the studies were published in peer-reviewed journals - the DATA may have come from shelters,
> as shelters perform an abundance of juvie-desex surgeries, but the vets were not in their employ.
> *J E F Houlton - *
> Interview with J.E.F. Houlton | Orthovetsupersite
> 
> *N J McGlennon - * citations & links:
> *The Diagnosis and Prognosis of Synovial Tumors in Dogs: 35 Cases*
> vet.sagepub.com/content/39/1/66.full.pdf
> by LE Craig - 2002 - Cited by 48 - Related articles
> 14 Madewell BR, Pool R: Neoplasms of joints and related structures. Vet Clin North Am 8:511521, 1978. 15
> *McGlennon NJ*, Houlton JEF, Gorman NT: *Synovial ...*
> 
> Clinical biochemistry of domestic animals - Jiro J. Kaneko, John W. Harvey, Michael Bruss - Google Books
> 
> Tumors in domestic animals - Donald J. Meuten - Google Books
> 
> Cancer in dogs and cats: medical and surgical management - Wallace B. Morrison - Google Books
> 
> Textbook of small animal surgery - Douglas H. Slatter - Google Books
> 
> Dogs : Acute idiopathic polyradiculoneuritis | Vetstream
> 
> that's just 2 of the vets whose papers were cited - would U like more? :001_smile: i'm willing.
> 
> what about the various veterinary-orgs, which approved juvie-desex as safe & ethical?
> The AVMA & CVMA are vets' organizations - one national, one state.
> 
> AAHA is a vet-hospital credentialing organization, with oversight & standards of practice.
> 
> animal-welfare orgs / NGOs don't count?
> AHA, HSUS & ASPCA are animal-welfare organizations; all are non-profit NGOs.
> 
> purebred registries don't count, either?
> CFA & AKC are purebred registries, one for cats, one for dogs.
> 
> the American College of Theriogenologists list of references -
> theriogenologists are *fertility specialists*, BTW - another Board-certified specialty.
> note that the papers which i cited, so far as i can see, are all included on this prestigious list,
> which i just found.
> page 1 -
> American College of Theriogenologists
> 
> page 2 -
> American College of Theriogenologists
> 
> the ACT would not list a paper that was considered suspect, tainted, ethically conflicted, etc.


You make some good points, but most of your posts are quite fragmented, to long and the bold distracts as well as the txt tlk u do.

Most of the time I'm like.......... TL,DR


----------



## Angel pedigrees

I can not keep up, i have headache and im not even a quarter of the way through the links :crazy:


----------



## Goblin

A very interesting letter was written in 1962 (Feb 8th of that year to be more exact) to the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research which I've added as an attachment for completeness but will include some quotes:



> Vets are not, as a body, biased for or against any particular breeds. Some of their recent statements have been very significant.
> 
> One of them was reported in a recent issue of The Journal of Small Animal Practice. An article in this professional publication stated outright that the Executive Committee of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association had become "very concerned" at the serious increase in the number of pedigree dogs suffering from defects and abnormalities, and by the corresponding
> increase in requests for surgical correction of these faults. Significantly, the author of the article was Dr. S. F. J. Hodgman, of the Canine Health Centre, near Newmarket.


I'll quote this but it's important to stress this practice is not condoned at all by the KC but is a sign of the times it was written.


> Many animals that in normal times would have been destroyed were sold for twice the price that a good specimen should have realized. In addition, immediately after the war there was an influx of novice dog breeders who were inclined to sentimentality and did not cull as the more experienced breeder would normally have done.


I feel it puts the culling discussion in PDE more into perspective. It was an accepted practice but times and what is considered right have thankfully changed.

It goes on (I'm trying to be fair here)


> Irrespective of the causes, the alarming fact remains that the percentage of unsound stock is on the increase. The Kennel Club has already legislated in connection with cryptorchidism, and with progressive retinal atrophy in red Irish setters, but there are difficulties which at present preclude further action by them against other possibly hereditary defects.


But the most damning quote and one I feel equally applicable now:


> *Heads in the Sand*
> There is no suggestion that dog breeders and exhibitors of pedigree dogs are deliberately dishonest. Their worst faults are ignorance and a disinclination to face up to unpleasant facts.


As mentioned in my first sentence, 1962 and still the same attitudes prevail in many cases.


----------



## AlbertRoss

5rivers79 said:


> If breed standards state a dog must be fit for purpose then why is there a separation between showlines and working lines? Why cant a showline GSD be good at herding or police work or Schutzhund?
> 
> Albert Ross, i know you dont like Schutzhund but would your dogs be able to work in that field or herding etc?


If they were trained to - no problem. I wouldn't train them that way though.



Paganman said:


> do you have a link to this forum so we can see if the sensible people replied to the above posts?
> 
> In the interests of balance and all that


The forum rules here state that I can't do that. You could try Google though.



Wildmoor said:


> I am not interested in your links just from your answers it proves you have little knowledge re crufts/manchester this was 6 dogs including pups from how many she viewed in the year to gather her evidence, and she admitted she did go after the wrong type, you have still not answered the many Qs I have asked you have you. Again I will state the English dogs d not look like the early dogs far from it not just in shape but height length ratio and Weight.


The reason you won't comment on that link is because it proves, absolutely, that you don't know what you are talking about.

That link shows all the Siegers and all the 'top' dogs in Germany from 1899 onwards. It's not my link and ALL the dogs shown are German.

Why won't you answer the question? Because you know everything you've said on here will be proved a lie.



> again who are you? what is your Affix? thats if you have one - no one here appears to know you, instead of just copying and pasting information you get from 1 or 2 sites engage your brain


I'm not sharing my affix here to satisfy your curiosity. It's irrelevant to the discussion and I see no reason whatsoever to indulge in a public argument with you about my own dogs. The issue is the breed - not any individual kennel. You won't engage with facts - you just keep on and on drivelling your opinion.

Your idiotic statement "I'm not interested in your links" just proves that you have something to hide and it's typical of the breeders of German type dogs where the self opinionated are destroying a beautiful breed.

So far I've provided evidence that:
a) The shape of the dog has deviated from the standard - due to German breeders.
b) All dogs shown in JH's film with bad hindquarters were German.
c) The German Breed clubs refused, absolutely, to engage with the KC to address the problem of bad hocks.

These are all health issues - yet you consistently ignore them and blether on about things that aren't related. Your opinions mean nothing. Show me the facts.

Provide ANY evidence that the statements above aren't true.


----------



## 5rivers79

I must say the above post does make valid comments. Why did German dogs alter their shape after a certain period? The earlier ones look fine imo...but thats me talking from a layman's point of view.


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> If they were trained to - no problem. I wouldn't train them that way though.
> 
> The forum rules here state that I can't do that. You could try Google though.
> 
> The reason you won't comment on that link is because it proves, absolutely, that you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> That link shows all the Siegers and all the 'top' dogs in Germany from 1899 onwards. It's not my link and ALL the dogs shown are German.
> 
> Why won't you answer the question? Because you know everything you've said on here will be proved a lie.
> 
> I'm not sharing my affix here to satisfy your curiosity. It's irrelevant to the discussion and I see no reason whatsoever to indulge in a public argument with you about my own dogs. The issue is the breed - not any individual kennel. You won't engage with facts - you just keep on and on drivelling your opinion.
> 
> Your idiotic statement "I'm not interested in your links" just proves that you have something to hide and it's typical of the breeders of German type dogs where the self opinionated are destroying a beautiful breed.
> 
> So far I've provided evidence that:
> a) The shape of the dog has deviated from the standard - due to German breeders.
> b) All dogs shown in JH's film with bad hindquarters were German.
> c) The German Breed clubs refused, absolutely, to engage with the KC to address the problem of bad hocks.
> 
> These are all health issues - yet you consistently ignore them and blether on about things that aren't related. Your opinions mean nothing. Show me the facts.
> 
> Provide ANY evidence that the statements above aren't true.


Once again how many dogs have you had your hands on to prove what you are saying about roach backs ( a term known as carp backs in the 1920's) the way the dogs are shown and stood has changed but not very many have a true roach back - this is a fault that as been in the breed for 90+ years - yes there was some corruption re the Martin brothers but anyone who knows the breed is aware of this! (ten year period 1984-1994), there have been many changes since they passed away in 1996 - if you know anything about breeding & genetics you will be aware things dont happen overnight.
You go on about JH's film as if she filmed hundreds not 6, even then she admitted later she went after the wrong type!
Yes there are health issues in All types you go one about the BIS GSDs at Crufts which is laughable when you consider they were either or both producers of epilepsy or fitters.
Again if you know anything about the arguements between the German type clubs and the KC you will know there is a long history behind that and it is the German type who having been consistently demand health test be made mandatory not like your type who rarely do them and if they do breed regardless of the results - you may fool those not in the breed but members on here who have a long association with the breed know you are lying and twisting facts, and again you are the idiotic one it just proves it with your comments about SchH. There again yours wouldnt pass the temperment test would they !
You wont give your affix because either you are lying about your dogs health tests or you dont own English showline and you are one of the coloured LC brigade, proof of that is in the fact you stated your dog had ED3
Differece between me and you is I can answer you without going away and using google 
I dont have anything to prove to you, as deep down you know you distort facts and lying not even consistently you realy are the idiotic one here


----------



## leashedForLife

Paganman said:


> You make some good points, but most of your posts are quite fragmented, [too] long & the *bold* distracts[,]
> as well as the txt-tlk u do.


i was challenged on the veracity of the journal-articles, & it was stated that the vets who wrote the papers 
[to paraphrase] were all shelter employees - which, as is obvious, they aren't.

i took the 1st 2 co-authors listed, & they're not local surgeons at some dinky shelter in Mugwump, N Dakota, 
or grad-students writing their dissertations - they're highly-reputed & well-established. if that's TMI, 
gee-whiz --- that's what _terenceMum_ demanded, & that's what i brought back.

my TXT TLK is limited to U vs 'you' - sorry U find that too awkward to accommodate. ::shrug::


----------



## chaka

5rivers79 said:


> If breed standards state a dog must be fit for purpose then why is there a separation between showlines and working lines? Why cant a showline GSD be good at herding or police work or Schutzhund?
> 
> Albert Ross, i know you dont like Schutzhund but would your dogs be able to work in that field or herding etc?


My bitch is currently in whelp to a showline, CC winning dog who has his SchHI and is working towards II. He is also a gentle bear of a dog, who lives with a family with children and I particularly chose him for his laid back temperament.
It is perfectly doable (is that a word), at the British Sieger show all the dogs in the top Working Dog class have to have a Schutzhund qualification. The working line dogs have a stronger work ethic yes, and in some cases would maybe be too hard for the average pet owner but it is wrong to say a showline dog cannot work.


----------



## Moobli

Shrap said:


> Yes, it helps the dog to gait more efficiently. And from my personal experience hasn't limited the dogs in anything else. I'm sure there are extreme examples that are limited, but the vast majority are not.


I am just catching up on this thread (head spinning!). However, I just wanted to pick up on this point. I always thought Yogi, my WGSL, had fabulous movement, that was until I got my working line dog (from mainly DDR breeding). His movement is really poetry in motion


----------



## Moobli

AlbertRoss said:


> Total b*llshit. In 1925 the dog was chosen as a Sieger by the man who 'invented' the breed because what was happening in German breeding was a disaster. The 1925 dog was a reversion to how the dog should be. Up until the 1970s ALL the dogs had straight backs. The only GSDs ever to have won the Best in Show at Crufts were all straight backs.
> 
> The FACT is that the so-called 'Germanic' types are an aberration bred by people who ought to know better but care more for their "sport" of Schutzhund than they do about dog health. Even Schutzhund was taken away from them. (In 2004 the SV and _Deutscher Hundesportverein_, the German Sporting Dog Association, passed control of Schutzhund to the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI). It is now a sport undertaken by Belgian Malinois, Boxers, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Cane Corso, Giant Schnauzers, Bouvier des Flandres, Dutch Shepherd Dogs, Beaucerons, American Bulldogs, Black Russian Terriers, Airedale Terriers, Australian Cattle Dogs and horror of horrors - crossbreeds).
> 
> And, of course, Wildmoor would have you believe that the dogs were always roach backs. So, here's the 1937 Sieger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pfeffer von Bern. As you can see the dog has a distinct upward curve in its back - NOT.
> 
> The 'standard' for GSDs was originally set in 1899, revised in 1901, 1909, 1930 and 1961 according to the records of _Verein fur Deutsche Schaeferhunde_ (known as SV), the original GSD society formed by von Stephanitz and A Meyer. However, the SV then became part of the WUSV (a world body) who in 1976 revised the standard again. The standard Wildmoor quoted is that of the WUSV and is NOT the Kennel Club standard.
> 
> (And the point of this thread is about PDE and pedigree dogs in the UK). The KC have tried to address the problem of health in the GSD. The link here shows what happened when they tried. The clubs opposed to this were all 'German' clubs.
> 
> The indisputable FACT is that the 'German' breeds have changed the shape of the dog since the 1970's. Here's a link, not to 'English' dogs but to the 'German' dogs that have won the Sieger title. It's quite clear that the dogs are all staight-backed until the 1970's and get progressively worse after 1976. (Don't worry, Wildmoor will claim that up to then they were still using crossbreeds to develop the dog : )
> 
> Under Schutzhund rules one of the things that a dog MUST do, if it is to pass the test, is attack. It is taught to attack when surprised by someone waving their arms about and making a lot of noise. So, if you have a small child that's prone to excitement - that is they scream or shout and wave their arms about - don't let it anywhere near one of Wildmoor's dogs. We already covered the rubbish spoken about the idea that they only attack a sleeve. A GSD with the sort of temperament that is desirable for passing a Schutzhund test will attack exactly as it has been trained to. In fact, going by the behaviour of the German dogs at Crufts in 2011 they'll attack each other without the slightest provocation. (It happened 3 times while I was in the benching area).
> 
> The German breeders argue that GSDs should be trained in Schutzhund to maintain the working ability of the dog. This is simply fatuous rubbish. Even in Germany a GSD can be registered if it's a sheepdog. Actually, it's ONLY in Germany that they insist on one or the other. It's as relevant as saying that all poodles should only ever be registered if they can prove they can retrieve game from water - after all, that's what they were originally designed to do.
> 
> The reality is that Schutzhund is a 'sport' that the German GSD owners indulge in because they think it proves something about their dogs. It does - it proves they are training dogs of unsound temperament that can attack without warning. And it's why, from time to time, you'll get a bunch of news stories about dog attacks that will concentrate on the GSD. After all, if you train them to attack why would you be surprised when they do?


I am not sure where you are getting your information from as Schutzhund, in the main, is a sport undertaken by working line GSDs, not WGSL. Also, you seem to be under the impression that because the Schutzhund dogs are taught protection work that they are uncontrollable, aggressive animals. Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Moobli

Nicky10 said:


> Dogs that compete in schutzhund have to be stable they only attack on command some of the most stable gsds when raised right are the old czech/ddr lines and they come mostly from protection/border control backgrounds. Some of the newer lines however are insane prey drive. The gsd was developed to be a moderate dog yes protective when need be but also capable of living in the home with children.


Absolutely - and well said. My working line boy (who is mainly DDR breeding) is level headed, sensible and with a wonderful temperament (he lives happily alongside other dogs, small children and livestock). He is fast turning into my GSD of a lifetime, and I will only have working line dogs from now on.










The more I see and hear of working line shepherds, the more I appreciate their versatility, they make excellent family dogs in the right family of course


----------



## Werehorse

Moobli said:


> Absolutely - and well said. My working line boy (who is mainly DDR breeding) is level headed, sensible and with a wonderful temperament (he lives happily alongside other dogs, small children and livestock). He is fast turning into my GSD of a lifetime, and I will only have working line dogs from now on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more I see and hear of working line shepherds, the more I appreciate their versatility, they make excellent family dogs in the right family of course


Now, he is a stunner! :thumbup1:


----------



## AlbertRoss

Wildmoor said:


> Once again how many dogs have you had your hands on to prove what you are saying about roach backs ( a term known as carp backs in the 1920's) the way the dogs are shown and stood has changed but not very many have a true roach back - this is a fault that as been in the breed for 90+ years - yes there was some corruption re the Martin brothers but anyone who knows the breed is aware of this! (ten year period 1984-1994), there have been many changes since they passed away in 1996 - if you know anything about breeding & genetics you will be aware things dont happen overnight.
> You go on about JH's film as if she filmed hundreds not 6, even then she admitted later she went after the wrong type!
> Yes there are health issues in All types you go one about the BIS GSDs at Crufts which is laughable when you consider they were either or both producers of epilepsy or fitters.
> Again if you know anything about the arguements between the German type clubs and the KC you will know there is a long history behind that and it is the German type who having been consistently demand health test be made mandatory not like your type who rarely do them and if they do breed regardless of the results - you may fool those not in the breed but members on here who have a long association with the breed know you are lying and twisting facts, and again you are the idiotic one it just proves it with your comments about SchH. There again yours wouldnt pass the temperment test would they !
> You wont give your affix because either you are lying about your dogs health tests or you dont own English showline and you are one of the coloured LC brigade, proof of that is in the fact you stated your dog had ED3
> Differece between me and you is I can answer you without going away and using google
> I dont have anything to prove to you, as deep down you know you distort facts and lying not even consistently you realy are the idiotic one here


How is it 'distorting facts' when I challenge you to refute the fact that GSDs started to get roach backs in the 1970s and produce photographic proof (by way of the Siegers)?

Yes , it's my 'anti-German' bias. So much so that I invite you to look at the website for the 'British Association of German Shepherd Dogs'. As you will be absolutely aware, BAGSD is a promoter of 'German' dogs. It promotes Sieger and extols the virtues of the WUSV. In short, it's 'German' up to it's eyeballs. And yet... it also features Fred Lanting, who they call "Mr GSD". Mr Lanting is a world expert on GSD. Here's a link to his qualifications page, on which you'll see he's forgotten more about GSDs than you'll ever know.

So, you'll understand that I value his opinion far higher than your inane ramblings. Why is it then that Mr Lanting says: "_If you want to improve toplines and get back to the original, you will find precious few "hochtzuchtlinie" (high-line) dogs with "normal" toplines. *It started changing in the show lines in the mid-1970s because of the influence of Walter & Hermann Martin, who ran the SV for decades*. Nowadays, you'll find correct, original toplines almost exclusively in the "working-lines" dogs_."? (The photo in the previous post seems to prove this admirably).

That's not an 'English' breeder - that's an SV qualified judge. (And it sort of negates your claim that the Martins were influential in the 1980s). But it absolutely proves my point that up until the mid 1970s the 'correct' GSD had a straight topline - not a hinge back as 99% of 'German' type dogs do today.

As regard health tests, hip scoring and haemophilia testing have been around for a good long while - but it's a matter of record that the 'German' clubs refused to do anything about hindquarter faults, despite the Bateson report that the faults were ruining the breed. Indeed, the German Shepherd Breed Council (that's the other 'German' grouping) still carry on their website that the KC were trying to address, amongst other health attributes, the GSD _back and rear angulation_. But the GSDBC is having none of it and exhorts their members to stand firm against such things.

It's also a matter of record - (see the KC Annual Health report 2012) that the hip scores of GSDs are getting worse - not better. As the majority of dogs now registered are from 'German' types the conclusion is plain.

Once again - this is ALL factual - check it out for yourself.


----------



## pod

Moobli said:


> Absolutely - and well said. My working line boy (who is mainly DDR breeding) is level headed, sensible and with a wonderful temperament (he lives happily alongside other dogs, small children and livestock). He is fast turning into my GSD of a lifetime, and I will only have working line dogs from now on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more I see and hear of working line shepherds, the more I appreciate their versatility, they make excellent family dogs in the right family of course


If only we had dogs like this in the showring but then, would that be such a good thing for the working type? What we need is major changes to the show scene first. I would then have some incentive to start judging the breed again.


----------



## Nicky10

Moobli said:


> Absolutely - and well said. My working line boy (who is mainly DDR breeding) is level headed, sensible and with a wonderful temperament (he lives happily alongside other dogs, small children and livestock). He is fast turning into my GSD of a lifetime, and I will only have working line dogs from now on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more I see and hear of working line shepherds, the more I appreciate their versatility, they make excellent family dogs in the right family of course


They definitely need the right people but he is just gorgeous :001_wub:


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> How is it 'distorting facts' when I challenge you to refute the fact that GSDs started to get roach backs in the 1970s and produce photographic proof (by way of the Siegers)?
> 
> Yes , it's my 'anti-German' bias. So much so that I invite you to look at the website for the 'British Association of German Shepherd Dogs'. As you will be absolutely aware, BAGSD is a promoter of 'German' dogs. It promotes Sieger and extols the virtues of the WUSV. In short, it's 'German' up to it's eyeballs. And yet... it also features Fred Lanting, who they call "Mr GSD". Mr Lanting is a world expert on GSD. Here's a link to his qualifications page, on which you'll see he's forgotten more about GSDs than you'll ever know.
> 
> So, you'll understand that I value his opinion far higher than your inane ramblings. Why is it then that Mr Lanting says: "_If you want to improve toplines and get back to the original, you will find precious few hochtzuchtlinie (high-line) dogs with normal toplines. *It started changing in the show lines in the mid-1970s because of the influence of Walter & Hermann Martin, who ran the SV for decades*. Nowadays, youll find correct, original toplines almost exclusively in the working-lines dogs_."? (The photo in the previous post seems to prove this admirably).
> 
> That's not an 'English' breeder - that's an SV qualified judge. (And it sort of negates your claim that the Martins were influential in the 1980s). But it absolutely proves my point that up until the mid 1970s the 'correct' GSD had a straight topline - not a hinge back as 99% of 'German' type dogs do today.
> 
> As regard health tests, hip scoring and haemophilia testing have been around for a good long while - but it's a matter of record that the 'German' clubs refused to do anything about hindquarter faults, despite the Bateson report that the faults were ruining the breed. Indeed, the German Shepherd Breed Council (that's the other 'German' grouping) still carry on their website that the KC were trying to address, amongst other health attributes, the GSD _back and rear angulation_. But the GSDBC is having none of it and exhorts their members to stand firm against such things.
> 
> It's also a matter of record - (see the KC Annual Health report 2012) that the hip scores of GSDs are getting worse - not better. As the majority of dogs now registered are from 'German' types the conclusion is plain.
> 
> Once again - this is ALL factual - check it out for yourself.


I dont need to check your ramblings re hips yes very few English show line do score I admit that but if you also check the lines of dogs being scored you will find that work line and those that breed coloured LCs do even though the latter have produced many high scores and gone onto breed of them you will find the BMS as actualy gone down in GSDs from what it was the BMS is 18 and the median 12 - to get this lower then the KC has to stop the idiotic breeders of none German dogs breeding from dogs with silly scores like 80
Have you actualy looked at the hip scores of all GSDs? can you actually tell from the KC names what type they are? if the answer to both is yes then you will be aware this is not the German line dogs with the high scores.
Re the martin brothers: Walter's von der Wienerau kennel and his brother Herman had the von Arminius kennel, Herman was also the SV president from 84-94.
Surely as we are just at the start of 2012 this will not be availble are you sure you dont mean the last anual Health report not 2012 where it also reports of the weak temps in relation to your type. Yes the schemes have been around for a long time hips 60yrs+ elbows 13yrs+ so why dont your type do them. Re stifles again talking to Orthopeadic vets the majority about 98% of cases none accidental are your type and pet lines.
Re working type again from your comments about police dogs you obviously know very little - they have only started elbow scoring the last few years and not all do that, some that do ignore the results and will mate a ED2 to a ED2, and they have epilepsy in their lines too, even known one force sell a fitter to another force without telling them but there are crap breeders in all types unfortunately in your type it is the majority - I dont need to google my replies to you that is the difference between my knowledge and yours.

maybe read more then you dont have to google 

Re Mr Lanting I am sure he along with millions of people world wide know more about the GSD than you do


----------



## Wildmoor

Kirsty re your dogs lines he isnt DDR he has West German showline, Belgium working lines and West German working lines just a few lines back to DDR dogs


----------



## Shrap

Moobli said:


> I am just catching up on this thread (head spinning!). However, I just wanted to pick up on this point. I always thought Yogi, my WGSL, had fabulous movement, that was until I got my working line dog (from mainly DDR breeding). His movement is really poetry in motion


Have you got a video of him gaiting?


----------



## Moobli

Wildmoor said:


> Kirsty re your dogs lines he isnt DDR he has West German showline, Belgium working lines and West German working lines just a few lines back to DDR dogs


I am just learning about the various working lines but thought that my dog was line bred to the DDR dog Tino vom Felsenschloß (he has this dog on both sides in the last three generations), I believe Xatoh is Belgian lines and the vom Stadtfelt dogs being West German working? Is that correct?

I see no WGSL dogs?


----------



## Moobli

Shrap said:


> Have you got a video of him gaiting?


Nope, but will try and get one.


----------



## Shrap

Isn't Zak's birthday on the day of the meet? Just looked at PDB


----------



## Moobli

It is


----------



## 5rivers79

Moobli said:


> Absolutely - and well said. My working line boy (who is mainly DDR breeding) is level headed, sensible and with a wonderful temperament (he lives happily alongside other dogs, small children and livestock). He is fast turning into my GSD of a lifetime, and I will only have working line dogs from now on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more I see and hear of working line shepherds, the more I appreciate their versatility, they make excellent family dogs in the right family of course


OH MY GOD, that GSD loooks STTTTUUUNINGGGGGG  Have you got a side on pic?? Would love to see how he looks from all angles


----------



## Bijou

> I am just learning about the various working lines but thought that my dog was line bred to the DDR dog Tino vom Felsenschloß (he has this dog on both sides in the last three generations), I believe Xatoh is Belgian lines and the vom Stadtfelt dogs being West German working? Is that correct?


..interesting that the working line dogs use the same methods to fix the qualities they want - two lines to the same dog in 3 generations is pretty close line breeding -line breeding to an outstanding dog is the traditional way of breeding great dogs and it obviously produces the goods as your boy looks well made and from what you say he has a great temperament.

I was at an open show on Saturday in the Pastoral group and watched the GSD - beautiful head , good outline stacked and good flowing topline, when moving his side gait was very flashy but absoloutely SHOCKING rear movement where the hocks looked like they were trying to knit a Fairisle jumper as the dog moved away from the judge - it won the group though !!


----------



## Goblin

I think people can argue as much as they like about the exact requirements to match standards. Proof however is in actually seeing the dogs in question. People will never be able to persuade others when those others simply look at a dog including potentially movement and see what is even to the untrained eye, major problems.


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> I think people can argue as much as they like about the exact requirements to match standards. Proof however is in actually seeing the dogs in question. People will never be able to persuade others when those others simply look at a dog including potentially movement and see what is even to the untrained eye, major problems.


You are right, of course. People will be able to see exactly what is happening with their eyes. But for every dog you will see like that at a show, you will also see hundreds that are healthy, with excellent conformation and movement, and are fit for purpose.

The problem is, however, that unless you do go to shows, all you ever see are the bad examples because those are the ones that make the shock-horror headlines. And so you get people on forums like this, who have never been to a show in their life, who only see what journalists like JH have shown them, thinking that these are truly representative of dogs at a show.

They are not. They are in a very small minority.

And that is why you get a differenet point of view from the people who *do *show - *they* are the ones using their eyes; *they *are the ones who are actually seeing what is really happening - not the armchair critics who think they know everything because some hack has shown them an odd bad example.


----------



## Moobli

Bijou said:


> ..interesting that the working line dogs use the same methods to fix the qualities they want - two lines to the same dog in 3 generations is pretty close line breeding -line breeding to an outstanding dog is the traditional way of breeding great dogs and it obviously produces the goods as your boy looks well made and from what you say he has a great temperament.
> 
> I was at an open show on Saturday in the Pastoral group and watched the GSD - beautiful head , good outline stacked and good flowing topline, when moving his side gait was very flashy but absoloutely SHOCKING rear movement where the hocks looked like they were trying to knit a Fairisle jumper as the dog moved away from the judge - it won the group though !!


I don't know a huge amount about breeding as I have never bred a litter, although my hubby has bred two litters of working border collies in the past five years. I know, looking at various ISDS collie papers, that line breeding to great/influential dogs has been the norm for generations in working collies too.


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> You are right, of course. People will be able to see exactly what is happening with their eyes. But for every dog you will see like that at a show, you will also see hundreds that are healthy, with excellent conformation and movement, and are fit for purpose.


However as a group you will be judged by the bad examples. Especially when others argue that there is nothing wrong. This is made worst by the very fact that the majority who do have healthy dogs do not seem to be pushing for changes for those dogs who are not.


----------



## Moobli

Spellweaver said:


> You are right, of course. People will be able to see exactly what is happening with their eyes. But for every dog you will see like that at a show, you will also see hundreds that are healthy, with excellent conformation and movement, and are fit for purpose.
> 
> The problem is, however, that unless you do go to shows, all you ever see are the bad examples because those are the ones that make the shock-horror headlines. And so you get people on forums like this, who have never been to a show in their life, who only see what journalists like JH have shown them, thinking that these are truly representative of dogs at a show.
> 
> They are not. They are in a very small minority.
> 
> And that is why you get a differenet point of view from the people who *do *show - *they* are the ones using their eyes; *they *are the ones who are actually seeing what is really happening - not the armchair critics who think they know everything because some hack has shown them an odd bad example.


But the show people are also the ones who are breeding for a particular type to win under a judge who likes that type. I don't think anyone can deny that the GSD shape has been changing since the 1970s and there are a great many people who do not like, nor understand, the sloping topline and weak hocks of some of the modern day Germanic type GSDs seen in the show ring.

I am not a person who shows, it holds no interest for me, however I did go to the Border Union show last year to watch the GSDs and, if I am perfectly honest, it is not an experience I wish to repeat.


----------



## Moobli

5rivers79 said:


> OH MY GOD, that GSD loooks STTTTUUUNINGGGGGG  Have you got a side on pic?? Would love to see how he looks from all angles


Thanks  I think he is stunning too.

Here are a couple of other pics


----------



## Moobli

Wildmoor said:


> Kirsty re your dogs lines he isnt DDR he has West German showline, Belgium working lines and West German working lines just a few lines back to DDR dogs


I had a quick chat with Zak's breeder, in order to try to understand the lines better and her response was ...

Both Zak's mother and grandmother were imported from Eastern Germany, but since the DDR registry ended with the unification of Germany in1990, there are no DDR dogs born since then. Zak is line bred 3.2 on Tino, one of the last DDR registered dogs, with all the backmassing of DDR lines that entails. His grandfather, Angus is predominantly Belgian working lines through Pasco and Xatoh, with some Western showlines from the 1980's on his mother line and back again to a border patrol dog from the East who was Angus gggg grandfather.

Thus, Zak is a mix of lines on paper, but genetically predominantly DDR through backmassing of Eastern German ancestors because Tino is so close up in the pedigree.


----------



## pod

Spellweaver said:


> The problem is, however, that unless you do go to shows, all you ever see are the bad examples because those are the ones that make the shock-horror headlines. And so you get people on forums like this, who have never been to a show in their life, who only see what journalists like JH have shown them, thinking that these are truly representative of dogs at a show.


Yes, it true that you do see the better individuals of the breeds at shows. That tends to make Jemima's point even more valid, when a lot of her footage of bad examples is taken from show venues.

It's the ones left at home and the ones in pet homes that form the largest proportion of a breed and where you are most likely to see dogs unfit, even for the showring.


----------



## speug

Moobli said:


> Thanks  I think he is stunning too.
> 
> Here are a couple of other pics


totally off topic but the collie in your picture is the spitting image of mine - I had to check that the black and white markings on the front legs are the other way round on Angus as otherwise they are pretty much identical


----------



## AlbertRoss

Wildmoor said:


> I dont need to check your ramblings re hips yes very few English show line do score I admit that but if you also check the lines of dogs being scored you will find that work line and those that breed coloured LCs do even though the latter have produced many high scores and gone onto breed of them you will find the BMS as actualy gone down in GSDs from what it was the BMS is 18 and the median 12 - to get this lower then the KC has to stop the idiotic breeders of none German dogs breeding from dogs with silly scores like 80


Trying to make sense of your ramblings gets more and more difficult. Again you refuse to engage with FACTs and just spout your opinions.

The FACT is that the BMS is now 18. The 5 year average for BMS is 16. That means scores have gone up. The maths is quite simple.

The FACT is that there are a lot more 'German' breeders scoring now. That means the degeneration in score can only be due to German type dogs. Do feel free to check the numbers yourself.



> Have you actualy looked at the hip scores of all GSDs? can you actually tell from the KC names what type they are? if the answer to both is yes then you will be aware this is not the German line dogs with the high scores.


On the contrary it's exactly German breeders who are showing high scores. Show me any evidence you have to the contrary. Not your opinion. Not hearsay from other breeders - show me publicly available evidence.



> Re the martin brothers: Walter's von der Wienerau kennel and his brother Herman had the von Arminius kennel, Herman was also the SV president from 84-94.


Yes, that's when he eventually became president. However, the influence of the 2 was felt way before that - which is how he eventually rose to the position.



> Surely as we are just at the start of 2012 this [the KC Health Report] will not be availble are you sure you dont mean the last anual Health report not 2012 where it also reports of the weak temps in relation to your type.


No, I mean the report issued this week that I have in my hand. It covers the situation up to and including 2011. Try and get a copy before making more ill considered and untruthful remarks.



> Yes the schemes have been around for a long time hips 60yrs+ elbows 13yrs+ so why dont your type do them. Re stifles again talking to Orthopeadic vets the majority about 98% of cases none accidental are your type and pet lines.


I've always scored. With only one exception all the people I know who breed have scored. The one who didn't now does. And I haven't mention stifles. 



> Re working type again from your comments about police dogs you obviously know very little - they have only started elbow scoring the last few years and not all do that, some that do ignore the results and will mate a ED2 to a ED2, and they have epilepsy in their lines too, even known one force sell a fitter to another force without telling them but there are crap breeders in all types unfortunately in your type it is the majority


What have police dogs to do with anything? My remarks about police dogs have touched only on where they get them from, the fact that most forces breed their own and their training. The police are concerned only with having a working dog that is fit for purpose. They don't, as far as I'm aware, register their dogs with the KC.



> I dont need to google my replies to you that is the difference between my knowledge and yours.


Yes, patently your 'knowledge' is, as is that of so many breeders of misshapen dogs, limited to your opinions only. Fact doesn't get in the way of what goes on in your head. Your opinions are right up there with the breeders of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels who wont admit that the breeding is causing problems. Your opinions mean nothing and are of no interest. You have consistently failed to refute any single fact that I've produced and your incessant name calling and insults don't make you right. They just show your ignorance in its full glory.



> Re Mr Lanting I am sure he along with millions of people world wide know more about the GSD than you do


Well, it's Mr Lanting that says your banana backs are incorrect, so I think we can take it that you agree?


----------



## AlbertRoss

Goblin said:


> However as a group you will be judged by the bad examples. Especially when others argue that there is nothing wrong. This is made worst by the very fact that the majority who do have healthy dogs do not seem to be pushing for changes for those dogs who are not.


Or - certainly in the case of GSDs - the breed clubs are being encouraged specifically not to co-operate with the KC's efforts to improve breed health. The 2 major associations of breed clubs - both of which represent the 'German'' type of dog - consistently fought against the efforts of the KC's plans to improve hindquarter health. Yes, they co-operate with hip scoring, haemophilia testing etc but resolutely refuse to engage with the question of hindquarter health. The only conclusion one can come to is that if they did they would have to change the shape of their dogs back to the way they used to be. And they won't do that because they know it takes a minimum of 11 generations for marked changes to appear in breeds. (That statistic comes from a research paper undertaken in the Netherlands. If I can find it I'll happily give you the reference).


----------



## pod

AlbertRoss said:


> The only conclusion one can come to is that if they did they would have to change the shape of their dogs back to the way they used to be. And they won't do that because they know it takes a minimum of 11 generations for marked changes to appear in breeds. (That statistic comes from a research paper undertaken in the Netherlands. If I can find it I'll happily give you the reference).


I'd be very interested in having a look at that too, if you do find.


----------



## Moobli

speug said:


> totally off topic but the collie in your picture is the spitting image of mine - I had to check that the black and white markings on the front legs are the other way round on Angus as otherwise they are pretty much identical


 Sorry to continue the off topic thread ... but any pics? (Perhaps for a different thread though )


----------



## Goblin

AlbertRoss said:


> Or - certainly in the case of GSDs - the breed clubs are being encouraged specifically not to co-operate with the KC's efforts to improve breed health. The 2 major associations of breed clubs - both of which represent the 'German'' type of dog - consistently fought against the efforts of the KC's plans to improve hindquarter health. Yes, they co-operate with hip scoring, haemophilia testing etc but resolutely refuse to engage with the question of hindquarter health.


I think this shows two main things. First the KC can not be held solely responsible. They do have a difficult task keeping people on board but getting change accepted. Second, the need for programs such as PDE. Only by shaming these breeders, along with pressure from everyone who has a love for dogs can progress be made.


----------



## 5rivers79

Moobli said:


> Thanks  I think he is stunning too.
> 
> Here are a couple of other pics


WOW He looks soo powerful and even in just a photo it looks as though confidence just pours out of him 

Never seen a GSD that colour before! I love it!

His back is in my opinion what a dog should look like, in the sense that it is normal and would not hinder him at all when working. I want your dog!

How old is your boy?


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> However as a group you will be judged by the bad examples. Especially when others argue that there is nothing wrong. This is made worst by the very fact that the majority who do have healthy dogs do not seem to be pushing for changes for those dogs who are not.


It is a sad fact of life that goups are always judged by the bad examples. All staffies/rotties/dobies/akitas etc etc etc are vicious. All teenagers are knife-wielding hoodies. All muslims are terrorists. All show dogs are unhealthy. Sensible people don't judge by bad examples. And the people who do generalise like this will never be convinced out of their mind set.


----------



## Bisbow

To me that dog looks just as a GSD should look, he is gorgeous.

I have not entered the argument because I am not knowledgable enough to. I know what I like and he is it.

Barbara


----------



## Spellweaver

Moobli said:


> But the show people are also the ones who are breeding for a particular type to win under a judge who likes that type. I don't think anyone can deny that the GSD shape has been changing since the 1970s and there are a great many people who do not like, nor understand, the sloping topline and weak hocks of some of the modern day Germanic type GSDs seen in the show ring.
> 
> I am not a person who shows, it holds no interest for me, however I did go to the Border Union show last year to watch the GSDs and, if I am perfectly honest, it is not an experience I wish to repeat.


I was speaking about dogs in general and not just GSDs. There will have been thousands of dogs at Border Union on the day you went. Are you tring to say that all these were unhealthy?


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> It is a sad fact of life that goups are always judged by the bad examples. All staffies/rotties/dobies/akitas etc etc etc are vicious. All teenagers are knife-wielding hoodies. All muslims are terrorists. All show dogs are unhealthy. Sensible people don't judge by bad examples. And the people who do generalise like this will never be convinced out of their mind set.


It's not the same though. Good staffie owners do not condone bad owners and campaign against them. It comes back to this posted ages ago in this thread but never really answered directly.



colliewobble said:


> Just a thought - if the number of good breeders really does outweigh the number of bad ones, why have the good ones not overpowered and squoze out the bad? If as we keep hearing it's only a 'small' percent of bad breeders, why do they have enough of them and they have enough power to be able to have someone removed from the breed club for trying to improve things? If say 25 people were part of a club, and one was voted out 20-4, that means the majority of 20 won the decision to remove that person. If you think of these as good and bad breeders, with 20 'bad' and 4 'good' the bad ones ones have won as that is what there was more of/ what was thought of as right by the club members. Therefore it is quite possible that there are more bad breeders than they'd like people to believe and unfortunately they're the ones with the power:frown5:.


I have noted you admitting problems in a "minority" of breeds. In your own arguments however I've never heard you say that people outside of those breeds are actively pushing for change. Instead I have seen the opposite, you actually support what can be seen by others as conformation impacting health. It seems an attitude of "my breed is fine" so I'm okay, we have deniability. However, lack of action is condoning those unhealthy breeds.


----------



## Moobli

5rivers79 said:


> WOW He looks soo powerful and even in just a photo it looks as though confidence just pours out of him
> 
> Never seen a GSD that colour before! I love it!
> 
> His back is in my opinion what a dog should look like, in the sense that it is normal and would not hinder him at all when working. I want your dog!
> 
> How old is your boy?


Thanks for your lovely comments. Zak is classed as a dark sable. He is just 11 months old


----------



## Moobli

Spellweaver said:


> I was speaking about dogs in general and not just GSDs. There will have been thousands of dogs at Border Union on the day you went. Are you tring to say that all these were unhealthy?


Not at all. I am not saying the GSDs were unhealthy, but all I can say is that I was put off owning a showline dog that day, and the behaviour of some of the exhibitors (or more specifically the owners/handlers/whoever they were outside of the ring) was appalling!

The only other dogs I looked at that particular day were the showline border collies, but their fitness for function is a whole other argument. Again, I am not saying that these dogs are unhealthy, but I am fairly certain they wouldn't be able to fulfil the function that our working collies perform day after day on our hill farm.

I would be quite tempted to enter one of my working bred collies and my working line GSD at a dog show, just to see the reaction they and I would get :biggrin:


----------



## pod

Moobli said:


> Not at all. I am not saying the GSDs were unhealthy, but all I can say is that I was put off owning a showline dog that day, and the behaviour of some of the exhibitors (or more specifically the owners/handlers/whoever they were outside of the ring) was appalling!
> 
> The only other dogs I looked at that particular day were the showline border collies, but their fitness for function is a whole other argument. Again, I am not saying that these dogs are unhealthy, but I am fairly certain they wouldn't be able to fulfil the function that our working collies perform day after day on our hill farm.
> 
> I would be quite tempted to enter one of my working bred collies and my working line GSD at a dog show, just to see the reaction they and I would get :biggrin:


The type in Border Collies has changed so much since they were first accepted into the KC in the UK. Not just the coat but the proportions and movement. The show dogs are so much heavier and flat moving. Got to agree on the function point.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Moobli said:


> I would be quite tempted to enter one of my working bred collies and my working line GSD at a dog show, just to see the reaction they and I would get :biggrin:


Sadly, the only place you could do that would be at a 'companion' show under Kennel Club rules. Most of my dogs are dark sables too (although anything, including black, is a sable if it's not specifically black and gold) and they look very similar to yours e.g. perfect specimens of very good dogs, fit for purpose not bred either to look how some numnuts wants them to be or to take part in some kind of artificial sport that's supposed to prove they could work. I'd bet your dog could run dogs like that into the ground.


----------



## Galadriel17

Moobli said:


> Thanks  I think he is stunning too.
> 
> Here are a couple of other pics


He's the kind of German Shepherd I'd happily own, I didn't know they could look so lovely  he doesn't look like he's squatting or like he has too much length in his back legs for the height of his back like most others I've seen.


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> It's not the same though. Good staffie owners do not condone bad owners and campaign against them. It comes back to this posted ages ago in this thread but never really answered directly.
> 
> what exactly are the good staffy owners doing to campaign against bad owners? only i cant imagine what they possibly can do ... i too would join that and any campaign to stop bad owners of dogs in general but ive never seen one
> 
> *colliewobble*Just a thought - if the number of good breeders really does outweigh the number of bad ones, why have the good ones not overpowered and squoze out the bad? If as we keep hearing it's only a 'small' percent of bad breeders, why do they have enough of them and they have enough power to be able to have someone removed from the breed club for trying to improve things? If say 25 people were part of a club, and one was voted out 20-4, that means the majority of 20 won the decision to remove that person. If you think of these as good and bad breeders, with 20 'bad' and 4 'good' the bad ones ones have won as that is what there was more of/ what was thought of as right by the club members. Therefore it is quite possible that there are more bad breeders than they'd like people to believe and unfortunately they're the ones with the power


 in answer to Colliewobbles post.... i have reported a member to the SH breed club committee...someone who i 'knew' was not only a less than reputable breeder but had set up a dodgy breed rescue aswell, she was notoriously well known to them because i was not the only one to have reported her, as it happens the committee chose to keep her on board because they felt that way they could have some influence on her and work to change her actions....i presume if she had failed to comply to their demands she would have been expelled from the breed club.


----------



## Spellweaver

Moobli said:


> I would be quite tempted to enter one of my working bred collies and my working line GSD at a dog show, just to see the reaction they and I would get :biggrin:





AlbertRoss said:


> Sadly, the only place you could do that would be at a 'companion' show under Kennel Club rules. Most of my dogs are dark sables too (although anything, including black, is a sable if it's not specifically black and gold) and they look very similar to yours e.g. perfect specimens of very good dogs, fit for purpose not bred either to look how some numnuts wants them to be or to take part in some kind of artificial sport that's supposed to prove they could work. I'd bet your dog could run dogs like that into the ground.


At work so only a quick reply even though there are more points I want to bring up to several posts on this thread (and will bring up later) - but just wnated to point out to you two that you are both wrong. There are show border collies who have taken the herding test (and hence must be fit for function) and there are working border collie classes in all the different border collie club champ shows and working border collie classes at Crufts, so companion shows are not the only place to show them - and hence show border collie people would not bat an eyelid at your working dogs Moobli.

It would be nice if you got your facts right before posting your derisive comments about show border collies and people who show them.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Spellweaver said:


> At work so only a quick reply even though there are more points I want to bring up to several posts on this thread (and will bring up later) - but just wnated to point out to you two that you are both wrong. There are show border collies who have taken the herding test (and hence must be fit for function) and there are working border collie classes in all the different border collie club champ shows and working border collie classes at Crufts, so companion shows are not the only place to show them - and hence show border collie people would not bat an eyelid at your working dogs Moobli.
> 
> It would be nice if you got your facts right before posting your derisive comments about show border collies and people who show them.


I would have thought it was fairly obvious from my posting that I was talking about GSDs - I don't recall ever having seen either a black and gold or a sable border collie. 

However, if the BC is going for a Show title it has to be registered with the KC and has to pass the herding test to be made a full Champion. The herding test is available to any registered BC. There are exemptions from the Herding Test for dogs which have already proved their herding abilities and instincts in Sheepdog Trials and Tests affiliated to the ISDS (International Sheep Dog Society). Dogs qualified for entry in International or National Trials, dogs placed in the first six in an Open Sheepdog Trial (where a minimum of 25 dogs competed), or dogs placed in the first three in any Nursery or Novice Trial (where a minimum of 12 dogs competed) are exempt, and from 2009 dogs which have passed the ISDS Working Test for Registration on Merit are also exempt.

But, AFAIK, you cannot 'show' a border collie in an open or championship show unless it has KC registration. I'd be quite happy if you could enlighten me to the contrary. (I'm not talking about Agility, Flyball, Heelwork to Music or similar but actual 'showing' under KC rules).

If the dog is already registered with the ISDS it can be registered as 'pedigree' with the KC but the opposite does not apply. However, KC registered dogs which have passed the ISDS Working Test for Registration on Merit can be registered with the ISDS.


----------



## Spellweaver

AlbertRoss said:


> I would have thought it was fairly obvious from my posting that I was talking about GSDs - I don't recall ever having seen either a black and gold or a sable border collie.


Moobli menioned border collies and you replied to her post.



AlbertRoss said:


> But, AFAIK, you cannot 'show' a border collie in an open or championship show unless it has KC registration. I'd be quite happy if you could enlighten me to the contrary.


Where I have I said you can? However, any working sheepdog registered with the ISDS can be registered with the KC (irrespective of parentage) and shown at KC shows - see the application form below.

Search Results - The Kennel Club


----------



## AlbertRoss

Spellweaver said:


> It would be nice if you got your facts right before posting your derisive comments about show border collies and people who show them.


er, where have either I or Mooli made derisive comments about people that own show border collies?



> Where I have I said you can? However, any working sheepdog registered with the ISDS can be registered with the KC (irrespective of parentage) and shown at KC shows





> there are working border collie classes in all the different border collie club champ shows and working border collie classes at Crufts, so companion shows are not the only place to show them


You are deliberately being obscure. The discussion was about bringing the GSD and the collie to a show and putting them up against showline dogs. We have already established that the dogs in question are working line dogs. (And I'm unsure about what "working border collie classes at Crufts" actually means).

Might I suggest that you read all the previous posts and then start over. In your haste you seem to have got hold of totally the wrong end of the stick.


----------



## Spellweaver

AlbertRoss said:


> er, where have either I or Mooli made derisive comments about people that own show border collies?


Er - here:

Moobli wrote:


Moobli said:


> I would be quite tempted to enter one of my working bred collies and my working line GSD at a dog show, just to see the reaction they and I would get :biggrin:


To which you replied:


AlbertRoss said:


> not bred either to look how some numnuts wants them to be.


Remember now?  You may have _meant_ to talk just about GSDs, but you were replying to a post about _border collies_ and GSDs.



AlbertRoss said:


> You are deliberately being obscure. The discussion was about bringing the GSD and the collie to a show and putting them up against showline dogs. We have already established that the dogs in question are working line dogs. (And I'm unsure about what "working border collie classes at Crufts" actually means).


How on earth am I being deliberately obscure when I say that at border collie club champ shows, and at Crufts, there are classes just for working dogs? How much more plainly can I say that at border collie club champ shows and Crufts there are classes just for working dogs?

Perhaps if you look at the link below and see the show schedule from the Border Collie Club of Great Britain Champ Show, you will see what I mean. Scroll down to the classes and you will see there are classes called "Special Open Working Dog and Special Open Working Bitch. These are classes just for working dogs and just for working bitches. How is any of that being deliberately obscure?   They will compete against "showline" dogs from other classes in the challenge - ie exactly what you were talking about. Again, how is that being deliberately obscure?

Or does it merely seem obscure to you because when it comes to showing border collies you don't really know what you are writing about?

http://www.fossedata.co.uk/downloads/pdf/BCGB_MAR_12_Schedule.pdf


----------



## Paganman

Spellweaver said:


> Er - here:
> 
> Moobli wrote:
> 
> To which you replied:
> 
> Remember now?  You may have _meant_ to talk just about GSDs, but you were replying to a post about _border collies_ and GSDs.
> 
> How on earth am I being deliberately obscure when I say that at border collie club champ shows, and at Crufts, there are classes just for working dogs? How much more plainly can I say that at border collie club champ shows and Crufts there are classes just for working dogs?
> 
> Perhaps if you look at the link below and see the show schedule from the Border Collie Club of Great Britain Champ Show, you will see what I mean. Scroll down to the classes and you will see there are classes called "Special Open Working Dog and Special Open Working Bitch. These are classes just for working dogs and just for working bitches. How is any of that being deliberately obscure?   They will compete against "showline" dogs from other classes in the challenge - ie exactly what you were talking about. Again, how is that being deliberately obscure?
> 
> Or does it merely seem obscure to you because when it comes to showing border collies you don't really know what you are writing about?
> 
> http://www.fossedata.co.uk/downloads/pdf/BCGB_MAR_12_Schedule.pdf


Looks like wildmoor can retire from this 

Albatross has a new sparing partner :

I will get the popcorn out


----------



## Spellweaver

Paganman said:


> Looks like wildmoor can retire from this
> 
> Albatross has a new sparing partner :
> 
> I will get the popcorn out


Naaah. Wildmoor will have to stay - I can't possibly do the fantastic job she's doing about arguing for the GSD because I don't have anywhere near the depth of knowledge she has about that breed. Besides, whilst I'm sure you know how I love to stay and argue a point with someone (especially when I know I'm right!  ) I'm I'm afraid I have to go to bed now - I've got a 13 hour shift tomorrow, then dogs to bath and trim and Crufts to watch on Thurs/Fri, then Crufts itself on Sat and Sun - so it'll be Monday before I'm on here except for the odd fleeting visit. Bring your popcorn on Monday though!


----------



## dodo bird

You are talking about showing working dogs in the working dog class. Obviously no one will care that happens. But will they care when someone show their non-show type working dog in the other classes?


----------



## Spellweaver

dodo bird said:


> You are talking about showing working dogs in the working dog class. Obviously no one will care that happens. But will they care when someone show their non-show type working dog in the other classes?


In a word - no.


----------



## Jenny Olley

dodo bird said:


> You are talking about showing working dogs in the working dog class. Obviously no one will care that happens. But will they care when someone show their non-show type working dog in the other classes?


Why would they care as long as they meet the criteria, they may not win if they are not what the judge is looking for. 
I compete at working trials, as does my husband, all dogs are welcome in that sport, work bred, sports bred, show bred.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Spellweaver said:


> meant[/I] to talk just about GSDs, but you were replying to a post about _border collies_ and GSDs.


As everything else I've posted here was about GSDs I would have thought it was obvious. I'm sorry I confused you.



> How on earth am I being deliberately obscure when I say that at border collie club champ shows, and at Crufts, there are classes just for working dogs? How much more plainly can I say that at border collie club champ shows and Crufts there are classes just for working dogs?
> 
> Perhaps if you look at the link below and see the show schedule from the Border Collie Club of Great Britain Champ Show, you will see what I mean. Scroll down to the classes and you will see there are classes called "Special Open Working Dog and Special Open Working Bitch. These are classes just for working dogs and just for working bitches. How is any of that being deliberately obscure?   They will compete against "showline" dogs from other classes in the challenge - ie exactly what you were talking about. Again, how is that being deliberately obscure?


And, as I can plainly see from that schedule the class is a 'stakes' class i.e. it has no value as a 'show' qualification. Even so, it says it's for 'qualified' dogs, so you can't just show any dog - the dog has to be registered and, because it collie, in fact uniquely because it's collie, they'll accept KC and ISDS registration.

It's quite possible to run 'non-champ' classes at champ shows, as I'm sure you are aware. What you cannot do is put un-registered dogs into any qualifying 'show' class. Stakes classes are pretty much always there to bolster the funds of the club running the show. In non-breed specific shows they are pretty much a mixture of any breed and, other than a warm feeling for the winner, count for nothing.

Please show me - in the current Crufts schedule - the class for non KC registered 'working' dogs that is pure 'show'. Not agility, obedience, or similar. I'd love to know because I'd make a beeline to watch it.



> Or does it merely seem obscure to you because when it comes to showing border collies you don't really know what you are writing about?


I only know the rules and regs as printed by the KC. As I said before - I responded about GSDs - not collies. And that would have been obvious if you'd bothered to read the previous posts. I have nothing against show collies - in fact I'd quite like to own one - but I've got a kennel full of GSDs.


----------



## Spellweaver

AlbertRoss said:


> And, as I can plainly see from that schedule the class is a 'stakes' class i.e. it has no value as a 'show' qualification.


You are wrong. Look again. It is a breed class, not a stakes class. As I explained in my other post, the dog who wins that class goes on to challenge the rest of the breed class winners for best dog, and if it wins it will get the Dog CC. It will then go on to challenge the Bitch CC winner for Best in Show. All show qualifications. I knew you did not know what you were talking about. 



AlbertRoss said:


> Even so, it says it's for 'qualified' dogs, so you can't just show any dog - the dog has to be registered and, because it collie, in fact uniquely because it's collie, they'll accept KC and ISDS registration.


You can show any registered dog and ISDS dogs can be registered with the KC (and hence shown in any KC show) irrespective of their parentage - not sure what your point is here.



AlbertRoss said:


> Stakes classes are pretty much always there to bolster the funds of the club running the show. In non-breed specific shows they are pretty much a mixture of any breed and, other than a warm feeling for the winner, count for nothing.


It is not a stakes class. It is a breed class. There are no stakes classes in that schedule. I'm beginning to wonder whether or not you have ever shown dogs if you cannot understand a very simple schedule such as that one. 



AlbertRoss said:


> Please show me - in the current Crufts schedule - the class for non KC registered 'working' dogs that is pure 'show'. Not agility, obedience, or similar. I'd love to know because I'd make a beeline to watch it.


I can't because I'm at work and it won't let me download the schedule. But go onto fossedata. Dowload the schedule. The border collie breed classes are on page 97. Look at Classes 1795 and 1808 - but then you'll probably try to pretend that these are stakes classes too :biggrin:.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Spellweaver said:


> You are wrong. Look again. It is a breed class, not a stakes class. As I explained in my other post, the dog who wins that class goes on to challenge the rest of the breed class winners for best dog, and if it wins it will get the Dog CC. It will then go on to challenge the Bitch CC winner for Best in Show. All show qualifications.


Why then, in the definition of the classes - in the same document - does it clearly state 'Special Open Stakes (Working)' and 'Special Open Stakes (Colour)' [bottom of page 6].



> You can show any registered dog and ISDS dogs can be registered with the KC (and hence shown in any KC show) irrespective of their parentage - not sure what your point is here.


Read the entry form then. You can ONLY show dogs registered with the KC. You cannot show a dog that's ISDS registered unless it's also KC registered. If the dog isn't registered - it can't be shown. And my point is that Moobli originally said "I would be quite tempted to enter one of my working bred collies ... just to see the reaction". The simple fact is that unless it's a KC registered dog it can't happen.



> I can't because I'm at work and it won't let me download the schedule. But go onto fossedata. Dowload the schedule. The border collie breed classes are on page 97. Look at Classes 1795 and 1808 - but then you'll probably try to pretend that these are stakes classes too :biggrin:.


No - those are "Herding Tests". Not at all the same as a show competition entry. They are the tests a Show Champion has to take (unless it has an exemption) to be made up to a full Champion. Surely you knew that? Here's the link. The schedule is quite clear about it. To have become a 'show champion' the dog/bitch has to have been registered with the KC and won 3 CCs. Working line dogs can certainly do that - but as 'show' dogs, not working dogs. The whole point of the 'herding test' is to prove that, as show dogs, they are fit for function.


----------



## Tollisty

All gundog breeds have a special working gundog class at crufts, and the dogs don't have to qualify in a breed class to enter.
and of course there are the gamekeeper classes, which are for working gundogs and judged the same as the breed classes.


----------



## Spellweaver

AlbertRoss said:


> Why then, in the definition of the classes - in the same document - does it clearly state 'Special Open Stakes (Working)' and 'Special Open Stakes (Colour)' [bottom of page 6].


It says:

12. SPECIAL OPEN (WORKING) Dog 26. SPECIAL OPEN(WORKING) Bitch
13. SPECIAL OPEN (COLOUR) Dog 27. SPECIAL OPEN (COLOUR) Bitch

That is cut and pasted from the schedule. Show me where it says stakes anywhere there. Cut and paste it in your reply. 

I have no idea why it mentions stake in the definition of classes - misprint perhaps - but as you can see above, the schedule itself does not mention stakes. If you knew anything at all about dog showing, you would know that stakes classes are always listed in the schedule after the breed classes - not in the middle of the breed classes.



AlbertRoss said:


> Read the entry form then. You can ONLY show dogs registered with the KC. You cannot show a dog that's ISDS registered unless it's also KC registered. If the dog isn't registered - it can't be shown. And my point is that Moobli originally said "I would be quite tempted to enter one of my working bred collies ... just to see the reaction". The simple fact is that unless it's a KC registered dog it can't happen.


Which I have said all along. And your point is?


----------



## Spellweaver

AlbertRoss said:


> No - those are "Herding Tests". Not at all the same as a show competition entry. They are the tests a Show Champion has to take (unless it has an exemption) to be made up to a full Champion. Surely you knew that? Here's the link. The schedule is quite clear about it. To have become a 'show champion' the dog/bitch has to have been registered with the KC and won 3 CCs. Working line dogs can certainly do that - but as 'show' dogs, not working dogs. The whole point of the 'herding test' is to prove that, as show dogs, they are fit for function.


Sorry - gave you the wrong class numbers. Shold have given you 1794 and 1807 - Special Working Trial dog and Special Working Trial Bitch. That's the danger of doing things at work and trying to do them quickly. I am wondering, though, why you didn't notice these classes yourself as they were above the ones I quoted in the schedule - or perhaps you did notice and didn't want to admit it?

As I did give you the wrong class numbers, I suppose you can be forgiven for your pompous and patronising response about show champions and full champions in border collies. I show border collies. I know this information like the back of my hand. And quite frankly, somoene who can't even read a show schedule, and who has no knowledge of showing border collies other than what he googles, yet who feels he can lecture someone who actually shows border collies, is so ludicrous it just makes me want to laugh.


----------



## Spanish

Vet tests seem to be exposing some of the 'best' of breeds at Crufts.

I'm pretty sure these tests wouldn't exist were it not for PDE.

Interesting times.


----------



## Shingara

this is for a few posts at top of the page, isnt it the case that pedigrees and cross breeds can be registered with the kc, pedigrees are breeds and working dogs can be pedigree and mix breeds which means both are registered with the kc.


----------



## Malmum

Spanish said:


> Vet tests seem to be exposing some of the 'best' of breeds at Crufts.
> 
> I'm pretty sure these tests wouldn't exist were it not for PDE.
> 
> Interesting times.


I loved the fact that the "winning" Bulldog was disqualified. Proving that judges are *still* awarding to the wrong type - tut tut!


----------



## Jenny Olley

Shingara said:


> this is for a few posts at top of the page, isnt it the case that pedigrees and cross breeds can be registered with the kc, pedigrees are breeds and working dogs can be pedigree and mix breeds which means both are registered with the kc.


Mixed breeds can only be registered on the KC activity register, and indeed must be if you are wanting to enter a KC licenced activity such as Working trials, competitive obedience, agility or flyball.


----------



## DoggieBag

Spanish said:


> Vet tests seem to be exposing some of the 'best' of breeds at Crufts.
> 
> I'm pretty sure these tests wouldn't exist were it not for PDE.
> 
> Interesting times.


3 BOB's now. 

Bulldog
Peke
Clumber Spaniel


----------



## Shingara

Jenny Olley said:


> Mixed breeds can only be registered on the KC activity register, and indeed must be if you are wanting to enter a KC licenced activity such as Working trials, competitive obedience, agility or flyball.


whats the best a mix breed could win at crufts then ?


----------



## Jenny Olley

Shingara said:


> whats the best a mix breed could win at crufts then ?


Mixed breeds can't enter the breed showing, because it is just that a breed show

They can win competitve obedience, but of course they need to have won a "Ticket" during the qualifying period to be there.

They can win at the Working trials Kennel club championships which takes place in October, again the dog has to have won a "ticket" during the qualifying period to be in it.

They can be in the agility or the flyball again they would need to have qualified to be there.


----------



## teddyboylove

Oh boy, the passion, the passion Me, I am just a simple ignoramus who owns a crossbreed to love and enjoy the company of. (He has had all his health checks, of course - ain't that much of an ignoramus,) How happy am I to be spared the angst you are all feeling, and can carry on tiptoeing through the tulips in my own little world......truly, ignorance is bliss.....


----------



## Shrap

Malmum said:


> I loved the fact that the "winning" Bulldog was disqualified. Proving that judges are *still* awarding to the wrong type - tut tut!


It wasn't due to conformation, apparently it failed its eye test.


----------



## Goblin

I think what is now necessary, having had three dogs "disqualified" so far, is total disclosure as to the reasoning. What did they fail for? This is needed to validate the process for both "sides".


----------



## Elmo the Bear

Shrap said:


> It wasn't due to conformation, apparently it failed its eye test.


The judge or the dog ?


----------



## Nicky10

The clumber had ectropion in both eyes  they still haven't said about the bulldog or the peke


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Just for information the KC protocol is not to release the results from the vets who chose to disqualify the two dogs, so don't expect any facts until the owners of the dogs have been written to. If it's a genetic condition, there will be questions asked, if it was just something on the day, slight lameness, eye infection etc, they will be informed. Until then, everything is just rumour and hear say.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Goblin said:


> I think what is now necessary, having had three dogs "disqualified" so far, is total disclosure as to the reasoning. What did they fail for? This is needed to validate the process for both "sides".


See my answer above, the KC do not release results from a vet inspection to the general public, they are disclosed to the owner of the dog first and foremost.


----------



## Goblin

Unless details are released it will be a conspiracy to hide things for those who are pro health checks etc, or a conspiricy to simply be seen doing something for the against health checks crowd. Only by being open can all parties not be rife with rumor and allegations of corruption. Part of me does feel sorry for those who have been pulled up if the honestly did not see the fault. What is important now is also their reaction. I feel their reaction will influence how people judge the entire pedigree issue in terms of the showing willingness to change.


----------



## DoodlesRule

Shrap said:


> It wasn't due to conformation, apparently it failed its eye test.


Don't see how you can know this unless you know the owner and they have revealed the reason direct to you? As previously said its confidential and neither the KC or the vet are allowed to reveal details only the owner - then it depends how honest they are going to be!



Goblin said:


> I think what is now necessary, having had three dogs "disqualified" so far, is total disclosure as to the reasoning. What did they fail for? This is needed to validate the process for both "sides".


As above



Elmo the Bear said:


> The judge or the dog ?


Lol


----------



## AlbertRoss

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just for information the KC protocol is not to release the results from the vets who chose to disqualify the two dogs, so don't expect any facts until the owners of the dogs have been written to. If it's a genetic condition, there will be questions asked, if it was just something on the day, slight lameness, eye infection etc, they will be informed. Until then, everything is just rumour and hear say.


And therein lies the problem. If the dog is disqualified why on earth should the owner have to wait for a report to be published? The vet making his decision knows on the spot why he's disqualifying so why can't he say there and then?

It becomes a farce if a dog has passed health checks that exceed the KC requirements, has won competitions all over the world and yet a single vet, who may not have detailed knowledge of the breed, can disqualify without having to give reasons until later. (Check out the clumber as an example).


----------



## Goblin

I wonder who posted the following link on the web and if it is the original?

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/shopimages/products/normal/mainsite/certificate.jpg

apparently it was posted on facebook.


----------



## natty01

interesting video with the clumber owner , that dog is a big winner apparantly dog had a red eye vet said conjunctivites but definatly the best looking clumber ive seen , not extreme at all for the breed. and it seems its had lots of health checks .


----------



## Goblin

Agreed, the health tests prior to the show seem impressive. There's a lot of rumor going around at the moment including one saying the bulldog was disqualified due to a scratch on an eye rather than a permanent condition. 

It is essential these rumors are replaced with the facts.


----------



## natty01

Goblin said:


> Agreed, the health tests prior to the show seem impressive. There's a lot of rumor going around at the moment including one saying the bulldog was disqualified due to a scratch on an eye rather than a permanent condition.
> 
> It is essential these rumors are replaced with the facts.


i agree , i think the vets should do interviews to explain there actions ive already seen one post saying the bulldogs vet has been found to have lied and thats a rumor until the kc or vet preferably come forward and explain specifically what was wrong with the dog.


----------



## DoggieBag

Hearing the BOB Mastiff has failed its vet check.


----------



## DoodlesRule

natty01 said:


> interesting video with the clumber owner , that dog is a big winner apparantly dog had a red eye vet said conjunctivites but definatly the best looking clumber ive seen , not extreme at all for the breed. and it seems its had lots of health checks .
> 
> Crufts Clumber multi Ch Chervood Snowsun best of breed disqualified - YouTube


Google working clumbers, still a marked difference


----------



## leashedForLife

the inspection is NOT a veterinary exam - 
per Kisko, it involves no optical instruments, stethoscope, etc, 
but only hands & eyes, the same tools the judge uses to evaluate.

so how would the vet see a corneal scratch, with no contrast-dye & no optical instrument?

i *think* the Bully & Peke were DQd for breathing issues, but of course that is merely opinion. 
for all i know, the Peke may have had a luxating patella which clicked audibly or caused a hitch in the 
dog's gait, or some other movement issue.

i haven't seen the Clumber in question, & have no idea what possible issue there may be per that dog.


----------



## leashedForLife

the KC is missing a teachable moment, IMO - 
i'd ask the owner / breeder / handler for permit to explain the issue to the public, 
as that means that other breeders & APOs will have added info to understand possible issues, 
either breed-specific or dog-generic, ahead of their need of that info.

i think including a FORM in the KC-registration for Crufts, giving permission *ahead of time* 
when they register for the show, would be the ultimate answer: the owner, breeder, handler, 
& any other interested parties could then agree in advance to disclose any issues, whether those 
might be chronic & heritable, or minor & temporary ills on the day.

breeders would learn from the visible example of the dog on the day, if it was a heritable condition, 
& handlers or owners or groomers would be alerted to passing symptoms of minor problems - 
obviously, stenotic nares / sinuses are lifelong, & an eye-infection is a relatively minor ill, 
which will clear-up in a few days with treatment.


----------



## Goblin

Breed club for the Cumber is stating that a visible haw is allowed so long as not in excess in the breed standard. For those who don't know (I had to look it up) the haw is the third eyelid, or nictitating membrane. It can be found in the corner of the eye when it is not being "used" and a dog uses it to protect the eye.

Looks as though there will be a lot of fallout to do with these disqualifications.


----------



## comfortcreature

A visible haw is not the same as ectropion, which is what is on that report that was shown, although they can be related.

Ectropion involves the lower lid rolling outward, effectively preventing the eye from closing in a blink and washing itself properly, from what I understand.

There are many headshots of her here. In the bottom right photo you can particularly see how saggy the skin is under her eyes. Other photos don't show this so much, but she could be younger in them.

http://www.dogsunit.com/index.php?o...id=740:r5-clumber-spaniel-females&Itemid=1937

CC


----------



## Malmum

So far then there have been three disqualifications - Bulldog, Pekinese and Mastiff. What are the judges missing about this new ruling then? or are they so set in their ways that they will continue to take certain breeds out of the contest altogether rather than judge with the new direction in mind.

I wouldn't take too much notice of those rumours as there are bound to be sour grapes about these health checks and things simply made up. I believe it isn't just on the say of one vet is it? Whatever people may think the decision is final and has to be accepted.


----------



## comfortcreature

Bulldog, Pekingese, Clumber and Mastiff . . . .

CC


----------



## Goblin

Worth pointing out:
[youtube_browser]OYg5DezDsgc[/youtube_browser]
Should be noted that the vet does not have any resources for the vet check which a judge doesn't have.

Worth repeating:
[youtube_browser]rrWjVFKuAg8[/youtube_browser]
It shows quite clearly how judges still have some way to go. Shown by requiring "vetting" the judges to the bulldog breeder saying "healthy bulldogs" are unlikely to win in the show room in the near term. Standards and "politics" are still more important than health for some.


----------



## leashedForLife

The Chalk Got In Their Eyes

"chalk got in the dog's eyes?"  really?!


----------



## leashedForLife

Crufts Clumber multi Ch Chervood Snowsun best of breed disqualified - YouTube


----------



## comfortcreature

[youtube_browser]7ubTCBN_l1E[/youtube_browser]

This has got to be a shock and disappointing to the owners and breeders, however saying . . ."that is the breed", . . . "clumbers have red eyes". . . doesn't do their cause any favors.

CC


----------



## leashedForLife

Who Judges the Judges? Vets of Course


----------



## natty01

i think u can add the neo to the list


----------



## pickle

I would like to respectfully point out that the veterinary examinations are a KC initiative, not something put in place by any other body. If they so wished they could over-rule the vet decision, it is their show and they make the rules. When you enter a KC reg show you sign a declaration to "abide by KC rules". So the vet does *not* disqualify the dog, it is their recommendation.


----------



## DoggieBag

pickle said:


> I would like to respectfully point out that the veterinary examinations are a KC initiative, not something put in place by any other body. If they so wished they could over-rule the vet decision, it is their show and they make the rules. When you enter a KC reg show you sign a declaration to "abide by KC rules". So the vet does *not* disqualify the dog, it is their recommendation.


Good point. Do you think they would ever over-rule a vet though? Can imagine it would not be good for their image to many people????


----------



## Goblin

I think it's also worth noting the complaints "does he know the breed?". The whole point of having an independent vet is that they are looking at a dog with concern for it's health, not making allowances for what is seemed by many as to be acceptable for breed.

German Shepherd, Elmo von Huhnegrab has passed his vet check.
Neapolitan Mastiff, CC Lux/Slo Ch Ithani - from Belgium failed, apparently again due to eye problems.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

Goblin said:


> Should be noted that the vet does not have any resources for the vet check which a judge doesn't have.


Other than eight years training and a proper qualification  .... beats "kicking the tyres" every time :thumbup:


----------



## Goblin

Ah but the argument seen elsewhere is but it takes 10+ years to become a judge, only 7 to become a vet  Love to know where the judge academies are.


----------



## Elmo the Bear

Goblin said:


> Ah but the argument seen elsewhere is but it takes 10+ years to become a judge, only 7 to become a vet  Love to know where the judge academies are.


Is that just like the House of Lords though... as in "you're related to" or in the judges' case "you've been around a long time" ?

So the vet is qualified to judge the health of the dog... the judge is surely only "qualified" to say whether it looks like what's written on the piece of paper?

... and I did say "proper" qualification ;-)


----------



## Wildmoor

Moobli said:


> I am just learning about the various working lines but thought that my dog was line bred to the DDR dog Tino vom Felsenschloß (he has this dog on both sides in the last three generations), I believe Xatoh is Belgian lines and the vom Stadtfelt dogs being West German working? Is that correct?
> 
> I see no WGSL dogs?


sire line
Nats vom Arolser Holz 5th gen
Nyrvana Lacrosse 3rd gen
a few others in 5th gen are mixed with WGSL

dam line
Immo vom Haus Anja 5th gen is predominately WGSL
Janette vom Phönix 4th gen
Clea vom Golmkauer Krug 5th gen

Haus Sevens is Belgian


----------



## Wildmoor

Moobli said:


> But the show people are also the ones who are breeding for a particular type to win under a judge who likes that type. I don't think anyone can deny that the GSD shape has been changing since the 1970s and there are a great many people who do not like, nor understand, the sloping topline and weak hocks of some of the modern day Germanic type GSDs seen in the show ring.
> 
> I am not a person who shows, it holds no interest for me, however I did go to the Border Union show last year to watch the GSDs and, if I am perfectly honest, it is not an experience I wish to repeat.


this is no different than the workingline folk like the idiot who bred his handler aggressive male to its daughter - culled (in this case killed) all the litter bar the one he kept

try going to the sieger where you will see 3-4,000 dogs then make your mind up instead of basing your opinions on one show


----------



## Wildmoor

AlbertRoss said:


> Trying to make sense of your ramblings gets more and more difficult. Again you refuse to engage with FACTs and just spout your opinions.
> 
> The FACT is that the BMS is now 18. The 5 year average for BMS is 16. That means scores have gone up. The maths is quite simple.
> 
> The FACT is that there are a lot more 'German' breeders scoring now. That means the degeneration in score can only be due to German type dogs. Do feel free to check the numbers yourself.
> 
> On the contrary it's exactly German breeders who are showing high scores. Show me any evidence you have to the contrary. Not your opinion. Not hearsay from other breeders - show me publicly available evidence.
> 
> Yes, that's when he eventually became president. However, the influence of the 2 was felt way before that - which is how he eventually rose to the position.
> 
> No, I mean the report issued this week that I have in my hand. It covers the situation up to and including 2011. Try and get a copy before making more ill considered and untruthful remarks.
> 
> I've always scored. With only one exception all the people I know who breed have scored. The one who didn't now does. And I haven't mention stifles.
> 
> What have police dogs to do with anything? My remarks about police dogs have touched only on where they get them from, the fact that most forces breed their own and their training. The police are concerned only with having a working dog that is fit for purpose. They don't, as far as I'm aware, register their dogs with the KC.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Re hips lets take a middle year 2009
> Aberhunderte Adama hip score 65 worklines
> Aberhunderte Arro hip score 6 worklines
> Alberdale Mabella hip score 8 WGSL
> Alberdale Maisie hip score 8 WGSL
> Alberdale Putz hip score 12 WGSL
> Albessa Lucky Charm hip score 12 sire WGSL dam LC pet lines
> Alehronty Kazianta Girl hip score 12 worklines
> Alexbria Lexy hip score 12 WGSL
> Alexbria Livvi hip score 10 WGSL
> Aloy vom NeuseenLand hipscore 6 WGSL
> Alrobin Jason hip score 4 WGSL
> Alsaceroyale Blondie hip score 12 irish mixed lines
> Alsaceroyal Majestic hip score 10 as above
> Amandas Wish List hip score 12
> Amberix Gabby hip score 13 WGSL
> Amberix Gretel hip score 60 WGSL
> Amberzitta Hydra of Carmalita hip score 10 sire worklines dam WGSL
> Amberzitta Okina hip score 51 sire workline dam half work half WGSL bad hips from sire Manpol dog
> Ambii Armageddon hip score 12 workline
> Ambii Azazel hip score 11 workline
> Amnedd Equadore hip score 8 half WGSL half workline
> Amnedd Evita hip score 30 half WGSL half workline
> Amulree Jackson at Zoqueans hip score 6 WGSL
> Anchaz Aurthurian hip score hip score 10 sire half workline half showline dam WGSL
> Angel vom Boses hip score 81 sire WGSL dam half show half pet
> Angelo vom Boses hip score 17 as above both IKC
> Angliaforce Rudi hip score 13 workline
> Anika Graceful Black hip score 10 petlines
> Anpo Teba hip score 18 WGSL
> Anpo Uzza hip score 23 WGSL
> Anpo Wabi vom Bremlan hip score 15 WGSL
> Antilli Georgia at Conquell hip score 9 WGSL
> Antilli Gypsi hip score 11 WGSL
> Ardenburg Gilda hip score 9 WGSL
> Argonne Eico hip score 25 workline
> Argonne Enzo hip score 8 workline
> Argonne Exel hip score 10 workline
> Aristima Autum Breeze hip score 31 coloured pet lines
> Aristima Blue Ghost hip score 11 coloured pet lines
> Aristima Blue River at Stormlake hip score 9 coloured pet lines
> Aristima Devotion hip score 12 coloured pet lines
> Aristima Flame Heart hip score 10 coloured pet lines
> Aristima Kotas Dream hip score 11 coloured pet lines
> Aristima Love in the Mist st Flyhart hip score 29 coloured pet lines
> Aristima Red Jewel of Nakeaz hip score 32 coloured pet lines
> Aristima Shades of Bronze hip score 10 coloured pet lines
> Arkashan Infra Red hip score 13 workline
> Arodene Eischa at Nosdivad hip score 26 WGSL
> Aroslerelite Asko hip score 11 workline
> Aschenar Leanna hip score 13 WGSL
> Astana Holly hip score 10 WGSL
> Astana Ica hip score18 WGSL
> Audlynton Ignaita hip score 15 workline
> Aufraumen Carrie hip score 12 WGSL
> Axel von der Fasanerie hip score 8 workline
> Aycliffe Duna hip score 10 workline
> 
> so not sure where you can state it is in relation to WGSL if you require I can give you the rest of the dogs for 2009 - notice none of your type in the As with hip score - soz forget you dont tend to do them do you


----------



## Wildmoor

Albert Ross re Police dogs again you are showing your lack of knowledge around the GSD ALL Police Forces have their own affix and register their dogs with the KC: a few examples for you
Manpol - Commissioner of Greater Manchester Police
Metpol - Commisioner of Police for the Metropolis
Notspol, Westmids, Kenpol, Merpol etc again if you need it I will give you all the Police forces KC affix's


----------



## Spellweaver

Goblin said:


> Agreed, the health tests prior to the show seem impressive. There's a lot of rumor going around at the moment including one saying the bulldog was disqualified due to a scratch on an eye rather than a permanent condition.
> 
> It is essential these rumors are replaced with the facts.


I agree. Until the facts are known everything is just so much conjecture - and that is bad for everyone because people take up the rumours and run with them as if they are true - you only have to look at the proliferation of threads on this forum alone who are speaking of unkown things as if they were facts and condemning animals, owners, breeders and judges accordingly.

I understand that there is a matter of client confidentiality which renders the the vet unable to speak about the animal and it's health - but surely there could be some kind of disclosure form that exhibitors of the 15 specified breeds are asked to sign?

If I were the owner or breeder of a dog that had failed the vet check, and I believed it was a fit and healthy dog (I wouldn't be exhibiting it otherwise) I would want the vet's findings to be published - and I would be publishing two or three other independent vet checks that supported the fact that my dog was healthy.

If I were the judge, I would want the results published, because I would believe that I had put up an healthy dog and I would want to be able to argue against the finding of the vet.

And if I were a KC official, I would want the results published, if only to say, "Look, it's working - we are not allowing unhealthy dogs to keep their best of breed award.

The fact that results are not being made public (except through rumours and unofficial postings on facebook) does no-one any good - least of all the owner and/or breeder. For example, if the bulldog _was_ disqualified for a scratch on its eye, that is a whole different ball game to being disqualified for over-exaggeration of wrinkles, or breathing problems etc etc. But if results are not published, it just makes it look as if there is something to hide, and people will automatically think the worst and make up their own stories - and two or three years down the line, will be posting the made-up stories as truth.

And becasue of this, the vet results need to be published synonymously with the news that the dog has been disqualified - otherwise two or three years down the line, all that people will remember are the juicy rumours. Look at how people on here were posting that the peke from a couple of years ago had had an op to help it breathe - because that was the rumour in the media at the time. The truth - ie that he had had an op for a throat infection - which was also published in the media after the investigation - is remembered by so few. And unless the vet results are published pretty quickly, the same will happen here.


----------



## Snoringbear

leashedForLife said:


> the inspection is NOT a veterinary exam -
> per Kisko, it involves no optical instruments, stethoscope, etc,
> but only hands & eyes, the same tools the judge uses to evaluate.
> 
> so how would the vet see a corneal scratch, with no contrast-dye & no optical instrument?
> 
> i *think* the Bully & Peke were DQd for breathing issues, but of course that is merely opinion.
> for all i know, the Peke may have had a luxating patella which clicked audibly or caused a hitch in the
> dog's gait, or some other movement issue.
> 
> i haven't seen the Clumber in question, & have no idea what possible issue there may be per that dog.


It's been widely reported that the vet used a torch to identify the eye injury, which it was disqualified for.


----------



## Spellweaver

Snoringbear said:


> It's been widely reported that the vet used a torch to identify the eye injury, which it was disqualified for.


See, this is why I wish they would allow the results to be published. If this is true, then the judge, owners and breeders are immediately exonerated - if a vet needs a torch to identify an eye injury, then how can the judge be blamed for not seeing it? HOw can the owner be blamed for not knowing there was a scar that was visible with a vet's examination torch? How can the breeder be blamed for an old trauma injury to an eye?

And I suppose that the next question to follow that is this: should a dog be disqualified for an old eye injury that is unseeable by the naked eye? An old eye injury caused by trauma has nothing at all to do with the health of the dog, or exaggeration of breed features, or anything that could affect its health, its future breeding or the health of its progeny?

But unless the truth is published, those questions can't be addressed or answered.


----------



## DoodlesRule

" Dog World Home » Dog World » News 
Midlands meeting set for Thursday to discuss Crufts' vet checks

DOG SHOW exhibitors and breeders unhappy with the way the Kennel Clubs health checks on the 15 so-called high-profile breeds were handled at Crufts will attend a meeting in the Midlands on Thursday evening.

As the result of a Facebook campaign called Exhibitors Voice and Choice, launched on Sunday night, a meeting has been arranged to let exhibitors sound off about what happened at Crufts when six breeds were banned from competing for the group after failing the newly-introduced veterinary checks after winning best of breed.

The meeting is set to take place from 6pm on Thursday in the Britannia Suite at the National Motorcycle Museum located close to the NEC where Crufts took place. The announcement on the Facebook group says the meeting will discuss the implications of the health checks carried out at Crufts and arrive at some conclusions which would be forwarded to the KC.

Andrew Brace says on the group: "Everyone who is passionate about our sport is requested to attend  regardless of what breed you have. This affects everyone.

Emotions on the Facebook group are running high, with some commentators particularly upset that some of the UKs most experienced and well-respected judges had their decisions overturned." 

In my view if anything is changed (other than the same checks for all BOB winners) then pedigree breeders will lose all credibility with the general public, yes may get to keep their rossettes but will get to keep all their pups too as no one will want them.


----------



## shetlandlover

The Clumber Spaniel has been to a "ophthalmic specialist" and has been given the all clear of any eye problems. 

As much as I support healthy breeding and showing, and hell if my dog had got any issue like a not clear eye cert I would not even show I do think the kennel club have gone about this in a bit of a tough manner. IF certain dogs have been stopped from going into the Best in Group judging because of a issue that has not actually been there then I am sorry but that's not acceptable. It costs hundreds to go to crufts with your dog when you take into account fuel, entry fee's, food, car park ect and even more if you come from another country to show. Its not acceptable to have your reputation tarnished for something that isn't actually wrong. Which is what's clearly happened with the Clumber. 

I do believe a 3 vet check should be something to go for, that way you are 100% sure the dog is not sound in health ect.

I am all for improving health I really am. But this method needs to be looked at closer and revised.


----------



## leashedForLife

Snoringbear said:


> It's been widely reported that the vet used a torch to [see] the eye injury...


i have no idea what sort of lighting was ambient / available, but i've been to indoor dog-shows 
where U practically needed a torch in hand to find one's way thru the crowd in the hallway, 
so who knows how dark or lousy the lighting was, at the time?

a flash or keychain-light is not an opthalmascope; a match or cigarette lighter might serve as well,
in a pinch. SUPPOSEDLY the dog had a corneal-ulcer, but as the owners / breeders have yet to say, 
who can possibly state the fact?

a corneal-ulcer at the very least is not heritable - however, it is very painful & definitely needs Tx.


----------



## Goblin

shetlandlover said:


> The Clumber Spaniel has been to a "ophthalmic specialist" and has been given the all clear of any eye problems.


How official is this, or is it simply another one of the rumors floating about those trying to protect those who were disqualified. There are a lot of these rumors. Why don't we see eye pictures up close of the cumber in question... not difficult with today's technology.

I remember the quote about culling in PDE 1. Couldn't go to the younger vets as they would not cull. Had to go to an older one who would do what they wanted. How "independent" was this "ophthalmic specialist", Did they make allowances for breed? That was the reason to have an independent vet doing the checks so they wouldn't be influenced.

The damage has been done and you will not change people's opinions unless everything is brought totally out into the open which I can't see happening by the owners. Without this any backtracking of the KC will just enforce a lot of people's ideas about the breed clubs and the insular protectionist mentality.


----------



## shetlandlover

Goblin said:


> How official is this, or is it simply another one of the rumors floating about those trying to protect those who were disqualified.












Official.

There are plenty of rumors that's why I have not commented on anything other than the proven false fail, which is the Clumber.


----------



## shetlandlover

shetlandlover said:


> Official.
> 
> There are plenty of rumors that's why I have not commented on anything other than the proven false fail, which is the Clumber.


And to follow this, the Clumbers wins, health tests and proven fit for function test.

*SHOW RESULTS:*
-European Winner 2011
-World Winner 2011, Champion of Denmark, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, Slovenia
-Junior Champion of Slovenia, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia
-BITCH CHALLENGE CERTIFICATE - Crufts 2010, VHD, Croatia, Austria, Czech Republic
-World Winner 2010, Vice World Winner 2009, European Spaniel Show Winner 2009, Res. Post Graduate Bitch - CRUFTS 
-International Champion, Vice Europe Winner 2008, European Junior Winner 2007, European Junior Spaniel Winner 2007

*TRAINING RESULTS:*
-hunting tests passed

*HEALTH TESTS:*
-HD-A/A, Elbows-0/0, Patellas  free, Eyes  clear, PDP1 - clear


----------



## Goblin

So we can't determine any bias as the vet isn't even in the UK. :001_rolleyes:

All the previous tests and wins are meaningless as this is the first year of *independent *vet tests. This independence is the crux of the matter and what you would need to counter. Haven't seen anything yet which does so. Haven't seen close ups of the eyes in question either.


----------



## shetlandlover

Goblin said:


> So we can't determine any bias as the vet isn't even in the UK. :001_rolleyes:


So you are saying because the owner has had the dog checked "clear" in any country but the UK its not a true result?

:skep:

No vet worth their salt, even more so a "specialist" vet would put their reputation on the line to lie for a dog for any amount of money.


----------



## Goblin

What I am saying is we cannot judge motivation or if the breed was taken into account. You could say it doesn't happen. Many would disagree and I've given the example of culling as an example. Everything must be openly done by people who are independent to avoid conspiricy theories on either side.


----------



## Snoringbear

leashedForLife said:


> i have no idea what sort of lighting was ambient / available, but i've been to indoor dog-shows
> where U practically needed a torch in hand to find one's way thru the crowd in the hallway,
> so who knows how dark or lousy the lighting was, at the time?
> 
> a flash or keychain-light is not an opthalmascope; a match or cigarette lighter might serve as well,
> in a pinch. SUPPOSEDLY the dog had a corneal-ulcer, but as the owners / breeders have yet to say,
> who can possibly state the fact?
> 
> a corneal-ulcer at the very least is not heritable - however, it is very painful & definitely needs Tx.


The lighting at the NEC is fine. I was standing by the vet check area on Saturday. It's just a screened off area next to the rings. Whether it's a specific piece of veterinary equipment or not, it's still more than the hands & eyes available to the judge. My dogs had their eyes opened and checked by the judge yards from it. The only person I know who went in their was the Dogue BOB owner, I haven't asked them exactly what happened in their but I'll ask to clarify whether anything was used.


----------



## shetlandlover

Goblin said:


> What I am saying is we cannot judge motivation or if the breed was taken into account. You could say it doesn't happen. Many would disagree and I've given the example of culling as an example. Everything must be openly done by people who are independent to avoid conspiricy theories on either side.


We are not on about culling, we are on about a vet eye specialist passing a dog falsely. So the dog has 2 clear eye certs, 1 from before crufts and 1 from after. But those two certs are bias? And the vet who said the dog has 2 eye problems is right?

I have heard one of these vets who did the "check" at crufts is actually a feline specialist. So surely, the eye specialist should be the one to judge the eyes?

I have used my eye specialist for a few years now and would rather use him than any others as I know him and trust him, does that mean that because all my dogs are eye exam clear by him it means he's bias or I am bribing him?
Since many who health test their dogs get their dogs tests done at the same vets, because they are familiar or better in their field than others.

Now, I have not seen or got my hands on the dog in person nor am I a eye specialist but for me, it strikes me that if the dogs been cert clear today, 12/03/2012 by a eye specialist then maybe just maybe the dog is actually fine eye wise and it was a big trip up on the Crufts vet's part.


----------



## Spellweaver

shetlandlover said:


> The Clumber Spaniel has been to a "ophthalmic specialist" and has been given the all clear of any eye problems.
> 
> As much as I support healthy breeding and showing, and hell if my dog had got any issue like a not clear eye cert I would not even show I do think the kennel club have gone about this in a bit of a tough manner. IF certain dogs have been stopped from going into the Best in Group judging because of a issue that has not actually been there then I am sorry but that's not acceptable. It costs hundreds to go to crufts with your dog when you take into account fuel, entry fee's, food, car park ect and even more if you come from another country to show. Its not acceptable to have your reputation tarnished for something that isn't actually wrong. Which is what's clearly happened with the Clumber.
> 
> I do believe a 3 vet check should be something to go for, that way you are 100% sure the dog is not sound in health ect.
> 
> I am all for improving health I really am. But this method needs to be looked at closer and revised.


You have hit the nail on the head here. This is the kind of thing I was talking about when I said that knee-jerk reactions forced by PDE would not necessarily be a good thing.

In theory a vet check on the "at risk" breeds is a good thing - if organised and done properly. But it is becoming increasingly obvious to all except the usual suspects braying for pedigree blood that this has not been done properly. Instead of this being a measured decision, organised properly and executed properly, it has been done as a knee-jerk reaction to the accusations in the program - and, not surprisingly, it is obvious that things have not worked out fairly. One vet (a cat specialist) says a dog has ectropion, yet the dog has certificates from two other vets (incluing a dog eye specialist) to say its eyes are perfectly healthy. A bull-dog has trauma to the eye when a puppy, and one vet says that that means it is unhealthy and should not progress in the competition. With that kind of evidence, how can anyone uphold that it was a fair decision to fail either of these dog on health grounds and prevent them from progressing in the competition? No wonder exhibitors are up in arms. I can foresee law suits ensuing against the hapless vet.

I'm all for making sure show dogs are healthy, but if healthy dogs are being erroneously stopped from progressing to the group on the say-so of one vet, then this is obviously not the way. And as it is now becoming increasingly obvious that knee-jerk reactions forced by sensationalist media such as PDE don't work, perhaps the KC ought to just ignore the sensationalists and continue in its measured progress of improving the health of all dogs.


----------



## Alice Childress

Thought people might be interested in reading the Bulldog breed councils official statement regarding the disqualification at Crufts.

Bulldog Breed Council

There is a photo face on of the BOB bulldog at the bottom of the page and personally she does look like a positive example of the breed without extreme exaggerations. Which does make me wonder if the rumours going around suggesting that actually, the vet would have found something wrong with the breed, no matter which dog had won, are not completely outrageous...


----------



## Bijou

statement from the Bulldog Breed Council on the disqualified Bulldog

*The Bulldog Breed Council wishes to support the winning Exhibitor and the very experienced and respected Judge at Crufts 2012 .

We wish to clarify the events of the past weekend at Crufts and put an end to speculation.

We have worked with the Kennel Club over the last 8 years in a concentrated effort to focus on the points that needed urgent attention to improve the health of the Bulldog.

Long before any media attention and publicity we have had a health committee and a strategy to take the health of the breed forward , we have had many meetings and dialogue over a period of time with the Kennel Club that have not been instigated by Media frenzy but by the Breeders themselves .

The Facts .

The top winning Bulldog in question has an old eye injury, it is not visible to the naked eye in the normal manner of being examined by the judge nor is it visible without pulling the dogs eyelid down and a light being used.

It was a knock to the eye the dog had as a puppy and as had no ill effects and the exhibitor had not given this a second thought as a reason the dog would not be classed as healthy by the independent veterinarian on the day.

It seems the Kennel Club are assuming that any mark on the cornea of any Bulldog is due to damage caused by eye disease, in this case this is simply not true, and will be taken up with the Kennel Club by representatives of the Bulldog Breed Council at a meeting on 23rd March which we hopefully will prevent situations like this re-occurring in future

In all other areas this bulldog is healthy and passed all requirements.

This bulldog also went through this very same veterinary check as a volunteer at the trial run held by the BUBA [British Utility Breeds Association] in December 2011which was witnessed and watched by two independent Show officials of the society. With this passed obviously there was no warning that this failure was going to happen at such a high profile show in front of the world just a few months later.

We wish to add that Bulldog Breeders, Judges and Exhibitors are in a total disbelief because this bulldog has done so well not only in the UK but also in Europe.

We ask but one more point for you to ponder, this bulldog is fit for function, its a dog and as such has the freedom to enjoy its life with the rough and tumble that dogs at play have, we as a breed have no intention to say our dogs must be wrapped in cotton wool, they are a tough dog.

Being a dog, any dog, accidents can and do happen! *


----------



## shetlandlover

Spellweaver said:


> You have hit the nail on the head here. This is the kind of thing I was talking about when I said that knee-jerk reactions forced by PDE would not necessarily be a good thing.
> 
> In theory a vet check on the "at risk" breeds is a good thing - if organised and done properly. But it is becoming increasingly obvious to all except the usual suspects braying for pedigree blood that this has not been done properly. Instead of this being a measured decision, organised properly and executed properly, it has been done as a knee-jerk reaction to the accusations in the program - and, not surprisingly, it is obvious that things have not worked out fairly. One vet (a cat specialist) says a dog has ectropion, yet the dog has certificates from two other vets (incluing a dog eye specialist) to say its eyes are perfectly healthy. A bull-dog has trauma to the eye when a puppy, and one vet says that that means it is unhealthy and should not progress in the competition. With that kind of evidence, how can anyone uphold that it was a fair decision to fail either of these dog on health grounds and prevent them from progressing in the competition? No wonder exhibitors are up in arms. I can foresee law suits ensuing against the hapless vet.
> 
> I'm all for making sure show dogs are healthy, but if healthy dogs are being erroneously stopped from progressing to the group on the say-so of one vet, then this is obviously not the way. And as it is now becoming increasingly obvious that knee-jerk reactions forced by sensationalist media such as PDE don't work, perhaps the KC ought to just ignore the sensationalists and continue in its measured progress of improving the health of all dogs.


Spot on.

And from reading the bull dog post, seems the bull dog was unfairly failed too.


----------



## rona

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


----------



## Shrap

Unhealthy cripples, bulldogs are!


----------



## Spellweaver

Shrap said:


> Unhealthy cripples, bulldogs are!


Brilliant video!


----------



## Snoringbear

Initially I saw the health testing as a good thing, but having seen it in practice I've become a little divided on it. A popular consensus around the dogue ring on Saturday was that failure of the health tests will pretty much finish a dog in terms of showing and breeding. Looking at the bulldog and clumber, they may not be the ideal, but I have seen far more exaggerated and unhealthy examples of both. Progress in correcting breeds will be slow, but in these two cases it seems that progress has still been punished.


----------



## cavmad

I also thought that the health checks were a good idea but if the bulldog was stopped for going forward because of a scar on the eye it is stupid it is not a hereditary problem I could understand if there was breathing problems or something that makes the dog unhealthy.The Clumber as well but without seeing the eyes close up it is hard to understand why it has happened maybe the poor dog was hot and I know how dusty it can get in the halls so that could be the reason for the red eyes and looking like conjunctivitis.I think that there should be more than one vet and it should be made known straight away and the owner /handler can put forward their explanation and then maybe ask for anothervcheck before it is announced they have failed. I can see many oversea exhibiters not coming over to show in the 15 at risk breeds which would be ashame because it will be difficult to get new blood lines in this country.


----------



## Paganman

Spellweaver said:


> Brilliant video!


So it's ok to show a "good" bulldog from from some other country running about  Where was that? Spain, Argentina, Italy? I dont know but it was abroad and that's a "brilliant video!" which it is, but.....

PDE shows an unhealty pug from Germany and it's "not right" and "the only one they can find" "what's that got to do with the KC?"


----------



## comfortcreature

Snoringbear said:


> Initially I saw the health testing as a good thing, but having seen it in practice I've become a little divided on it. *A popular consensus around the dogue ring on Saturday was that failure of the health tests will pretty much finish a dog in terms of showing and breeding.* Looking at the bulldog and clumber, they may not be the ideal, but I have seen far more exaggerated and unhealthy examples of both. Progress in correcting breeds will be slow, but in these two cases it seems that progress has still been punished.


Are involved breeders truly this stupid?

CC


----------



## Goblin

I think the main problems we are seeing are:

1) KC/Show organizer not permitted to release full details. (releasing details allows open discussion rather than rumor)
2) No appeals procedure (needs one or more than one vet opinion i.e. 3)

I'm all for adding those to the independent health check but the check itself needs to stay.


----------



## Alice Childress

Paganman said:


> So it's ok to show a "good" bulldog from from some other country running about  Where was that? Spain, Argentina, Italy? I dont know but it was abroad and that's a "brilliant video!" which it is, but.....


Here's an English video for you then 

Hillplace Bulldogs do the Mambo No.5 - YouTube


----------



## Snoringbear

comfortcreature said:


> Are involved breeders truly this stupid?
> 
> CC


Probably. Can you elaborate further


----------



## Spellweaver

Paganman said:


> So it's ok to show a "good" bulldog from from some other country running about  Where was that? Spain, Argentina, Italy? I dont know but it was abroad and that's a "brilliant video!" which it is, but.....
> 
> PDE shows an unhealty pug from Germany and it's "not right" and "the only one they can find" "what's that got to do with the KC?"


Yes - both your statements are true. Well done. I'm glad to see you paying such close attention to what I say and learning from it.  It _is_ good to show a video of a bulldog doing agility, no matter where in the world it was happening. The health of a German pug _does have nothing_ to do with the English KC and _does_ highlight the inability of PDE to find a similar example from this country.

However, you seem to be struggling to pretend there is some kind of connection between the two statements. Your logic is skewed - there's a hell of a difference between me liking a video someone posted on a forum and a TV program showing an unhealthy pug from another country and trying to pretend all pugs in this country are like that. :001_rolleyes:

Now, had I posted that all bulldogs were healthy in this country and said look at this video I've found that proves it, your above pretence might have had some credence. However, I didn't - I merely liked a video someone had posted and said it was brilliant.


----------



## Paganman

Myfynwy said:


> Here's an English video for you then
> 
> Hillplace Bulldogs do the Mambo No.5 - YouTube


All very cute but it looks like it's on a loop of the same barrels running a few yards across an enclosure  I keep seeing the same dog and White training shoes followed by a pack tearing up something 

Your point is? :001_rolleyes:


----------



## Paganman

Spellweaver said:


> Now, had I posted that all bulldogs were healthy in this country and said look at this video I've found that proves it, your above pretence might have had some credence. However, I didn't - I merely liked a video someone had posted and said it was brilliant.


And I agreed although its not that brilliant 

Anyway, whatever, it's late and I'm feeling kind


----------



## Shrap

Paganman said:


> All very cute but it looks like it's on a loop of the same barrels running a few yards across an enclosure  I keep seeing the same dog and White training shoes followed by a pack tearing up something
> 
> Your point is? :001_rolleyes:


From the look of that vid I probs couldn't outrun that fast one


----------



## Spellweaver

Shrap said:


> From the look of that vid I probs couldn't outrun that fast one


I couldn't outrun any of 'em - in fact, my joints are so shot to pieces with arthritis that if I were a dog, the pro-PDE lot on here would be baying for my breeder's blood!

You see, it's a sad tale (heaves a sigh) but my parents weren't hip or elbow scored, and they had had no eye tests, no hearing tests, and no DNA tests at all to see what genetic illnessess they carried. Yet they went ahead and mated and had me.


----------



## BlueBeagle

Sorry, I need to ask although it is going to show my ignorance and I will be slated but wth!

Where do you find the names of the vets who were doing the vet checks and their 'specialisation'? I have googled but nothing is coming up. When I took my cat to shows they were vet checked before they went into the ring but I guess that was for illnesses rather than actual deformities.

And apparently the results of the vet check will be made public next week so how does everyone know what was wrong with the bull dog? Other than what the owner is saying. All the official stuff says the vets can not use anything professional and must only use what a judge uses ie hands and eyes and a corneal scratch is hard to detect that way. If the vet used anything else surely the owner would have complained straight away and another judge do a recheck? The vet can't disqualify a dog but only recommend it so if the dog had a prior known problem the KC would over rule the recommendation, there must have been an appeal system surely?

I agree this is not the way to go about it but it has sent a message home to everybody, that the health of the dog is of paramount importance! I guess there are far too many dogs entered to vet check them all prior to the comp and then the 'unhealthy' ones would not be competing which means a BOB would be found.


----------



## comfortcreature

Snoringbear said:


> Initially I saw the health testing as a good thing, but having seen it in practice I've become a little divided on it. A popular consensus around the dogue ring on Saturday was that failure of the health tests will pretty much finish a dog in terms of showing and breeding. Looking at the bulldog and clumber, they may not be the ideal, but I have seen far more exaggerated and unhealthy examples of both. Progress in correcting breeds will be slow, but in these two cases it seems that progress has still been punished.





comfortcreature said:


> Are involved breeders truly this stupid?
> 
> CC





Snoringbear said:


> Probably. Can you elaborate further


Is the suggestion that involved breeders are stupid enough to look JUST at this one veterinary disqualification after this one single event in their decision of whether or not to use these dogs further in the show ring or for breeding?

Cuz, I have to tell you, that scenario paints breeders as very dimwitted. The ones I've known have been smarter than that.

CC


----------



## dodo bird

What the vet was supposed to judge


> Veterinary Surgeons should therefore be looking for the following clinical signs in four main
> areas:
> Clinical Signs:
>  Externally visible eye disease
>  Lameness
>  Dermatological disorders
>  Respiratory distress
> Eye Disease
>  Entropion or *ectropion*
>  *Signs of inflammation*
>  Chronic damage to the cornea
>  Signs of visual impairment
>  Signs of pain or discomfort
> Lameness
>  Any lameness is a disqualifying fault
>  Includes ataxia
> Dermatological Signs
>  Inflammation, scarring or hairlessness associated with:
>  Skin folds or facial wrinkles
>  Tightly curled tail
>  Tacking or other cosmetic surgery
>  Long heavy ears associated with irritation or inflammation
> Respiratory distress
>  Difficulty breathing
>  Lack of exercise tolerance
>  Colour of mucous membrane
>  Respiratory noise associated with any of the above


Breed specific focus


> Clumber Spaniel: Conditions of eye and ear are a major focus for the breed and obesity
> can affect health and welfare.
> o *Ectropion* and entropion, are considered to be conformational defects that are
> disqualifying signs
> o Ear inflammation
> o Lameness
> o Clear evidence of eyelid surgery including tacking to be disqualifying
> conformational defect


The reason for disqualification: Ectropion in both eyes, and conjunctivitis(i.e. inflammation of conjunctiva) in right eye.



shetlandlover said:


>


Is there anything in this exam that rules out ectropion? It shows that on 12th of March, the dog did not have conjunctivitis. Inflammations can come and go, so both vets can be correct in their diagnosis. Is it fair to penalise a dog that has an inflammation that is not chronic? By the rules laid out for the Crufts vet, it is. Is the argument here that the rules are not fair or that the vet was wrong in his/her diagnosis of conjunctivitis? Didn't the owner admit that her dog's eyes was inflamed? Even without conjunctivitis, the ectropion will still disqualify the dog.



Spellweaver said:


> Look at how people on here were posting that the peke from a couple of years ago had had an op to help it breathe - because that was the rumour in the media at the time. The truth - ie that he had had an op for a throat infection - which was also published in the media after the investigation - is remembered by so few. And unless the vet results are published pretty quickly, the same will happen here.


Actually, the rumor was that he had a facelift which is a purely cosmetic procedure that would disqualify him from crufts. The owner claimed that the surgery was for a throat infection. The actual truth is that it had surgery to correct breathing problems. 



> DOG WORLD has acquired a copy of the letter which shows that Bert Easdon and Philip Martin broke no rules by having a veterinary procedure carried out on their Crufts BIS-winning Pekingese Ch Yakee A Dangerous Liaison (Danny).
> [...]
> The letter, which was sent to the Kennel Club after it launched an enquiry into the matter following Dannys Crufts win in 2003, reads: The dog was presented with a history of respiratory distress manifested by heavy breathing and bringing up froth. From the history and clinical examination I suspected an upper respiratory tract obstruction. Further investigation required general anaesthesia and endoscopy.
> The result of our investigation was to resect everted laryngeal saccules and part of the hypertrophied soft palate to relieve the obstruction. Both these are acquired problems which result in upper airway obstruction.


I guess the statement that the conditions are "acquired" gives them a way out. Both everted laryngeal saccules and elongated soft palate(not sure if this is the same as hypertrophied soft palate) are conditions grouped under brachycephalic syndrome.


----------



## Snoringbear

comfortcreature said:


> Is the suggestion that involved breeders are stupid enough to look JUST at this one veterinary disqualification after this one single event in their decision of whether or not to use these dogs further in the show ring or for breeding?
> 
> Cuz, I have to tell you, that scenario paints breeders as very dimwitted. The ones I've known have been smarter than that.
> 
> CC


Thanks for clarifying, that wasn't my suggestion. Given that the judges are getting a lot of criticism for putting up dogs that subsequently fail health tests, it would seem unlikely that anyone else would be willing to do so in future. Publically failing a high profile health test at an event at Crufts is hardly the kind of endorsement that will appeal to prospective puppy buyers amongst the GP. Personally, I would hope that the two examples I mentioned were used by breeders as they represent a step forward over their more exaggerated counterparts. However, they would be encumbered by the associated negativity.


----------



## Malmum

Spellweaver said:


> I couldn't outrun any of 'em - in fact, my joints are so shot to pieces with arthritis that if I were a dog, the pro-PDE lot on here would be baying for my breeder's blood!
> 
> You see, it's a sad tale (heaves a sigh) but my parents weren't hip or elbow scored, and they had had no eye tests, no hearing tests, and no DNA tests at all to see what genetic illnessess they carried. Yet they went ahead and mated and had me.


On a more serious note there are very many people who breed and really shouldn't with inherited diseases but unlike in the animal world no one cares and we humans have freedom of choice. Freedom to bring others into this world to suffer - all very selfish isn't it?


----------



## Goblin

If independent vet checks remain I don't have a problem with changes in the format in future. Can we trust all vets not to be biased? Unfortunately we cannot. If we have a vet who breeds or owns a specific breed, can they maintain objectivity? I don't believe so. If we have a vet who also judges and sees the same problem again and again, can they remain objective without eventually accepting the problem as normal. Again, I don't believe so.

Should the people get their titles back if proven wrong.. debateable. 








An instance in sport (World cup England vs Germany) where a decision was incorrectly made and England were kicked out because of it. The result however stood. Bad decisions are unfortunately part of sport and have to be accepted as were the terms and conditions when entering Crufts. It doesn't mean people can't learn from it and constructive improvements made to the process.

Much has been made of the Cumber Spaniel.. partly due to the vets report being leaked. Much has been made of the bulldog mainly through the breed clubs statement. What about the other 4 disqualifications? These seem to be being forgotten.


----------



## Goblin

Spellweaver said:


> You see, it's a sad tale (heaves a sigh) but my parents weren't hip or elbow scored, and they had had no eye tests, no hearing tests, and no DNA tests at all to see what genetic illnessess they carried. Yet they went ahead and mated and had me.


But your parents thankfully weren't part of an ongoing eugenics program.

It should also be mentioned that many couples DO make a decision not to have children when it is known any children have a high chance of carrying or having afflictions such as Tay sachs disease or Huntingtons.


----------



## Shrap

Goblin said:


> But your parents thankfully weren't part of an ongoing eugenics program.
> 
> It should also be mentioned that many couples DO make a decision not to have children when it is known any children have a high chance of carrying or having afflictions such as Tay sachs disease or Huntingtons.


I'm considering not having kids. I wanted 3 but ah well. I have an ongoing joint problem that the doc can't figure out, had serious pain in my right hip and knee for over a month now. I'm currently lying on the floor and keep getting sharp stabbing pains in my knee  This could be posture and weight related though so once I find that out it may be discounted.
My family has a history of stroke, heart disease, cancer, diabetes (I think), asthma, eczema, glaucoma, gout, kidney failure, arthritis..... I'm pretty much fecked so don't think I can really have kids


----------



## Set_Nights

Anyone read any of her blog posts since Crufts?


----------



## DoodlesRule

Set_Nights said:


> Anyone read any of her blog posts since Crufts?


Yes why? There is a new one showing a rather lovely mastiff that was at Crufts, what a shame that one was not deemed a better specimen than the one that failed the vet check


----------



## Snoringbear

Set_Nights said:


> Anyone read any of her blog posts since Crufts?


Yes, waiting for DDB to come up at the moment.


----------



## Snoringbear

DoodlesRule said:


> Yes why? There is a new one showing a rather lovely mastiff that was at Crufts, what a shame that one was not deemed a better specimen than the one that failed the vet check


Possibly because he dosen't like to pick BOB from younger dogs, it is generally discouraged. He would have been best simply witholding BOB (which you are now allowed to do) whichever dog was chosen having seen what had happened the previous two days. I don't think the bitch would have passed the health test either, her eyes are as bad if not slightly worse than the clumber's.


----------



## Set_Nights

DoodlesRule said:


> Yes why? There is a new one showing a rather lovely mastiff that was at Crufts, what a shame that one was not deemed a better specimen than the one that failed the vet check


Why? Because I'm interested to hear what other people's opinions on it are .

Do you mean the neo bitch? Yes, she is a stunner . She did get placed highly though which is a good sign. The actual BOB looks a lot better and less wrinkly than a lot of the other dogs showing. It is hard to judge a dog just by looking at one photo which maybe isn't showing it in the best light.

Hmm, I thought her coverage was actually pretty unbiased (considering) re the bulldog and neo. I feel sorry for the mastiff owner though. She has linked to a flickr photo to the BOB (a KC photo because the dog won BOB previously). The photo was posted in 2010 but had no comments on it until 4 days ago when PDE posted the blog and now there are comments on the photo slagging the dog off. I think it is ok being concerned about the direction a breed is going in but it is pretty harsh to single out and slag off an individual dog.


----------



## Alice Childress

Paganman said:


> All very cute but it looks like it's on a loop of the same barrels running a few yards across an enclosure  I keep seeing the same dog and White training shoes followed by a pack tearing up something
> 
> Your point is? :001_rolleyes:


 It's an edited together little piece of footage. It wasn't done to prove to you that bulldogs are healthy. It's just some dogs having fun. They are running like the wind regardless of whether bits are played twice - which is debatable. Anyone would think you were purposefully trying to find something to criticise :

My point? You wanted an English video of active bulldogs, so I gave you one. I actually find your tone (can there be tone over the internet?? :thumbup rather patronising.

These bulldogs by the way are from self whelping lines and have an average life span of 11-13 years. Of all the bulldogs in all the world to criticise, it's not these guys.


----------



## Paganman

Paganman said:


> So it's ok to show a "good" bulldog from from some other country running about  Where was that? Spain, Argentina, Italy? I dont know but it was abroad and that's a "brilliant video!" which it is, but.....
> 
> PDE shows an unhealty pug from Germany and it's "not right" and "the only one they can find" "what's that got to do with the KC?"





Paganman said:


> All very cute but it looks like it's on a loop of the same barrels running a few yards across an enclosure  I keep seeing the same dog and White training shoes followed by a pack tearing up something
> 
> Your point is? :001_rolleyes:





Paganman said:


> And I agreed although its not that brilliant
> 
> Anyway, whatever, it's late and I'm feeling kind





Myfynwy said:


> It's an edited together little piece of footage. It wasn't done to prove to you that bulldogs are healthy. It's just some dogs having fun. They are running like the wind regardless of whether bits are played twice - which is debatable. Anyone would think you were purposefully trying to find something to criticise :
> 
> My point? *You wanted an English video of active bulldogs*, so I gave you one. I actually find your tone (can there be tone over the internet?? :thumbup rather patronising.
> 
> These bulldogs by the way are from self whelping lines and have an average life span of 11-13 years. Of all the bulldogs in all the world to criticise, it's not these guys.


Can you see anywhere in the above posts where I have either asked for a video of healthy or unhealthy bulldogs? 

Can you see anywhere in the above posts where I have slated any bulldogs let alone the one you mistakenly claim I wanted? 

No, I thought not, that would be because I didnt! 

My post regarding the first bulldog video was aimed at smellweaver and her protests way back in this thread regarding an unhealthy pug that was shown on PDE and being from Germany.

She them went on to make a post saying the healthy bulldog video was brilliant no doubt to back up her claim that not all bulldogs are unhealthy, which I agree, they are not.

But in my book if you are going to involve healthy dogs from abroad then it is ok to involve unhealthy dogs from abroad.

As for coming across as patronising towards you..awww bless, sowwy poppet :thumbup:


----------



## DoodlesRule

Set_Nights said:


> Why? Because I'm interested to hear what other people's opinions on it are .
> 
> Do you mean the neo bitch? Yes, she is a stunner . She did get placed highly though which is a good sign. The actual BOB looks a lot better and less wrinkly than a lot of the other dogs showing. It is hard to judge a dog just by looking at one photo which maybe isn't showing it in the best light.
> 
> Hmm, I thought her coverage was actually pretty unbiased (considering) re the bulldog and neo. I feel sorry for the mastiff owner though. She has linked to a flickr photo to the BOB (a KC photo because the dog won BOB previously). The photo was posted in 2010 but had no comments on it until 4 days ago when PDE posted the blog and now there are comments on the photo slagging the dog off. I think it is ok being concerned about the direction a breed is going in but it is pretty harsh to single out and slag off an individual dog.


LOL thought would get hung drawn & quartered for reading it 

Agree photos can be deceiving - catch a person at the wrong moment and can look pretty hideous (thats what I tell myself any way ha ha)


----------



## Goblin

Paganman said:


> But in my book if you are going to involve healthy dogs from abroad then it is ok to involve unhealthy dogs from abroad.


Unhealthy bulldogs in Germany are not difficult to find. The VDH (German KC) and the main bulldog breed club have parted ways. From what I can gather the VDH wanted to insist on health progress and the breed club refused.

The breed clubs and the KC are making more progress than in some other countries.


----------



## leashedForLife

Goblin said:


> It should also be mentioned that many couples DO [decide] not to have children when it's known [that] any children
> have a high chance of carrying or having afflictions such as Tay-Sachs... or Huntington's.


yes - 
& intrauterine tests for Down's syndrome, pre-pregnancy tests & counseling for potential genetic diseases, 
selective abortion of implanted fetuses, extra-uterine fertilization of tested egg & sperm, etc, 
are also used to help ensure healthy children are carried & born, not children who will be sick & live 
short & often painful lives; metabolic diseases can be especially cruel.


----------



## AlbertRoss

Goblin said:


> Unhealthy bulldogs in Germany are not difficult to find. The VDH (German KC) and the main bulldog breed club have parted ways. From what I can gather the VDH wanted to insist on health progress and the breed club refused.


Very similar to the KC and the main GSD breed clubs here then.


----------

