# Pride or Prejudice... Dods Today



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Dogs Today has an excellent (IMO) article on crossbreeds. I know this may be opening a very old can of worms, but well done Jemima Harrison for writing the article and Dogs Today for publishing it. Never a truer word...

And BTW the way I am a very proud doodle mum as Freddie, Darcey and Jasper appear in the pics accompanying the article


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Can I have their paw prints 

Did you have to go to a photo shoot?


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Lol! No, just sent some in response to a facebook request. But still very proud to see them in print.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

freddies_mum said:


> Lol! No, just sent some in response to a facebook request. But still very proud to see them in print.


Awww - I was imagining some glamorous photo shoot   

Must be lovely to see them in print


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Not read the article - wouldn't give DT houseroom and anything JH writes is bound to be suspect with her track record so don't intend to waste my time reading it.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Congratulations!

Just had a quick look to see what the mag is like and it looks like the doggie version of Hello magazine lol. Very posh.

I quite like Jemima Harrison articles, often food for thought, whether you agree with her or not. 

I'll get me coat.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Not read the article - wouldn't give DT houseroom and anything JH writes is bound to be suspect with her track record so don't intend to waste my time reading it.


Back it up with facts/your side of the story rather than just sounding bitter otherwise comes across as the lady doth pretest too much. If you have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

Not read it/bought it so can't comment either way at the moment but your comment is daft as me saying oh wow I have a cross breed so it must be fact/right. I will judge it when I have read it.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I think JH has raised important issues and shamed some people into doing things which needed to be done for the minority of breeds which needed it. Unfortunately during the process she also antagonized many people with breeds which were unnecessarily included in the generalization of the subject matter. This has divided the "camps" even more. There are a lot of breeders/dog owners out there who feel hurt and betrayed by her actions. Hardly shocking and understandable when those people are doing the best they can for their dogs and breeds and actually doing things right.

Not going to get the magazine here but can you give a synopsis if applicable.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Not read the article - wouldn't give DT houseroom and anything JH writes is bound to be suspect with her track record so don't intend to waste my time reading it.


  what have I done to upset you


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Not read the article - wouldn't give DT houseroom and anything JH writes is bound to be suspect with her track record so don't intend to waste my time reading it.


I agree completely. Its a shame because a friends dogs are on the cover. But after everything I have read. No thanks.



DT said:


> what haveI done to upset you


I was thinking that I had to go back up and read it before I realized it meant "Dogs today".


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Back it up with facts/your side of the story rather than just sounding bitter otherwise comes across as the lady doth pretest too much. If you have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.
> 
> Not read it/bought it so can't comment either way at the moment but your comment is daft as me saying oh wow I have a cross breed so it must be fact/right. I will judge it when I have read it.


I don't understand the first part of your comment - what on earth do you mean abut nothing to hide, nothing to fear? I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear about crossbreeds - why on earth would I?  

As for commenting on the article without reading it, I'm going on all the half truths JH has told in the past. Her reputation is the pits - why on earth would I pay good money to read anything she writes? If I wanted to read something about crossbreeds I would read someone who is qualified to write about them, not a shock-horror-lets-bend-the-truth-in-order-to-sell the-story tabloid journalist-type hack.

As for backing up my opinion on her ineptitude with facts, this is a good "fact" for you. Have a look at this clip, starting at point 02.30, but paying special attention to points 02.32 and 02.33.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed part 2 - YouTube

This clip is of my friend's dog, Siggi. No-one from Passionate Productions asked permission to film him. No-one from Passionate Productions asked any of us on the stand at Discover Dogs anything at all about the history or health of the bergamasco.

Jemima's voice over while he is being shown says: "Today's dogs have been moulded by man into almost every possible shape and size".

She could not have picked a worse breed to illustrate her point - the bergamasco of today is exactly as it was over two thousand years ago. The coat developed naturally, an evolutionary response to the environment in which the dogs worked - air trapped between the maps keeps it warm in winter and cold in summer. The thick maps act as an armour against naturall predators such as wolves and snakes.

Now, if Jemima had done her research properly and asked, she would have been given this information as freely as I have just told you here - we tell thousands of visitors exactly the same at Discover Dogs every year. But she didn't. She saw an unusual coat and decided to assume it must be "man-made", and put it into her program as if it were the truth.

Either she couldn't be bothered to research properly - in which case all her research is suspect - or she wanted to deliberately mislead - in which case the whole program is suspect.

And then of course there was all the furore she caused in the house of commons at an APGAW meeting, where she produced a document stating that the sire and dam of one of the top achieving show dogs of a particular breed had both died from genetic diseases, when in actual fact the dam had died in an accident, and the sire is alive and well. Both had been health tested appropriately for the breed, and the dog itself is co-owned and very healthy. (hope you don't mind my C&P from your post from a while ago, SleepingLion!)

So do you still wonder why I doubt that her article is worth reading, or that she is writing with any authority on the subject at all? And have I furnished enough evidence/facts to back up my reasoning for you?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> I agree completely. Its a shame because a friends dogs are on the cover. But after everything I have read. No thanks. ".


Unless you read it, with an open mind or otherwise, then you cannot really comment. Unless you read it and offer a counter argument how can anything you say be valid?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DT said:


> what have I done to upset you


:lol: not you, you numpty! Dogs Today! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Unless you read it, with an open mind or otherwise, then you cannot really comment. Unless you read it and offer a counter argument how can anything you say be valid?


I am not claiming to have read it. I would rather not since 2 of the major people involved with the mag are also involved in a rather petty dispute on facebook which has even resorted to their friends publishing an address and personal information on someone who disagree'd with PDE2.

Anything connected to PDE, JH and DT (not you double trouble) imo is not worth the read when I could be using that time to read the dog papers which imo provides a more fair view point.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> She could not have picked a worse breed to illustrate her point


She couldn't have picked a better breed.  A naturally evolved coat, due to environment and one of the healthiest breeds there is. Proof that Mother Nature can get it right, even if we can't. lol

How ironic and what a whoopsie.

It doesn't completely invalidate everything she says I think. I hope she stresses the need to buy from an ethical breeder who breeds dogs that are health tested in her next programme though, instead of putting folk off looking at pedigree dogs altogether. :nono:

Well said Goblin.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I don't understand the first part of your comment - what on earth do you mean abut nothing to hide, nothing to fear? I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear about crossbreeds - why on earth would I?
> 
> As for commenting on the article without reading it, I'm going on all the lies and half truths JH has told in the past. Her reputation is the pits - why on earth would I pay good money to read anything she writes? If I wanted to read something about crossbreeds I would read someone who is qualified to write about them, not a shock-horror-lets-bend-the-truth-in-order-to-sell the-story tabloid journalist-type hack.
> 
> ...


But that is the whole point of what I was trying to say - just because its on the TV/in the Press does not make it fact and I will read it with an open mind and look into things further, as will many people . If you just calmly say its wrong because ............ people are more likely to listen to you. If you go off on one saying it all a pile poop, wouldn't read it give it house room whatever bla bla and attack any one who does not agree with a comment such as the one you made here then you merely come across as defensive/aggressive


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

well I certainly ain't gonna pay for that comic! Can pick em up for penny's on a market stall in our town -but have to wait until they are returned to the publishers then sold onto the market traders, normally about six weeks!

So shall add my comments then! that is of course assuming this thread lasts that long!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Just a question! In which area is Jemima Harrison qualified? Only apart from her keeping pedigree dogs in the past I understood her to be nothing more then a writer! And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the aim of all writers to write what they will consider sells! And sure a hell she knows damd well that this topic is gonna sell!

Perhaps she's going into fiction


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> But that is the whole point of what I was trying to say - just because its on the TV/in the Press does not make it fact and I will read it with an open mind and look into things further, as will many people . If you just calmly say its wrong because ............ people are more likely to listen to you. If you go off on one saying it all a pile poop, wouldn't read it give it house room whatever bla bla and attack any one who does not agree with a comment such as the one you made here then you merely come across as defensive/aggressive


Who have I attacked who has disagreed with me? I said I had no intention of reading the article because of JH's bad reputation, and you asked me to support my reasons for not reading the article with facts. I have done so - and one of them was quite a personal reason/fact. That's neither defensive nor aggressive - it was a response to your request.

On the other hand, you accused me of having something to fear, something to hide, being bitter, protesting too much - none of which was true. I'm not the one being defensive and aggressive here, sweetie!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Who have I attacked who has disagreed with me? I said I had no intention of reading the article because of JH's bad reputation, and you asked me to support my reasons for not reading the article with facts. I have done so - and one of them was quite a personal reason. That's neither defensive nor aggressive - it was a response to your request.
> 
> On the other hand, you accused me of having something to fear, something to hide, being bitter, protesting too much - none of which was true. I'm not the one being defensive and aggressive here, sweetie!


There was nothing wrong with your posts! your initial post was aimed at no one - just your personal views! but alas you know the drill with these type of threads! especially when Ally is involved! opps! doodlesrule!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DT said:


> Just a question! In which area is Jemima Harrison qualified? Only apart from her keeping pedigree dogs in the past I understood her to be nothing more then a writer! And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the aim of all writers to write what they will consider sells! And sure a hell she knows damd well that this topic is gonna sell!
> 
> Perhaps she's going into fiction


No qualifications at all - which is why she is regularly slated by the quality dog press.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sweetie? see you are just being patronising. Goblin made a very reasoned sensible reply and explained the programme upset people and the reasons why but accepted "some" things said were justified. You didn't, sweetie, you just ranted


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Sweetie? see you are just being patronising. Goblin made a very reasoned sensible reply and explained the programme upset people and the reasons why but accepted "some" things said were justified. You didn't, sweetie, you just ranted


No rant, just a reasoned reply. Did you even read it properly? Did you follow the clip? And yes, I was deliberately being patronising sweetie - much better than being deliberately aggressive, as you have been in every single reply you have made to me on this thread. I don't know why you have decided on a personal attack instead of replying sensibly to my posts, as I did to yours - is it because you have no other form of redress?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I can understand where Spellweaver is coming from tbh. If one of my friend's dogs was featured very unfairly in a tv programme, without permission, and that inclusion led to an implication that the dog and the dog's breed was an unhealthy man-made variation, when it couldn't be further from the truth, I'd be peeved too.

Let's hope more care is taken next time, it would be a shame if the valid points made in the programme were dismissed out of hand by the very people who can do something about it, because of thoughtless reporting.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2011)

I think that all those who are protesting pedigree dogs exposed 2 are not after the program to be stopped but for it to be made fairly and by someone who knows what they are talking about and who is ready to do re-search to bring a truthful, fair and active program instead of featuring dogs who were not KC registered, featuring only bad breeders and over all creating a sensationalist program instead of a truthful one.

I was horrified when I watched it as it tried to link the kennel club and the eugenics movement. I was also disgusted when she was asking the man from the KC if he would mate with his daughter (if I remember correctly) even though inbreeding is not allowed and is something which all good breeders are against even if the KC were to allow it you would not catch a good breeder breeding mother - son, father - daughter, brother - sister ect.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> No rant, just a reasoned reply. Did you even read it properly? Did you follow the clip? And yes, I was deliberately being patronising sweetie - much better than being deliberately aggressive, as you have been in every single reply you have made to me on this thread. I don't know why you have decided on a personal attack instead of replying sensibly to my posts, as I did to yours - is it because you have no other form of redress?


I have not been aggressive to you - I have nothing against you, your breed, pedigree dogs, pedigree breeders etc. I merely pointed out that your original post just dismissed DT out of hand whilst admitting you had not and would not read it and I said that was as daft as me, not having read it either, saying it must be fact. Do either of us even know what the article is about? No we haven't read it so neither of us are really qualified to comment.

Instead of just rubishing it had your first post said there is no way I could pay a penny of my money to buy the magazine because .... and quoting the facts about your friends dog and why you felt anything written by the lady concerned was likely to be flawed, then I would have respected your views.

Not sure what I need redress for?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Elles said:


> I can understand where Spellweaver is coming from tbh. If one of my friend's dogs was featured very unfairly in a tv programme, without permission, and that inclusion led to an implication that the dog and the dog's breed was an unhealthy man-made variation, when it couldn't be further from the truth, I'd be peeved too.
> 
> Let's hope more care is taken next time, it would be a shame if the valid points made in the programme were dismissed out of hand by the very people who can do something about it, because of thoughtless reporting.


Me too, I would be bloody furious and if Spellweavers original reply had said that then a hell of lot more people would have listened.


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2011)

> I merely pointed out that your original post just dismissed DT out of hand whilst admitting you had not and would not read it


I believe that most people who have breed/show pedigrees now look at DT like most folk look at the DailyMail. As a sensationalist mag that's not really worth the time. I always found the breed section quite a good read but I find "your dog" has one just as good without the sensationalist bits.

And dogs world and our dogs has the rest of anything I want to read.

I think the article will go unread by many and because of how JH has acted she has now lost the audience she's trying to "preach" to as the only ones who read it now are those who are fans of JH's and the PDE program.

Sad but true. Hence why those who see the DailyMail linked to any thread on here say "Daily Fail" and dont really believe a word thats written.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I have not been aggressive to you - I have nothing against you, your breed, pedigree dogs, pedigree breeders etc. I merely pointed out that your original post just dismissed DT out of hand whilst admitting you had not and would not read it and I said that was as daft as me, not having read it either, saying it must be fact. Do either of us even know what the article is about? No we haven't read it so neither of us are really qualified to comment.


Hang on a sec - where do pedigree dogs and pedigree breeders come into it? Don't try to make this into something it isn't. I've not mentioned anything about any dogs - pedigrees or otherwise - my issue was with the magazine and the author of the article. And I explained that I was dismissing it out of hand because I don't trust the author.

Here is my first post, because you don't seem to have read it properly.



Spellweaver said:


> Not read the article - wouldn't give DT houseroom and anything JH writes is bound to be suspect with her track record so don't intend to waste my time reading it.





DoodlesRule said:


> Instead of just rubishing it had your first post said there is no way I could pay a penny of my money to buy the magazine because .... and quoting the facts about your friends dog and why you felt anything written by the lady concerned was likely to be flawed, then I would have respected your views.


Really? When you take my first two posts together I have done exactly what you quote above - and yet after my second post you accused me of ranting. That's hardly respecting my views, is it?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Me too, I would be bloody furious and if Spellweavers original reply had said that then a hell of lot more people would have listened.


Erm - to be fair, you do seem to be the only one so far who hasn't listened!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> even though inbreeding is not allowed and is something which all good breeders are against even if the KC were to allow it you would not catch a good breeder breeding mother - son, father - daughter, brother - sister ect.


Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't it only recently that the KC has said this is not allowed (but still permit what many would class as close breeding eg grandfather / grandaughter). So if good breeders would not do so but the governing body feel its acceptable then surely there is something seriously flawed with the governing body and its that which is tarring all pedigree breeders as opposed to some tv programme. If the KC did not/had not allowed it, not one would have done so = no programme to make?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> I was horrified when I watched it as it tried to link the kennel club and the eugenics movement.


Worth pointing out Ofcom | Pedigree Dogs Exposed It found the KC was not given a proper opportunity to respond to an allegation about eugenics and a comparison with Hitler and the Nazi Party. I can understand for health purposes but not for looks. The ridgeback lady who stated culling pups who didn't have a proper ridge was acceptable is a good example. Since then the ridgeback club have changed their rules so culling is not allowed. Progress made.



> I was also disgusted when she was asking the man from the KC if he would mate with his daughter (if I remember correctly) even though inbreeding is not allowed and is something which all good breeders are against even if the KC were to allow it you would not catch a good breeder breeding mother - son, father - daughter, brother - sister ect.


Key point is that, as far as I can tell, the KC DID allow for it when the program was made in 2008 and it did happen. It is now not allowed having been changed in 2009 probably because of the program.

Shocking the program may have been but shocking tactics I feel worked to get things moving. With experts available, qualifications are a moot point. It's often easier to look at something from outside to see where things are failing rather than being inside.

I would also hope that PDE2 was more balanced but should not shy away from pointing out where things haven't changed. I would also like them for instance to push health testing and how many good breeders do it and how people who crossbreed should also take them on board. It's an excellent opportunity to educate buyers of all dogs, not just pedigree ones.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Hang on a sec - where do pedigree dogs and pedigree breeders come into it?


?? Go back to the beginning OP said there was an interesting article about crosbreeds / the tv programme which upset lots was about pedigrees, so obviously pedigree dogs & breeders come in to it. thats what all this thread is about.

You never know though -as neither of us have read it yet maybe the article says crossbreeds are terrible and you should be buying a pedigree


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

From Jemima's blog:



> I spend a lot of time writing about the perils of inbreeding so it's interesting to find a report - albeit a preliminary one - that found that inbreeding did not lead to poorer health.


<Insert article about healthy vs unhealthy dog breeds having been inbred>



> But the findings are interesting nevertheless and serve to illustrate that inbreeding may not always result in a less-fit population.


For my own personal sensitivities close in-breeding is gross. Makes me think of dueling banjos and Deliverance, but more food for thought.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I liked the article but then I always like what JH writes, she treads ground that most would avoid. As I have no preference over pures or crosses I can look at the subject with a completely open mind without prejudice.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> ?? Go back to the beginning OP said there was an interesting article about crosbreeds / the tv programme which upset lots was about pedigrees, so obviously pedigree dogs & breeders come in to it. thats what all this thread is about.
> 
> You never know though -as neither of us have read it yet maybe the article says crossbreeds are terrible and you should be buying a pedigree


But I only quoted an excerpt from the program to show you (and after your own request at that) just one of the reasons why I distrust JH. I did give another reason - ie her performance at the meeting in the house of commons. And it doesn't matter what she says about either crossbreeds or pedigrees - or even if she writes about kangaroos. Whatever is written will be from no position of authority whatsoever, and will be suspect because of her past reputation, and so it will be a waste of time reading it. And *that* was the very point I made in my first post - not that I didn't want to read about crossbreeds, but that I didn't want to read what JH said about anything - something which I think you have failed to understand.

Anyway, I'm off to my bed now - good night, sleep tight, and don't let the bed bugs bite.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

I would like to think that we should think long and hard about dog health before breeding anything.

I'm not sure that it matters whether we breed cross-bred dogs or pedigree dogs so long as there is a market for them and they go to homes *and they are healthy.*

There is a lot of interest in the poodle crosses at the moment. I have one myself. They are quite hard to obtain in Melbourne and they are NOT featuring in the shelters. Presumably they are getting homes. There is a group of people who do appropriate health checks (both breeds) and mentor each other. There are also less appropriate breeders, all the way to puppy farms.

There is exactly the same set up for pedigree dogs. Everything from fantastic, ethical breeders to puppy farms.

Raising awareness of health issues in dog breeding can only be good. The mother of my GSD cross was a bitch who had been shown successfully; came from a German import dam and sire and was regarded as a good example of her breed. She had a bad hip score. The litter that my dog came from was a total OOPS. Dad was a GSD cross Border Collie. Despite being cross breeds two of my dog's litter sisters had hip dysplasia. Seems it was the dam who had the problems as her subsequent litter had problems. She was destroyed. HORROR STORY.

Cross breeds should be bred carefully if they are bred. They are not a magic cure for genetic issues.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

You have to remember that JH did not make PDE single handed, there were other professionals on that programme who were also concerned.
I am glad that programme was aired because it made breeders/breed clubs & the KC actually do something and do it quickly which has to be good for those breeds who were suffering. No amount of health tests were of any use to those breeds, the main health concerns were staring us all in the face yet breeding to cruel standards continued.
Scandalous really that it took a tv programme to point out what should have been blatantly obvious.

I am very much looking forward to PDE2 as well as any future programmes on cross breeding. Cross breeding is not going to go away so it would be advantagous to publicise the importance of doing it properly with relevent health tests etc. Let us hope that "ethical" cross breeders of tomorrow are more concerned than SOME "ethical" pure breeders of yesterday and actually do put health before looks! 

Just to add: My wish list now features a Labradoodle, Goldendoodle and Cockerpoo - three breeds that until crossed I had little interest in. Not only do they look gorgeous but three that I know are adorable, healthy and so very well behaved.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Not only do they look gorgeous but three that I know are adorable, healthy and so very well behaved.


how do you know they are healthy ? - where's the stats to back this up ? -

lets be honest here, the reason that JH continues to target the show breeder is because of what I call the 'squeaky toy syndrome ' - you poke us and we squeal - of course people involved in all the other issues connected with pedigree dogs breeding have nothing to fear from her - she's steers well away from campaigning aginst the kind of breeders that breed in huge volumes and sell via third parties - where's her comments on the fact that planning permission has been granted for a dog factory farm ' in Wales ( complete with automated feeding system and with a capacity for over 200 breeding bitches ) - wheres her comments on the fact that research scientists are now seeking permission to club their surplus Beagles to death to save on costs ? ...where are her comments on the thousands of Grayhounds killed every year because they are no longer useful - are these not also pedigree dogs ? ...but no she continues to peddle the message that the show world is in fact the WORST issue to affect pedigree dogs today - honestly you could'nt make it up ...except of course a lot of the time she does 

I'll tell you why she does'nt mention all those either issues ..it's because the people involved would stick two fingers up and tell her to F*** OFF ! she knows that they simply don't care what she says and so would not spend hours and hours on the internet discussing the drivel she writes and pepetuating the myth that she is someone we should take seriously.

The show world generally cares about their breeds - you poke us and we squeal - now thats MUCH more fun for the likes of JH and Dogs Today


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I am glad that programme was aired because it made breeders/breed clubs & the KC actually do something and do it quickly which has to be good for those breeds who were suffering. No amount of health tests were of any use to those breeds, the main health concerns were staring us all in the face yet breeding to cruel standards continued.
> Scandalous really that it took a tv programme to point out what should have been blatantly obvious.


This is a misconception engendered by the program. Anyone who knows anything at all about pedigree dogs knows that the breed clubs and the KC have been working towards healthier dogs for years before JH realised she could make a huge amount of money by twisting the truth.



Malmum said:


> I am very much looking forward to PDE2 as .


Well, I can tell you here and now what it's going to say - JH will be taking single handed credit for all the work that the breed clubs and the KC have been doing over the years. She will also be taking credit for all the changes that the breed clubs and the KC have made that were in the pipeline to be made irrespective of a shock-horror-tabloid-style program. There you go - no need to bother watching it now 

I think it's very telling that the BBC have made it ultra plain that this time it is her own personal view - ie they are letting her make the program because they know the viewing figures will be high and will bring in the money; but this time around they are making sure that they cannot be held responsible for anything she says. Speaks volumes, does that.

Personally, I think it is a great shame that the internet campaign for the follow-up program to be made by someone other than JH and Passionate Productions was ignored by the BBC. A truthful documentary about pedigree dogs and the health of pedigree dogs would have been so refreshing. But, hey-ho, that wouldn't have got the viewing figures and made the money that allowing JH to spout more innunedoes, half-truths and untruths will make, would it?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

So you are saying that there was nothing of worth in PDE and progress was not made due to the backlash ? I think most people saw necessary changes relating to it. 

Beagles and Greyhounds are an area that need to be raised at some time but the show area is one that affects more people who think "pedigree" is a guarantee for a healthy dog. Whilst health can never guaranteed the program showed where, in a few breeds, the opposite was likely. Like it or lump it, a minority of breeds and breeders were shown to let the pedigree name down. 

The antipathy which appears towards the program in general by pedigree breeders as a whole, to an outsider gives the impression that people simply do not want to admit things needed changing, not that she was wrong. If image is to be repaired the manner of condemnation needs to change. It's a hard thing to do when emotions are so much in play.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> but the show area is one that affects more people who think "pedigree" is a guarantee for a healthy dog.


no it does'nt - only around 5% of all pedigree dogs go anywhere near a showring -that means that overwhelmingly it is those bred *outside* of the show system that influence the health of pedigree dogs - do the maths - just one dog breeding factory with 200 bitches will produce over 1000 pedigree puppies per year all unsocialised, and unhealth tested, - multiply this by the number of puppy farms there are ( and there are over 90 in Camarthenshire alone ! ) and you get the real scale of whch sector is influencing pedigree dog health the most ....but of course this not nearly as sensationalist a message as pointing the finger at the exhibitor/ breeder who has one litter every 2 years , breeds from only health tested stock and raises their pups in the home ....I tell you I despair !!!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

You're hiding the main issue which was pointed out. It doesn't matter who breeds the pups IF the baseline for the breed is at fault. We try to tell people to buy from responsible breeders. We try to tell people how to recognize BYB. This is pointless if the buyers buys from a creditable source only to find out there is a fundamental problem with the breed itself. Do you not think some necessary changes were made to rules and regulations due to the program or are you saying everything was fine and problems were going to be resolved in a quick and timely manner?

I know one of the key points is that breeding clubs, even those wanting to change things like standards, found it difficult due to the global nature of the breed standard. Changing a standard in the UK would mean UK dogs could not effectively be shown outside the UK. I can understand the problem and frustration but things could be changed if needed as was shown.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I do hope this is not going to turn into another 'breeding' thread. The poor OP was just proud her dogs have been used for the magazine article. Not a very nice response from anyone.

Isnt that Beverley woman the editor of Dogs Today or have I got it wrong. Whatever she is she puts my back up very badly.


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

I find her a hypocrite in that she can tell breeders to change their breeding programmes and expect them to do it but breeders criticise her programme and she can just produce another one without any comeback.
I hope she realises soon enough that if she wants to have any effect she's got to know that it's not what she says but how she says it, she has no sympathy for what breeders go through .


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I do hope this is not going to turn into another 'breeding' thread. The poor OP was just proud her dogs have been used for the magazine article. Not a very nice response from anyone.
> 
> Isnt that Beverley woman the editor of Dogs Today or have I got it wrong. Whatever she is she puts my back up very badly.


Yes she is - and that is one of the reasons I won't give DT houseroom (No DT, not you, the comic!)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> but the show area is one that affects more people who think "pedigree" is a guarantee for a healthy dog.


This is incorrect - but Bijou has already explained that to you so I won't reiterate what she says. Suffice it to say that the program has obviously made you think the problem is with show dogs, when in fact, the opposite is true - it's the non-show pedigrees where most of the problems lie. And if it has made you think this, it has made many more people think this - just one example of how it twisted facts and in doing so lied to people.



Goblin said:


> Whilst health can never guaranteed the program showed where, in a few breeds, the opposite was likely.





Goblin said:


> Like it or lump it, a minority of breeds and breeders were shown to let the pedigree name down.





Goblin said:


> We try to tell people to buy from responsible breeders. We try to tell people how to recognize BYB.


With regard to your quote about health, what the program should have shown was that the opposite was *possible*, not likely - that is, after all, the truth. The majority of show dogs - and let's not beat about the bush, she was specifically attacking show dogs and the Kennel Club, not pedigree dogs per se - are fit and healthy, even the small amount of breeds (15 out of over 200) who are on breed watch.

The program did not say that health was a possible issue in a few breeds - it said that ALL pedigree dogs were unhealthy - and in doing so played straight into the hands of puppy farmers who were rubbing their hands all the way to the bank as Mr & Mrs Average flocked to them in droves because, thanks to JH and PDE, they now knew pedigree dogs were unhealthy.



Goblin said:


> The antipathy which appears towards the program in general by pedigree breeders as a whole, to an outsider gives the impression that people simply do not want to admit things needed changing, not that she was wrong. If image is to be repaired the manner of condemnation needs to change. It's a hard thing to do when emotions are so much in play.


I think that was true in the first few weeks after the program, but events that have unfolded since then - not in the least JH being caught out in the House of Commons - have brought most people around to realising that what the pedigree breeders were saying about this woman and her program is true. Most people are now actually looking at the facts rather than believing all the nonsense - and the facts are there for all to see. For example, a quick peruse of the KC site will show all the initiatives it has for health and health testing - going back well before JH and PDE.

The biggest legacy of this program has been in driving people to puppy farmers - what an accolade  I bet she doesn't own up to THAT in PDE2!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> The biggest legacy of this program has been in driving people to puppy farmers


 How can you know that? Surely if the programme helps people question the health of their chosen breed they are less likely to buy it from a puppy farm, not more likely..


----------



## pickle (Mar 24, 2008)

Plenty of reputable and respected people have written well researched articles about the health, temperament and coat problems of some of these "designer" cross breeds. It appears Labradoodles are being handed in to rescue in high numbers because people are not doing their research before buying them.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> This is incorrect - but Bijou has already explained that to you so I won't reiterate what she says.


Whilst I admit BYB are a problem the main thrust is still true and I have not seen any proof otherwise. The very fact that there needs to be a breed watch points to problems. Progress prior to the program may have been made BUT the program accelerated the speed of change.



> The program did not say that health was a possible issue in a few breeds - it said that ALL pedigree dogs were unhealthy


I didn't see that. I saw it as a lack of acknowledgement of some problems and the general desire to sweep it under the carpet.



> I think that was true in the first few weeks after the program, but events that have unfolded since then - not in the least JH being caught out in her lies in the House of Commons - have brought most people around to realising that what the pedigree breeders were saying about this woman and her program is true.


I'd like to know where you get this information from. Most people I know accept what was said was generally the truth about the specific breeds mentioned. These are people are outside of main dog circles. The amount of changes made since the program actually point to the fact that some of the points raised were valid. I think this is one of the problems with the approach the KC has made to reach people. BBC program = mass market, KC = only a relative small number of dog lovers.



> The biggest legacy of this program has been in driving people to puppy farmers - what an accolade  I bet she doesn't own up to THAT in PDE2!


So why couldn't pedigree breeders prove the program wrong. You must remember it's only a minority of breeds mentioned. Are you saying none of the problems existed in 2008 ?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> I'd like to know where you get this information from. Most people I know accept what was said was generally the truth about the specific breeds mentioned. These are people are outside of main dog circles. The amount of changes made since the program actually point to the fact that some of the points raised were valid. I think this is one of the problems with the approach the KC has made to reach people. BBC program = mass market, KC = only a relative small number of dog lovers.


And there you have the reason why my information differs from yours. Most people outside "main dog circles" gain their "knowledge" about showing and breeding from programs such as PDE, and articles such as those regularly vomited by hacks like JH. And when the information being fed to them is wrong to begin with, then of course they are going to form wrong opinions. So it doesn't surprise me in the least that you and your circle of friends think that PDE told the truth. It doesn't matter how big the "mass market" is - if the mass market reads only lies, then it believes the lies are the truth The people who actually have previous knowledege of the subject, however, are all of a different opinion - and those opinions based on the actual facts, not on something spoon-fed to them by bad journalism.

As for changes - changes in the dog world have been, are, and will continue to be happening all the time, irrespective of any program or article by JH!!



Goblin said:


> So why couldn't pedigree breeders prove the program wrong.


They have. JH has been discredited in just about every aspect of the serious dog press. However, if you and your circle of friends get your information from magazines such as DT, where hacks like JH write articles, then again, of course you're going to have a different opinion.



Goblin said:


> You must remember it's only a minority of breeds mentioned.


I'm well aware of that. It's just a pity the program didn't say that instead of saying all pedigrees are unhealthy.



Goblin said:


> Are you saying none of the problems existed in 2008 ?


I've not said that at all. What I have said is that breed clubs, breeders and the KC were aware of the problems and working towards eradicating them before PDE was even a money grabbing glint in JH's eye.

ETA - re your comment about accepting as truth about the specific breeds mentioned - did your circle of friends accept as truth what the program said about the bergamasco? Just thought I'd mention this as a pertinent illustration of how easy it is for someone without inside knowledge to swallow hook line and sinker all that they are told!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> Not read the article - wouldn't give DT houseroom and anything JH writes is bound to be suspect with her track record so don't intend to waste my time reading it.


^^ what she said!


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

This thread was about pics of the OP's dogs being included in the article - it wasn't meant to start a slanging match about pedigree versus crosses. ANYONE of us would be proud if our dogs featured in a published article whether we have pedigree, crosses or both.

Congratulations to the OP.  Sorry your thread's been hijacked.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

No dogs had medication withheld for the film.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: PDE - The Myths Busted


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> PEDIGREE breeders exposed


Pedigree Dogs Exposed.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elles said:


> Pedigree Dogs Exposed.


You knew what I meant!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

yep, I did, but can you imagine a programme full of exposed pedigree dog breeders? Not a pretty sight on the whole I would imagine. lol


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

She certainly someone that talks sense! 



> OTHER SCANDALOUS INSULTS!
> This latest exposed falsehood of hers where she has accused show dog people of plucking their dogs' vibrissae in the quest for a prize should be tackled by the Kennel Club, as should other more disgusting and vile insults from her. I wonder how many of you decent dog people out there know about Jemima Harrison's published 'tongue in cheek 'reverse' comparison of dog exhibitors to "a bunch of fruits" and even more insultingly as "a bunch of fiddling paedophiles who have to indulge their guilty pleasure behind closed doors [J.H.Blog. Monday 16th May 2011].


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elles said:


> yep, I did, but can you imagine a programme full of exposed pedigree dog breeders? Not a pretty sight on the whole I would imagine. lol


Infact doing a programme on pedigree breeders would have been better, she then may have shown the good with the bad and instead of all the negativity she might have guided folk to the RIGHT type of breeders!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I'd discovered quite a bit from doing my own research into the english bulldog prior to any viewing of programs such as PDE. This breed was not even mentioned by PDE as far as I can remember. Information is now easily found when researching breeds. The best breeders highlight the issues rather than hide it and detail what steps are being taken to fix them.



> As for changes - changes in the dog world have been, are, and will continue to be happening all the time, irrespective of any program or article by JH!!


But how quickly would they have been implemented without a kick up the backside. What was shown was a lack of willingness to admit, openly that certain problems existed. This is the general _impression_ which people are still giving off today 4 years later.



> They have. JH has been discredited in just about every aspect of the serious dog press. However, if you and your circle of friends get your information from magazines such as DT, where hacks like JH write articles, then again, of course you're going to have a different opinion.


You see this is where you make assumption. I generally don't read dog press be it "serious" or magazines such as DT. I do look at details such as average lifespan of english bulldogs. I do look at the gait of some other breeds and see something is wrong. I also see when obvious crossbreeds are simply "wrong" so it's not simply a pedigree thing.



> ETA - re your comment about accepting as truth about the specific breeds mentioned - did your circle of friends accept as truth what the program said about the bergamasco? Just thought I'd mention this as a pertinent illustration of how easy it is for someone without inside knowledge to swallow hook line and sinker all that they are told!


Have to say, never even heard of a Bergamasco before this thread. I didn't view the clip mentioned as anything to do with specific dogs or breeds. The point being made was dogs have been bred to many shapes/sizes which differs from how they used to look at one stage. It is generally accepted that all dogs are descended from wolves of some sort at some time or am I wrong in this?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes she is - and that is one of the reasons I won't give DT houseroom (No DT, not you, the comic!)


In that case I am with you. Doesnt alter the fact that the OP is proud of her dogs being in the article though so we should respect that.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> No dogs had medication withheld for the film.
> 
> Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: PDE - The Myths Busted


And why would you expect anyone to believe that what is said on this blog is the truth? Of course they're going to pull out all the stops to defend their program! They didn't let the truth bother them when making a documentary for national TV, so why would they let it bother them in their online blog? :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Blitz said:


> In that case I am with you. Doesnt alter the fact that the OP is proud of her dogs being in the article though so we should respect that.


I have no problem with that at all. I merely said I wouldn't be reading the article because I don't like the mag and didn't trust the author. The rest just sort of developed!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> And why would you expect anyone to believe that what is said on this blog is the truth?


Because some Pedigree dog breeders have an ulterior motive and I wouldn't necessarily believe them either.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> I'd discovered quite a bit from doing my own research into the english bulldog prior to any viewing of programs such as PDE. This breed was not even mentioned by PDE as far as I can remember. Information is now easily found when researching breeds. The best breeders highlight the issues rather than hide it and detail what steps are being taken to fix them.


Breeders have been doing this sort of thing since time immemorial - for example, it is almost twelve years since we decided the bergie was the dog for us, and the breeder made sure we knew all about the "hard parts" of owning a bergie before she would even let us onto her list. But that aside - surely this is proof of what I was saying? So before PDE you could do research on the bulldog, you found breeders highlighting issues rather than hiding it, you found breeders detailing what steps are being taken to fix issues - and all before PDE - I rest my case!



Goblin said:


> But how quickly would they have been implemented without a kick up the backside. What was shown was a lack of willingness to admit, openly that certain problems existed. This is the general _impression_ which people are still giving off today 4 years later.


Really? Have those breeders you mentioned before all changed their minds then?



Goblin said:


> You see this is where you make assumption. I generally don't read dog press be it "serious" or magazines such as DT. I do look at details such as average lifespan of english bulldogs. I do look at the gait of some other breeds and see something is wrong. I also see when obvious crossbreeds are simply "wrong" so it's not simply a pedigree thing.


 Perhaps if you did read the quality dog press, your opinion might change 



Goblin said:


> Have to say, never even heard of a Bergamasco before this thread. I didn't view the clip mentioned as anything to do with specific dogs or breeds. The point being made was dogs have been bred to many shapes/sizes which differs from how they used to look at one stage. It is generally accepted that all dogs are descended from wolves of some sort at some time or am I wrong in this?


I disagree. The point of this clip was twofold. First of all, it epitomised the whole way the program worked insidiously to infer all sorts of things abut pedigree dogs that were untrue - ie JH talking about things man has done to dogs whilst showing a clip of a dog that has had nothing at all done to it by man. Now if she can get that so wrong, and in the first couple of minutes of the film, it bodes ill for the rest of the "facts" (sic) she presented and expected people to swallow.

The second point was to illustrate her lack of proper research. If she had come to the stand at Discover Dogs and spoken to us about the bergie, she would have been given the information freely. But she didn't. She saw the coat and assumed. This is an excellent example of how flawed her research is - and if it is flawed on this statement, again, how can any of her statements be trusted?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

You guys that are totally against PDE and Ms Harrison.

Can I ask you, do you believe that there are some breeds of dogs that are compromised by an interpretation of their breed standard and despite being at the top of their particular breed and being judged to be the best examples of their breed, bred by breeders who would consider themselves very ethical, do have conformation faults and extremes deliberately bred into them that cause them health issues, but wins competition?

If you do believe this, would you like to see the Kennel Club address these issues and/or do you think they already are?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I'd like to know where you get this information from. Most people I know accept what was said was generally the truth about the specific breeds mentioned.


well I don't know about you but when a clip of dog showing is accompanied by the phrase " a parade of freakish mutants" ..the inference given is that all show dogs are freakish mutants ..... yep thats *ALL * ...sigh....but there you go .... that's the level of intelligent thoughtful discourse this programme stooped to ....give the public a snappy soundbite to hang their predjudice on and send them all the way into the arms of the nearest puppy farmer - well done Jemima 

But you're right I'm sure the OP did'nt want her thread hijacked and I'm sure she's thrilled to bits to have her dog in the magazine .....so well done from me.

I'm off to snuggle up on the sofa with my poor 'freakish mutant' show dogs and watch some afternoon telly.

have a good evening folks .


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

What is certain people's issues with crosses? I have done some research on threads on here and am shocked that such a minority of 5 members out of the many thousands on here get away with insulting other peoples choice of dogs. It gives this forum a bad reputation and annoys people who have mongrels and crosses. I have read this article and as a crossbreed owner find it very interesting and positive. We have never had a pedigree dog with papers because we have always gone to shelters but that doesn't make our dogs second best in any way.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I don't think anyone in this thread has said they have an issue with cross breed dogs. 

Some are having a go at a tv programme and Jemima Harrison, but I don't think it's because she's a mongrel, or a cross breed. 

No-one is allowed to have a go at cross breeds or mongrels on Pet Forums. There's a sticky giving the rules about it and many of the members also have cross breeds and mongrels and rescue dogs.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I believe that most people who have breed/show pedigrees now look at DT like most folk look at the DailyMail. As a sensationalist mag that's not really worth the time. I always found the breed section quite a good read but I find "your dog" has one just as good without the sensationalist bits.
> Sad but true. Hence why those who see the DailyMail linked to any thread on here say "Daily Fail" and dont really believe a word thats written.


Sadly, I agree. I say `sadly` because I believe the Editor has her heart in the right place - but she and her staff have lost objectivity. The advertorial for Barkbusters, the `impartial` feeding advice from John Burns etc have strained its credibility too far for me, so I don`t get it any more.


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Elles said:


> I don't think anyone in this thread has said they have an issue with cross breed dogs.
> 
> Some are having a go at a tv programme and Jemima Harrison, but I don't think it's because she's a mongrel, or a cross breed.
> 
> No-one is allowed to have a go at cross breeds or mongrels on Pet Forums. There's a sticky giving the rules about it and many of the members also have cross breeds and mongrels and rescue dogs.


I actually said that I have researched this forum and never said about this thread in particular and I read the "sticky" as we have crossbreed dogs but was asking why some people get away with it and others can't; also why they (the 5 out of 98,000 or however many members on here) have the right to have a go at other peoples choice's? I don't tell other people they cannot have that sort of dog, live and let live imo. The article by Jemima was very good imo.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Hopefully old threads and before the sticky. They no longer do have the right.


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

No they were recent. Almost stopped me being an active member but decided Im outspoken enough lol


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elles said:


> I don't think anyone in this thread has said they have an issue with cross breed dogs.
> 
> Some are having a go at a tv programme and Jemima Harrison, but I don't think it's because she's a mongrel, or a cross breed.
> 
> No-one is allowed to have a go at cross breeds or mongrels on Pet Forums. There's a sticky giving the rules about it and many of the members also have cross breeds and mongrels and rescue dogs.


Your right no one has an issue with cross breeds, mainly just the reasons behind them 

Jemima Harrison, has proven herself to be a 'fake' she will twist the truth to fit her own arguement and doesnt care who gets hurt in the mean time.

Your right no one is allowed to 'slate' cross breeds, because 'certain' members get upset and play the victim card, yet are first to 'slate' pedigrees when such a thread pops up  funny that isnt it. - we all go on about being equal no matter what breeds we own, but this isnt the case on a forum... - so its hardly suprising the same affects are had in the 'real' world.
- always will be a them and us..


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Your right no one has an issue with cross breeds, mainly just the reasons behind them
> 
> Jemima Harrison, has proven herself to be a 'fake' she will twist the truth to fit her own arguement and doesnt care who gets hurt in the mean time.
> 
> ...


Another problem here DD is that ethical pedigree breeders will go to great lenghts to expose dodgy . backyard and puppy farm breeders, and also encourage folk NOT to buy from such! Yet when we get on to cross breeding seems there is NO such thing as an unethical cross breeder! strange that!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Well if the them and us is between ethical and not so ethical breeders that's fine. If it's between pedigree dog owners and none pedigree dog owners that's not fine. :nono:

I try to be careful to make sure people know I'm talking ethics, not dog breeds, if I mention either a cross-breed, a mongrel or a pedigree dog. 

Regardless of our rights on a discussion forum, I believe all dogs have the right to a happy life, their needs catered for and their well-being a priority.

I think the huge majority of folk who register to post on a Pet Forum would agree with the sentiment. 

(hopefully. lol)


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> Another problem here DD is that ethical pedigree breeders will go to great lenghts to expose dodgy . backyard and puppy farm breeders, and also encourage folk NOT to buy from such! Yet when we get on to cross breeding seems there is NO such thing as an unethical cross breeder! strange that!


It is strange - To me being a breeder is about being passionate about the breed/type you are breeding - to be passionate you need to see past the dogs 'you' bring into the world, you need to care for the overall breed. You want folk to support decent breeders, because you want less dogs of your beloved breed to suffer at the hands of unethical folk, breeding for the wrong reasons. Many ethical breeders will have information on their sites promoting ethical breeding, information on unethical breeding and promoting rescues. - Their love for a breed goes past their own dogs. Thats what its about.
- ANY breeder of ANY breed/type that cant accept that there ARE unethical breeders within their circles are not that caring in my opinions, because anyone that cared half as much as they should would want and do anything in their power to rid them from their breed, and dogs breeding altogether.

- There are ALOT of unethical breeders within our breed, we see it all the time with owners handing dogs into rescue - have you contacted the breeder? ... Yes they cant/wont take the dog back - I can bet your bottom dollar, in the next few months that very breeder will produce another litter - and us have to keep quiet? I wish we could name, and shame - would help the public choose better when selecting a breeder!

I will always do anything in my power to steer people to the right breeders, within and out of our breed - because I care about dogs in general and want only the best to be rewarded for their efforts, hoping in the long run less puppies/bitchs will suffer as cash machines.

After all that my point is ANY ethical breeder wouldnt hide the bad, or keep it under cover they would do anything in their power to high light the issues and help in any way they can.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Yet when we get on to cross breeding seems there is NO such thing as an unethical cross breeder! strange that!


You are kidding! 

I thought the main consensus of opinion on here is that some pedigree dog breeders are ethical (especially the ones who put their head above the parapet on here) and very few breeders of cross breeds are ethical, though they do exist they are rare.

Especially if by ethical you mean doing their best to ensure they are breeding wanted, healthy, robust dogs of good temperament and not just any old thing for the dosh. 

Maybe that's just me then.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Very nice post DD.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> What is certain people's issues with crosses? I have done some research on threads on here and am shocked that such a minority of 5 members out of the many thousands on here get away with insulting other peoples choice of dogs. It gives this forum a bad reputation and annoys people who have mongrels and crosses. I have read this article and as a crossbreed owner find it very interesting and positive. We have never had a pedigree dog with papers because we have always gone to shelters but that doesn't make our dogs second best in any way.


I have never seen anyone on this forum insult anyone's choice of dog. I've seen plenty slate unethical breeding - pedigree and crossbreed - and ('ve seen plenty question the need for breeding - again, both pedigree and crossbreed. Perhaps you could furnish examples of what you mean about people's choice of dog being insulted?

As DD has said, a minority of crossbreed owners on here get upset and play the victim card - but in reality, pedigrees are slated far more than crossbreeds on this forum. There have been plenty of attacks on pedigree breeds on this thread - have you seen any pedigree owner throw their toys out of the pram, say they're leaving/wish they'd never joined the forum/ whine that their choice of dogs has been insulted? No, of course you haven't. But yet again (sigh) some crossbreed owners have been offended and we start getting posts like this. Methinks some people look for things to cause trouble about.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Elles said:


> You are kidding!
> 
> I thought the main consensus of opinion on here is that some pedigree dog breeders are ethical (especially the ones who put their head above the parapet on here) and very few breeders of cross breeds are ethical, though they do exist they are rare.
> 
> ...


I think you missunderstood me!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

I think many pedigree breeders get angry/upset about PDE and instead of focusing on that and disproving it with whatever facts you have available you redirect your anger at crossbreeds. 

Yes its frequently said here you are not against crosses just the breeders but so many times its said on this forum that all cross breeders are unethical/there is no point/rescues are full of "designer" crosses/endless waffle about names etc etc what it the point, what are you trying to achieve - guilty of the bias you accuse DT of but don't recognise it. Put your own house in order first.

Actually I don't think its pedigree/show breeders full stop just some on here - in the real world met many who don't have a problem, live & let live


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Breed clubs have worked hard for years to improve their breeds, health being important - this is done behind the scenes unless you attend the meetings.
Doodlesrules - give some suggestions as to what folk should be doing? - You clearly have the answers?

PDE was done three years ago - me and other members have had the same opinions on cross breeds before the programme..Figure that  - do a search and you will see for yourself. - Its nothing to do with being upset at the programme so taking it out on cross breeding ... Its to do with the false information, if you want something bettering you need the whole truth put forward to achieve that!

- I cant talk for all but the problem with cross breeding for me, is the reasons behind the litter - there isnt a vaild one in my eyes, in most cases. But then I feel the same about the pedigree breeders..breeding for the same reasons, to supply a pet market!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I think many pedigree breeders get angry/upset about PDE and instead of focusing on that and disproving it with whatever facts you have available you redirect your anger at crossbreeds.
> 
> Yes its frequently said here you are not against crosses just the breeders but so many times its said on this forum that all cross breeders are unethical/there is no point/rescues are full of "designer" crosses/endless waffle about names etc etc what it the point, what are you trying to achieve - guilty of the bias you accuse DT of but don't recognise it. Put your own house in order first.
> 
> Actually I don't think its pedigree/show breeders full stop just some on here - in the real world met many who don't have a problem, live & let live


I think that's a skewed view - I've disproved what PDE has said - and with facts - on many threads on this forum, this one included. And, once again, I didn't mention anything about crossbreeds on this thread - my original post was about how I wouldn't pay to read anything by JH because I don't trust her. I never mentioned crossbreeds and didn't even mention pedigree breeds until you yourself asked me to justify my feelings about JH's untrustworthiness, when I cited PDE as one - just one - of the reasons I did not believe anything she writes. Nothing to do with crossbreeds at all   So how you come to the ridiculous conclusion that I'm against crossbreeds because of PDE is beyond me. You know, if you could only dislodge that chip on your shoulder, you might just be able to look past it and see things more clearly.

But you are right about one thing - in the real world crossbreed and pedigree owners live side by side in perfect harmony - a lot of people own both - hell, I've had my share of crossbreeds over the years. But on this forum, a select few crossbreed owners pretend to take personally any little mention of crossbreeding and end up getting threads closed. Either they are weak little souls who need to grow a pair, or they are deliberately out to make trouble.

I personally think it is the latter.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Breed clubs have worked hard for years to improve their breeds, health being important - this is done behind the scenes unless you attend the meetings.
> Doodlesrules - give some suggestions as to what folk should be doing? - You clearly have the answers?
> 
> PDE was done three years ago - me and other members have had the same opinions on cross breeds before the programme..Figure that  - do a search and you will see for yourself. - Its nothing to do with being upset at the programme so taking it out on cross breeding ... Its to do with the false information, if you want something bettering you need the whole truth put forward to achieve that!
> ...


No I don't have the answers but I don't judge you and say showing is wrong that its for you not the dog, but you make assumptions and say crosses are not valid whats the point of your argument? I could quite easily say that producing a show dog is not a sufficient reason for a litter either in my eyes its not a valid reason, you care if your dog is placed in a show but does your dog? You feel it is a good enough reason and I don't judge or condem you for that, but you make a judgement because I had a dog from a litter you feel should never have happened. Why do you feel your views are more relevant than mine?

& re you comments about supplying the pet market - I have asked before but no one answered. If the "pet" buyers disappeared over night and the pedigree/show breeders knew that they had to keep 100% of every single litter how long would you continue - does the pet market not fund your showing hobby?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

The pet market funding our show hobby hahaha! myself doing about 8 champ shows a year at around £25 per entry and never having bred I doubt it does! LOL

Then most breeders will have on avarge one litter a year at most - these incoming costs (if any!) dont cover the breeding side of things, let alone pay for the hobbies!


Your opinions is just as vaild as mine, I dont mind you feel showing isnt a vaild part of breeding thats fine - I can hand on heart say this doesnt affect, nor bother me - its your opinion I can accept that, but just happen to disagree!
- so I hope you can accept that I do not agree with breeding soley for the pet market. Let that be pedigree or crosses.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I think that's a skewed view - I've disproved what PDE has said - and with facts - on many threads on this forum, this one included. And, once again, I didn't mention anything about crossbreeds on this thread - my original post was about how I wouldn't pay to read anything by JH because I don't trust her. I never mentioned crossbreeds and didn't even mention pedigree breeds until you yourself asked me to justify my feelings about JH's untrustworthiness, when I cited PDE as one - just one - of the reasons I did not believe anything she writes. Nothing to do with crossbreeds at all   So how you come to the ridiculous conclusion that I'm against crossbreeds because of PDE is beyond me. You know, if you could only dislodge that chip on your shoulder, you might just be able to look past it and see things more clearly.
> 
> But you are right about one thing - in the real world crossbreed and pedigree owners live side by side in perfect harmony - a lot of people own both - hell, I've had my share of crossbreeds over the years. But on this forum, a select few crossbreed owners pretend to take personally any little mention of crossbreeding and end up getting threads closed. Either they are weak little souls who need to grow a pair, or they are deliberately out to make trouble.
> 
> I personally think it is the latter.


I don't have a chip on my shoulder though thats the point of what I was saying, personally I don't give a monkeys about your views on my choice of dog. I don't have any view about your choice of dog thats your decision nothing to do with me at all, equally I am sure you don't care what I do/have,. I didn't twist your opinions, all I said was how can you comment on an article you haven't read.

I haven't read all the other threads on here was only commenting on this particular one


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I don't have a chip on my shoulder though thats the point of what I was saying, personally I don't give a monkeys about your views on my choice of dog.


:mad2: I have never commented on your choice of dog. I wouldn't presuime to. I don't give a toss whether you have crossbreeds, pedigrees, bears or kangaroos. I have not mentioned your choice of dog at all, either in this thread or any other. If you think I have, please show me where. I bet you anything you like that you cannot.



DoodlesRule said:


> all I said was how can you comment on an article you haven't read.


:mad2: I have not commented on JH's article - I merely said that I would not pay to read it because I don't trust her sort of journalism and I don't like the mag in which it is published. Again, show me where I have commented on her article. Again, I bet you anything you like that you cannot.

Now if you want to find fault with any of that it's your problem, not mine.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> The pet market funding our show hobby hahaha! myself doing about 8 champ shows a year at around £25 per entry and never having bred I doubt it does! LOL
> 
> Then most breeders will have on avarge one litter a year at most - these incoming costs (if any!) dont cover the breeding side of things, let alone pay for the hobbies!
> 
> ...


I do accept your view really, I have friends who show but equally hope you can accept (if not agree) mine that breeding for pets is not unacceptable either PROVIDED they are looked after for ever. Noo, I don't think pet homes fund your showing hobby it was an example, but at your average of 1 litter a year say an average of 6 pups each time then how long could/would you be able to keep going improving your lines or whatever if each time you knew you had to keep them all because no pet homes existed any more.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I do accept your view really, I have friends who show but equally hope you can accept (if not agree) mine that breeding for pets is not unacceptable either PROVIDED they are looked after for ever. Noo, I don't think pet homes fund your showing hobby it was an example, but at your average of 1 litter a year say an average of 6 pups each time then how long could/would you be able to keep going improving your lines or whatever if each time you knew you had to keep them all because no pet homes existed any more.


I already said I accept your view, there are many members I respect on here and think highly of that I also disagree with, with regards to simply breeding for the pet market!
I see what your saying but I dont have a problem with people wanting pets or breeders selling to pet homes, I (myself) dont feel that ALONE its a good enough reason - atleast not with todays over breeding.
a breeder couldnt keep a whole avarge litter, and shouldnt breed without a list - it wouldnt be ethical to be left with 5/6 puppies from each litter - so I doubt the breeder would continue to breed.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I already said I accept your view, there are many members I respect on here and think highly of that I also disagree with, with regards to simply breeding for the pet market!
> I see what your saying but I dont have a problem with people wanting pets or breeders selling to pet homes, I (myself) dont feel that ALONE its a good enough reason - atleast not with todays over breeding.
> a breeder couldnt keep a whole avarge litter, and shouldnt breed without a list - it wouldnt be ethical to be left with 5/6 puppies from each litter - so I doubt the breeder would continue to breed.


 Hard going but not that far apart on views then! Pushing it a bit now but if you breed because you want a pup yourself, so keep one out of 5 or 6 etc, then the bulk of your breeding is for the pet market yes? Dont answer please I need to do some housework!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Hard going but not that far apart on views then! Pushing it a bit now but if you breed because you want a pup yourself, so keep one out of 5 or 6 etc, then the bulk of your breeding is for the pet market yes? Dont answer please I need to do some housework!


I plan to breed next year (well plan to allow my female to have a litter under my mothers care!). and more than half the people I have waiting want a pup that will potentially be good enough for the show ring - it doesnt always work like that though does it - because you cant tell what the quality of puppies will be like  each litters different, some litters will mostly go to them planning to show others will go to them wanting just a pet.
- to me I dont care what type of owners my puppies go to, as long as I am happy with the owner, and the life style my puppies will live.
Having said that if I only had two puppies of show quality, one for me and one for the studs breeder. I would be one happy chappy


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Bijou said:


> how do you know they are healthy ? - where's the stats to back this up ? -


Well they came from parents who had hip & elbow scores as recommended by the Labradoodle Trust - of course like any other dog from health tested parents that is no guarantee but it's better than no health tests at all and in four/five years they had had no health concerns, so I call that healthy.



Spellweaver said:


> This is a misconception engendered by the program. Anyone who knows anything at all about pedigree dogs knows that the breed clubs and the KC have been working towards healthier dogs for years before JH realised she could make a huge amount of money by telling lies and twisting the truth.


Well at least the programme moved it along at a faster pace with the KC almost immediately endorsing new standards for breeders to follow. Yes it was likely being looked at before but in the years of the breed clubs and the KC working towards healthier dogs there were plenty on that programme who were far from healthy, so obviously everything was moving far too slowly.

I think it was a very good idea to show the gen public just what was gong on in the dog breeding world and as for the programme being biased about the health of pedigree dogs, can anyone explain why the PDSA has decided they will only treat one pedigree dog per household because in there own words "there are many health issues with pedigree dogs that our charity cannot treat" - are they too scaremongering? 

I don't think it's unfair to say many pedigree dogs have serious health problems, you only have to look at pf's & byb's to see where it's all coming from and everyone knows it's going to get worse and not better.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> I don't think it's unfair to say many pedigree dogs have serious health problems, you only have to look at pf's & byb's to see where it's all coming from and everyone knows it's going to get worse and not better.


& this is what we all wanted highlighting, the issues with such breeders. - we all know any dog can suffer health issues, no matter the breed/type - what would have been good was highlighting the breeders that are creating the most problems, not the dogs with the most 'issues'.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> & this is what we all wanted highlighting, the issues with such breeders. - we all know any dog can suffer health issues, no matter the breed/type - what would have been good was highlighting the breeders that are creating the most problems, not the dogs with the most 'issues'.


I agree totally. If the program had done this, instead of portraying all pedigree breeders as spawn from hell and all pedigree dogs as unhealthy mutants, and trying to blame the KC instead of puppy farmers and bybs, then there would have been no problem. Unfortunately, however - as has been shown in many instances - JH's research is less than perfect at best, and downright non-existant at worst. Had it not been, it could have been a very different program indeed, and could have actually helped the world of dogs rather than having the detrimental effect it did have - ie driving people towards the very kinds of breeders they should be avoiding like the plague.

And this brings me nicely around to my very first post on this thread - the fact that I do not wish to pay to read any article by JH - no matter what it is about - because in my opinion whatever she writes is suspect.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I think it was a very good idea to show the gen public just what was gong on in the dog breeding world and as for the programme being biased about the health of pedigree dogs, can anyone explain why the PDSA has decided they will only treat one pedigree dog per household because in there own words "there are many health issues with pedigree dogs that our charity cannot treat" - are they too scaremongering?
> 
> (


You are not the only one confused about this. The PDSA say they have based this on their figures - but as yet have refused to publishe those figures, despite being challenged to do so by the KC. So your guess is as good as anyone else's.

My guess is that it is yet more fall out from PDE - yet another area where dogs are going to suffer because of this program.

What I do know is that many, many people - me included - have cancelled their subsciptions to this charity because of it.

Right, now this closet pedo is off to take her unhealthy mutants to a freak fashion show behind closed doors - or in proper English and not JH/PDE speak - I'm going to a dog show!

(Where DOES JH get off calling people who show dogs closet pedos btw? Anyone still think this woman can be believed about anything?)


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Anyone still think this woman can be believed about anything?


'Fraid so.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Anyone still think this woman can be believed about anything?)


Yes I am a believer. Progress in some of the issues she highlighted were made quickly after the program. Saying "we would have sorted it out" is not something I believe would have happened so quickly without it. Why are certain breeds now on a "breed watch"? It is a shame many other breeds without problems were included in the generalization but even now, you are pushing, to a degree, the idea that pedigree means quality breeders even if indirectly. For the label pedigree to mean anything (along with prices charged) people have a right to expect a healthy dog as far as it is possible (as it can never be guaranteed). How can quality though be applied to breeds with "issues" as you call them?

Back Yard Breeders and the number of puppies available, along with the ridiculous prices often charged does need to be addressed urgently but to me, this is just a ploy to deflect the issues raised.


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

DT said:


> Another problem here DD is that ethical pedigree breeders will go to great lenghts to expose dodgy . backyard and puppy farm breeders, and also encourage folk NOT to buy from such! Yet when we get on to cross breeding seems there is NO such thing as an unethical cross breeder! strange that!


Rubbish, bybs and puppyfarms are not exclusive to pedigrees! There are bad breeders in all walks of life and I would also encourage people never to buy from bybs or puppyfarms whatever type of dog they want but it seems that the pedigree breeders on here are those asuming the ethics of crossbreeds and their breeders not the crossbreed owners. We have had a lot of dogs and they have almost all been crosses; staffie crosses, gsd crosses, lab crosses, rhottie crosses and even one supposed poodle cross. They all get the same love and treatment from us whether they came from a decent breeder or puppyfarm originally - they all need love and are not to blame for where they came from. Dogs are dogs and DT magazine is at least trying to educate people about different types of dogs.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

we all have our own 'standards' with regards to breeding - alot of people on here find the cross breeders ethics dont meet their standards. This doesnt reflect the owners, just the person holding the opinion. There alot of pedigree breeders standards that dont reach my expectations. I dont see all pedigree owners getting the huff about this, and claiming people dont like their choosen breed/type.
- and of course all dogs with the right owners will be loved regardless of where the dog is brought from but that is NO reason to go to a less than ethical breeder and support such practices.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> You are not the only one confused about this. The PDSA say they have based this on their figures - but as yet have refused to publishe those figures, despite being challenged to do so by the KC. So your guess is as good as anyone else's.
> 
> My guess is that it is yet more fall out from PDE - yet another area where dogs are going to suffer because of this program.
> 
> What I do know is that many, many people - me included - have cancelled their subsciptions to this charity because of it.


PDSA decision was fairly recent wasn't it whereas PDE was a good few years ago - is there anything PDE isn't responsible for, global warming, credit crunch price of petrol?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> PDSA decision was fairly recent wasn't it whereas PDE was a good few years ago - is there anything PDE isn't responsible for, global warming, credit crunch price of petrol?


Its responsible for alot 'within' the dog world 

PDE is responsible for alot of things but two important things (in my eyes) - one forcing decent breeders out of a breed they have worked hard for, because they are no longer prepared to put the effort in fighting a lossing battle. - a number of people within my breed alone have walked away from the breed since the programme, and let me tell you its not the type that should be walking away, its always the up most responsible folk  even more so since our breed made it breed number 15 on the high profile breed list.
and two the programme gave the unthical a bigger market, more owners wanting crosses because it was in a round about way taken that crosses were healthier, no matter the ethics of the person breeding.

There is one site that is mostly most common for advertising my breed, you get around 5 pages of litters for sale (most adverts put on by unethical folk) - just under half of these are normally crosses - yet you search something like Labradooles on the same site, there is actually over double the amount of pages/ads. This to me just proves there is more of a demand, because there is certainly more supplying. (and I would be wrong to assume these litters dont find homes, because remember this cross is 'rarely' found in rescue!) Hmmm..

Looking at the adverts for the labradoodles, most if not all to me are unethical breeders - so to me this also proves that there are double the amount of unethical breeders crossing labs/poodles than them breeding advertising CCs and their crosses. - what is happening to these breeders? NO one can say there isnt unethical breeders crossing, because like I pointed out in some breeds there are more than that of pedigree breeders, but atleast with there pedigree breeders we can all try and put a stop to them, with breed clubs, the KC or what not?

I couldnt think of any responsible breeder or breed/type lover that would want their choosen breed to be so in demand, with so many litters around.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Back Yard Breeders and the number of puppies available, along with the ridiculous prices often charged does need to be addressed urgently but to me, this is just a ploy to deflect the issues raised.


well I cant agree here, BYB breeders are the ones breeding unhealthy dogs (in most cases) let that be with pedigree or crosses. People should focuse on them, not the breeds that suffer what illnesses, all dogs can suffer health issues - its about finding an ethical breeder, doing their best to lessen the chances of suffering.

The right sort of show breeders work hard to maintain a quality, healthy line - what good would it be to be breeding unhealty dogs, generations down the line having the health isssues become stronger and stronger?

People are quick to judge the pedigree breeders and the (lack) of work put in by the clubs, yet the very same people dont attend the breed meetings held by the clubs, so really in actual fact cant comment on whats going on for a breed, and whats in the pipe line


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

So what you are saying is that we'll handle things in private circles.. fix something else which needs fixing.

I do not doubt the majority of people work hard to perform changes and readily admit changes are not easy in any structure rife with politics which something like breeder clubs will be. Even worst is the internationalization of standards. Trouble you have though with the "ignore us while we fix in private" is whenever the topic is raised it generally involves people saying, or giving the impression that there are no problems to fix. If people aren't prepared to admit "Yes we have a problem of X and Y" openly, how are outside people supposed to believe those problems will be resolved? The backlash against the program only strengthens this impression.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I think those who are close to the show world and the breeding of pedigree dogs find it hard to be objective sometimes and those of us outside of it will have to just agree to differ. 

I could cite a number of breeds I personally feel have suffered due to being bred for shows, some of which have working versions that seem to me to be far healthier, so I feel the programme, although maybe not entirely accurate in all of its observations, did raise some valid points.

BYBs and Puppy farms cannot, imo, be blamed for every unhealthy dog and unhealthy breed. They also breed Pedigree dogs and even register them with the KC (or claim to). To my mind that is totally disgusting and the powers that be should close them down, not licence them. There have been programmes and reports about puppy farms and BYBs, some of which were in business years before PDE, for me it's a separate issue. It requires our governments and councils using current animal welfare legislation to shut them down. If current legislation isn't good enough, there should be new legislation. I can only suspect back handers, when these scum of the earth are given planning permission and licences to breed even more dogs, despite public protestations.  

People thought mongrels were healthier than pedigrees 40 years ago when my mother bought our pet dog though. It's nothing new. 

I do believe though, that with advances in science our pedigree dogs can only improve, as geneticists find more ways of detecting and diminishing health problems. 

Maybe one day everyone will think that with Pedigree dogs, not only do you know pretty much what you're likely to get, they are also much healthier than cross breeds or mongrels bred in someone's backyard.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

no, it has nothing to do with it being handled in private - just handled at meetings run, and attended by them most passionate about making changes for their loved breed!

Breed clubs will also not keep things undercover - but on the over hand wont talk with the whole world about whats being talked about in their breed meetings, as like I said their attended by them interested. My point is people cant sit on here stating nothings being done because their not even around or involved with the breed to know such - it also is frustrating for those that are apart of the on going plans to see someone else take credit for the changes done, ie JH. - when in actually fact alot of what she highlighted was already being dealt with, already in the pipe line and certainly nothing new to them already in the know on their choosen breed. - There are problems within alot of breeds, there is room and a need for change, no ones stated different - just about how it was put across 
- If JH had used ALL facts, and put across a balanched, educational and two sided arguments - I think you would be hard pushed to find many folk who disagreed with the programme!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> I think those who are close to the show world and the breeding of pedigree dogs find it hard to be objective sometimes and those of us outside of it will have to just agree to differ.


That is not the case at all - its them within the show world that care the MOST, its them that attend the very meetings that decide whats being changed, that then gets handed to the KC and accepted! - The KC dont make the rules for the breeds, the clubs do..The clubs attended by show folk


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I know what you're saying DD and I'm sure many breed clubs are working hard to get their dogs healthier if it's needed. However, some of what I would consider the less healthy breeds have clubs who argued against any change at all and were furious with the Kennel Club when shortly after PDE their breed was targeted for change. 

I'm not interested in a particular breed, just looking generally for the future when Elles may have a new friend, which is why I trundle around the 'net and look at discussions on club websites. lol

I'd quote a few, but it would be unfair to those who are making necessary changes, those breeders who don't actually agree with their club, and those who have pets belonging to the breed I think.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

> Breed clubs will also not keep things undercover - but on the over hand wont talk with the whole world about whats being talked about in their breed meetings


Maybe this should change then. Why not advertise changes more openly rather than giving the appearance of a sect (I know too strong a word but it's late and can't think of an alternative)? To be frank this is the main problem with the KC. Not all dog lovers will go to the KC site to find out about new initiatives or pick up the latest dog centric magazine. It is up to all members and interested parties to spread the word to reach a larger audience. I've heard comments in this thread about I'd never get Dogs Today... does that mean news shouldn't be spread using it? When a new initiative such as Health checks at crufts comes out, is it something which should be advertised at sites like this? Maybe the KC should try to sort out a media post whose responsibility is to spread the word about progress made to a wider audience. Doing this would take the mysticism out of the KC and demonstrate a willingness to make progress to a wider audience.

This would be far more effective than giving the appearance of denial.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Also many of the health issues addressed on that prog were with show quality dogs, not byb dogs but ones that were part of the show world and most likely bred by good ethical breeders.

The hocks and backs of the GSD, the excess skin of the Basset, the wrinkles of the Shar Pei are all breeds now on the watch list and the people who bred these "show quality" dogs were quite happy to continue churning out these poor "monsters" of deformity - who then is to be held responsible for their hideous features? I don't believe it is PDE but I bet somehow they will share the blame. 

I noted that Mal breeders were not too bothered about the programme and I can only assume that is because our breed appears today as it always has - thank the Lord. Such a shame that others have altered so much and bordered on cruelty!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

The KC is afterall just an organisation that registers litters, as such the improvements they are making is a massive step forward - what with the watch of the breeds (even I can accept that an my breeds on it), the changes and updates of the ABS, the money their raising and donating to charities finding new health checks, the out crossing their allowing ect' all this is progress, and all is nothing new - not improvements made because of the programme.
- The KC run awareness weeks, such as the one coming up to help educate the public.
They post updates all over the place even flipping FB 

and breeders should be the ones aiming to educate on their breed, the KC is big - but not big enough to promote, and educate all breeds - this is why the likes of these forum members are on here trying to get the message across.

erm Malmum, MOST dogs on that programme (with the issues!) were far from show quality  MOST were from pet breeders, not breeders breeding for show dogs in the first place and not brought as show dogs  - and before anyone says it NO it makes no difference and certainly doesnt make it right !!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> erm Malmum, MOST dogs on that programme were far from show quality MOST were from pet breeders, not breeders breeding for show dogs in the first place


Even if that were true and I don't know either way, that doesn't detract from Malmum and Goblin's posts (or mine ). Pedigree show dogs are being bred how they describe.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elles said:


> Pedigree show dogs are being bred how they describe.


Some are yes, just like some pedigree pets, some pedigree work dogs ect' -its a pedigree dog - no matter the reason it was bred - them that allow accidents, them that breed with little thought, them that breed for cash, them that breed without testing, them that breed from dogs with poor results, them that are uneducated ect' all add to the problem  

- However there are many of us that can hold their heads high, knowing no puppies of theres will suffer due to lack of education, and care before a mating


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

I should probably be in bed but can't sleep 

Can someone enlighten me about the slope backed German Shepherd? I very much doubt this physical abnormality that has been bred into these dogs is the result of BYBs and puppy farmers. I'm not trying to be controversial, and agree with most of what has been said, but just cannot see why anyone would take the decision to give German Shepherds, a breed originally developed for herding, a back which was detrimental to their health.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

cant comment on the GSD - other than alot of it is how the dogs are stood in to such a stance (but the slope is there regardless!) - People believe this slope has affected the spine and hips, health checks, and vets reports have said different in alot of cases!

Laptops going to die, and I dont wanna disturb the dogs - going down so night all!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

So join us on the Dark Side DD. Condemn those at the highest level who would rather their dog suffer than miss out on that red rosette and shiny trophy and their judges! 

Let's put them all in a pit, with the backyard breeders and the Puppy Mill owners, then fill the pit with dog mess from dogs fed on Bakers! 

:devil:

Nite nite.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elles said:


> Even if that were true and I don't know either way


People believe that if a dog has come from lines containing dogs that have been shown, its a show bred dog  - theres alot more to breeding show dogs than having a pedigree that contains a few show dogs, even champions.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> ...all this is progress, and all is nothing new - not improvements made because of the programme.


I'd like to point out the following:
Kennel Club changes breeding rules to end cruelty - Times Online



> Caroline Kisko, secretary of the Kennel Club, played down fears over future breeding.
> 
> She admitted the shake-up in breeding rules was in response to public opinion that more needed to be done.
> 
> Ms Kisko said: Our new breed health plans will enable us to ensure that the health of every dog is a number one priority and we are taking a tougher line with breed clubs by adjusting those breed standards that fail to promote good health.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elles said:


> So join us on the Dark Side DD. Condemn those at the highest level who would rather their dog suffer than miss out on that red rosette and shiny trophy and their judges!
> 
> Let's put them all in a pit, with the backyard breeders and the Puppy Mill owners, then fill the pit with dog mess from dogs fed on Bakers!
> 
> ...


If thats what the dark side is, im there already as are all the decent show folk I know, and other people within the breed/dog world 

n'night!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Goblin said:


> I'd like to point out the following:
> Kennel Club changes breeding rules to end cruelty - Times Online


Yes alot of breeds now have more health checks in place since the programme, after breed clubs and the KC came together. I havent disputed that! - BUT new health checks for breeders, where coming before the programme. - even if it was a shake up for more!


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

I seem to remember reading that the BBC made the decision to end it's broadcasting of Crufts after PDE, I think if that's the case, it's one of those things which gives people the wrong impression of the pedigree dog, and another contributing factor to people justifying buying a cross breed, most likely from an unethical breeder.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

It did - such a shame because the days I am not showing there myself I enjoy watching the unfit ( ..) dogs competing in agility, and obedience trails! 

Laptop - 4 mins remaining! Grr!


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> It did - such a shame because the days I am not showing there myself I enjoy watching the unfit ( ..) dogs competing in agility, and obedience trails!


heehee you're right, there were a lot of unfit little dogs racing round that agility course when we were there


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> It did - such a shame because the days I am not showing there myself I enjoy watching the unfit ( ..) dogs competing in agility, and obedience trails!
> 
> *Laptop - 4 mins remaining! Grr!*


No!!! I need company - OH's taken the dogs up to bed  damn insomnia


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

.. who don't need to be pedigree. You can compete a mongrel in obedience and agility, though ABC is less likely to win, except in the small dog classes they aren't allowed to compete in.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Whilst there were some dogs at Crufts with the sort of breed standards that make me feel uncomfortable, such as GSDs, pugs and bulldogs, I've got to say, this year was the first time we went, and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. The agility was amazing, all the dogs I met were beautiful, fit and healthy and very calm  Discovery Dogs was also brilliant, and met some really interesting people, passionate about their breed. 

The food was overpriced though, but I think that's the NEC rather than the KC's fault


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Elles said:


> .. who don't need to be pedigree. You can compete a mongrel in obedience and agility, though ABC is less likely to win, except in the small dog classes they aren't allowed to compete in.


There was a lovely mixture at Crufts this year from what I could see (although we were sitting very high up so we could eat without disturbing people ) I just was bowled over by the skill of the child handlers, they showed absolutely no nerves and had complete control over their dogs


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

But there is prejudice with breeders regarding out crossimg - have read such on this forum, also heard the like with the Dalmation breeder who outcrossed being omitted from certain circles  and yet that was done to omit a health problem within the breed. Is it any wonder JP doesn't know whether to trust breeders when you see things like this in the news? even hearing it from the breeder herself! 

To some it must seem like breeders are a law unto themselves, couple that with the look of some of the things they breed and the pure arrogance of those the programme tried to interview it makes me wonder if they have pushef JP over to cross breeds from byb's often raised in family homes and not PDE at all. No one likes arrogance in a person and even less so when it involves animal welfare!

The breeders on that programme did an enotmous amount of damage to breeders in general, as do the ones on here who say they won't buy Dogs Today because it tells lies  sounds like when they criticise the op for not hearing what they want to hear on this forum in the breeding section.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I have been attending crufts for a number of years - but was my first time handling this year! I was chuffed with a 3rd in a large class of 15 dogs. The dog has been tested for three eyes diseases, that the breed are not required to have done. - this is my show dog placed at crufts, so unfit! 
The raw diet keeps her going 

shes the black and white


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

There will always be folk that disagree with something malmum, you cant please all - I happen to believe that if the dogs/breeds best interest is at heart I will support most things. - because that should always be the main aim of an ethical breeder.

I wont support the magazine for various reasons! Doesnt mean I am not aware of issues, and even accepting them. I will accept anything with proof and I will accept/respect anyones opinions. - However I cant accept someones 'facts' when they have been proven ten times over to have used false information, twist the truth and told out right lies! - That does no good for anyone!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

bearcub said:


> The food was overpriced though, but I think that's the NEC rather than the KC's fault


Dont get me started on that, way over priced isnt it! - and yes thats the NEC, Its the same for LKA - always take a pack lunch for these venues, with a few chicken wings for the dogs


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

I really need to rewatch PDE, saw it when it was on a few years ago, but didn't have my own dog at the time so didn't really think of much of it as relevant to me.

One of the only things I remember from it was about the Flat coats, and their high rate of cancer. At the time, we were considering retrievers, flatties, goldens and labs, ended up getting a Lab obviously and was put off flatties mostly because of the facts in this programme. Shame really if a lot of it wasn't necessarily true.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Dont get me started on that, way over priced isnt it! - and yes thats the NEC, Its the same for LKA - always take a pack lunch for these venues, with a few chicken wings for the dogs


seem to remember buying a crepe and a coke - came to over £10!  will remember my packed lunch when we go Discover dogs in November and crufts next year  although OH can't resist buying hot food from a stall no matter how expensive it is :nonod: men eh?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

bearcub said:


> Shame really if a lot of it wasn't necessarily true.


Dont think I am saying that, because I really am not - alot of what was highlight is true, just fone about in the wrong way, abit underhand - with certain 'facts' twisted to enhance the arguements, when really it wasnt needed


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

bearcub said:


> seem to remember buying a crepe and a coke - came to over £10!  will remember my packed lunch when we go Discover dogs in November and crufts next year  although OH can't resist buying hot food from a stall no matter how expensive it is :nonod: men eh?


Defo remember your pack lunch LOL - we have qualifed all our dogs for crufts next year (maybe not something to promote on such a thread - cruel owner DD? ..) so not sure I will have money to eat for a month after entry fees


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I don't believe the BC has been altered over the years as some breeds like the GSD have so of course they are good at agility and fit as fiddles!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I don't believe the BC has been altered over the years as some breeds like the GSD have so of course they are good at agility and fit as fiddles!


not the only breed to compete though! - & their health is far from being 'fit as fiddles' they suffer some of the worst genetic conditions about  - You only need to read up on the tests they should have to know that!


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Dont think I am saying that, because I really am not - alot of what was highlight is true, just fone about in the wrong way, abit underhand - with certain 'facts' twisted to enhance the arguements, when really it wasnt needed


No No, not accusing you of saying that, I can totally see that a lot of what was in that programme was based on unresearched b-s. And penalised ethical breeders and owners with healthy dogs. Just saying, it highlights the damage that has been done by the programme, I'm sure I'm not alone in being being put off by what it said about flat coats when maybe their rate of cancer isn't as bad as what was said. BUT it was on BBC 1, at peak time, I didn't know any better, so took it for gospel. It's shameful really.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I was horrified when I watched it as it tried to link the kennel club & the eugenics movement.


U may not like it; that's opinion, to which U are perfectly entitled.

*but the fact is, that the Kennel Club & the AKC were both offshoots of the eugenics movement, 
which was an all-pervasive class & socioeconomic philosophy and practice, found in popular magazines, 
newspapers, science-writings, & government policies of the time.*

that we don't like it now does not alter historical facts; wealthy debutantes were called 'thoroughbreds' 
in the society-pages, as if they were racing fillies, looking for a likely stud to drop a future winner.

the popular book, _Freckles_ , Amazon.com: Freckles (Library of Indiana Classics) (9780253203632): Gene Stratton-Porter: Books was only one of many which featured 
a 'gone to seed' theme & contrasted that pathos with hale & hearty, fit, beautiful, WELL-OFF people... 
Who got that wealth BY BEING smarter, fitter, more-enduring, more-deserving, more-ethical, etc.

poor people were less moral NOT because they stole food to avoid starvation, but because they were weak morally.

poor people were poor & had bad-teeth not because they had lousy nutrition & inadequate medical/dental care, 
but BECAUSE they were poor genetic specimens, had less intelligence [not lousy schooling], & so on. 
BLAME THE VICTIM was the basic premise of sociological eugenics.

even in the modern era - _*now*_ - do U know that 2 adults of normal intelligence are more-likely 
to have a retarded child, than a retarded person is to have a retarded child? 
it's true; the risk for 2 normal adults having retarded child is greater than for a retarded adult 
to sire or carry a retarded child.



shetlandlover said:


> I was also disgusted when she [asked] the man from the KC if he'd mate [a stud]
> with [the stud's] daughter (IIRC) - even though inbreeding is not allowed & is something which all good breeders
> are against; even if the KC were to allow it you would not catch a good breeder breeding mother - son,
> father [to] daughter, brother [to] sister, [etc].


 - *just to point out - * 
the interviewer on camera did NOT ask the man if he would sire a child on his own daughter; 
they asked about HIS DOGS, not his personal sexual or breeding choices.

- 'line-breeding' is only a less-obvious form of INbreeding - grandsire to grand-niece, first-cousins, 
the same stud as sire, grandsire & uncle on the 2 pedigrees - 
or one stud, his brother & his son, all in the dam AND the sire's ancestry, etc.

- COI: Coefficient of Inbreeding - is a numerical value that tells us a lot more about consanguinity 
than merely looking at a 5 or 6-generation pedigree ever will;some breeds have been so decimated by the 
rampant matador-breeding [using individual studs, generally big-show winners, almost exclusively] 
that a breed with thousands of registered dogs has an effective breeding-population of mere dozens. 
in such breeds, SUPPOSEDLY unrelated dogs are literally as closely related as half-siblings or parent/progeny.

- many breeds are founded on only a very few individuals; others went thru severe bottlenecks, like WW1 & WW2, 
or breed-shrinkage when the breed's purpose was gone [Otterhounds, Irish Wolfhounds, Airedales], etc. 
*political & social decisions* destroyed many breeds' genetic diversity, like the deliberate destruction 
of native-breeds in Africa [the native ridgeback being only one of many] & the Shar-pei in China, 
killed by the thousands as an example of wasteful bourgeoisee indulgence.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ozrex said:


> ... we should think long & hard about dog health before breeding anything.
> 
> I'm not sure that it matters whether we breed cross-bred... or pedigree dogs so long as there's a market,...
> & they go to homes *& they're healthy.*
> ...


very much agree.

purebred dogs can be ethically bred, with health screens - or bred purely for money, 
or for _the Miracle of Birth. :ihih: awww... _

cross-bred dogs can be ethically-bred, WITH health-screens FOR BOTH parent-breeds - or for mere money, 
or simply to have adorable puppies - _"we want one just like our Fido / Fifi..."_ 
 yeah, right. Even getting another pup from the same sire & dam does NOT guarantee 
that the adult-dog that pup grows into, will be anything like a 'duplicate' - even *clones* are not 'copies'. 
everything from the dam's experiences during pregnancy to the gender of pups flanking the pup in utero, 
to early-tending by the bitch, the noise & stress level in the household, etc, all shape the future DOG.

- no-one has mentioned yet that the single cheapest & best 'test' of a prospective sire & dam 
is to WAIT TILL THEY ARE BOTH 24-MO at minimum to breed: 
* 85% of all heritable conditions which will affect that dog will have symptoms by 2-YO. 
* the progeny of such dogs LIVE an average of 2-years longer --- literally longer-lifespans for the litters.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> ....there were some dogs at Crufts with the sort of breed standards that make me feel uncomfortable, such as GSDs, pugs and bulldogs,


and how strange it is that these are amongst the most popular of breeds ......you all know my thoughts on the Brachy breeds and the GSD originally had the proportions and general construction of the BSD and DSD - neither of which are even a fraction as popular - here are the registration stats for this summer from the Kc breed record supplement -
BSD ( all four varieties) = 14 litters - 86 pups registered 
Gsd = 396 litter - 2470 pups registered

I don't have the stats for Pugs or Bulldogs as I only get the pastoral breed supplement but I can guess that it's way more than more moderate breeds such as the Schipperkee or the Buhund

People LIKE their dogs exaggerated - they think the pop eyed gasping waddling Pug or Bulldog is cute and that the GSD is 'awsome' as it either lumbers around carrying far too much bone for an active pastoral breed or does a half dog half frog impression - (no wonder the Malinois is now the dog of choice for most police forces around the world ! )

Listen folks - if you want breeders to stop breeding dogs this way then STOP buying them - but don't judge all breeds and pedigree breeders on these extremes - go along to Crufts ( or any Champ show ) and you'll see a huge choice of unexaggerated free moving, healthy and beautiful dogs - I'm fed up with the hyposcrisy involved in constantly condemning breeders by citing the failings of a handful of breeds whilst at the same time making these the most popular around !!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Bijou said:


> Listen folks - if you want breeders to stop breeding dogs this way then STOP buying them - but don't judge all breeds and pedigree breeders on these extremes - go along to Crufts ( or any Champ show ) and you'll see a huge choice of unexaggerated free moving, healthy and beautiful dogs - I'm fed up with the hyposcrisy involved in constantly condemning breeders by citing the failings of a handful of breeds whilst at the same time making these the most popular around !!


As a generic entity people are stupid. We have people buying from back yard breeders. Should we simply ignore the problem and say "no don't buy from them" or should there be an effort to shut them down whenever possible?


----------



## mamf (Jun 26, 2011)

Bijou said:


> and how strange it is that these are amongst the most popular of breeds ......you all know my thoughts on the Brachy breeds and the GSD originally had the proportions and general construction of the BSD and DSD - neither of which are even a fraction as popular - here are the registration stats for this summer from the Kc breed record supplement -
> BSD ( all four varieties) = 14 litters - 86 pups registered
> Gsd = 396 litter - 2470 pups registered
> 
> ...


The above really strikes home for me as a shar pei enthusiast, some of they dogs being bred for colour or heavy wrinkles are plauged by fsf and cm, the former can cause a very early death, however shar pei enthusiasts have been working for years to remedy this and are calling for a breed split with bone mouths like mine judged seperately than the western dog, as evidence shows that alot of the genes that cause wrinkles (and excess HA) are the same that carry the health probelms.

There have been huge health studies in Pei's, several high profile specialists are most of the way to a genetic test that will identify the gene that carries fsf and this is because of the immense support and participation of shar pei breeders when collecting samples. None of this happened because of the programme discussed and I hope similarly devoted breed enthusiasts exist for the breeds mentioned in the quote as I think the changes needed from these breeds will come from within.

Unfortunately this good work is being undone by BYB who dont give a monkeys and like to write 'massive chunky head and lovely thick wrinkles' in their puppy ads.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

yep ...it's the same kind of mindset that values 'Tea cup' versions of already tiny breeds or advertises 'massive bone' as a virtue in the GSD etc - breed standards now have this codecil as a guidance to breeders and judges



> 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 Kennel Club website for details of any such current issues. If a feature or quality is desirable it should only be present in the right measure.


and here are the special KC directions given to me when I judged at Bournemouth this year



> In assessing dogs , judges must penalise any features or exaggerations which they consider would be detrimental to the soundness, helath and wellbeing of the dog


- note also that in Mamf's post it is the breed clubs and dedicated breeders who are driving forward health improvements ( and were doing so before PDE was aired )

.....but you cannot ignore market forces - as long as there is a market for over wrinkled Shar Peis etc they will continue to be bred.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

mamf said:


> ...as a Shar-Pei enthusiast, some... dogs... bred for colour or heavy wrinkles are [plagued]
> by FSF and CM; [FSF] can cause a very early death...
> 
> Shar-Pei [breeders] have [worked] for years to remedy this & [some want] a breed split, with bone mouths like mine
> ...


for those of us who are not Shar-Pei breeders, could U please name the abbreviated terms 
- FSF 
- CM 
- HA

i am guessing that *'bone mouth'* is the term for a cleaner, less-fleshy foreface, in contrast 
to the more-exaggerated *'meat mouth'* with thick fleshy muzzle & flews? 
would it be possible to show a photo of a 'bone-mouth' Shar-Pei as well as the other type? 
thanks very much, i hope to get a better idea of the features that are being discussed. :001_smile: 
- terry


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

everyone beware, the lady herself is here!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

LFL;
- FSF - Familial Shar-Pei Fever
- HA - Hyaluronic acid (?)
- CM - ent a clue


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

cutaneous mucinosis

Looked it up, they're like little bubbly blisters on their wrinkly skin. 

From what I can gather, bone mouth is another word for a traditional shar-pei with hardly any wrinkles, in the pics I found, they had no wrinkles on their bodies, just a bit on their heads. Some good looking dogs, very regal.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> From what I can gather, bone mouth is another word for a traditional Shar-Pei with hardly any wrinkles,
> in the pics I found, they had no wrinkles on their bodies, just a bit on their heads. Some good looking dogs,
> very regal.


ah! thanks - 
Yes, i very-much prefer them; they tend to have minimal body-wrinkling when standing, 
some at the neck/shoulder, some on the face & near the ears, perhaps a fold above the tail, some around 
the hocks, loose skin at neck & somewhat on the chest - they are often more moderate in structure, too. 
[not as vertical in the rear legs, anus not as close to the lumbar-spine orientation].

the woman who bred my Akita only had one Akita-bitch; her specialty was SharPei. 
*she bragged that her last THREE LITTERS all had to have their eyes 'buttoned' open - 
the vet stitched buttons on their foreheads to secure the excess loose skin, so that their eyes 
could open normally, rather than failing to open & not developing as they should.*

she seemed thrilled - i was more DEpressed than IMpressed. :nonod: poor puppies! 
her kennel-name was Hawk Tree Kennels [AKC].


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> LFL;
> - FSF - Familial Shar-Pei Fever
> - HA - Hyaluronic acid (?)


thank U kindly. :yesnod:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> cutaneous mucinosis
> Looked it up, they're like little bubbly blisters on their wrinkly skin.


ouch! sounds painful.  thanks very-much for the info.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Right I've just been informed that flat coats were not featured on PDE, I must have been thinking of another programme - my mistake  

If anyone can remember the programme I'm referring to; it was on either BBC or Channel 4 and was on after crufts last year?


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Is it me or is it timing that made thre ekennell club release the factds allegedly about the ratio of dogs today?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

bearcub said:


> Right I've just been informed that flat coats were not featured on PDE, I must have been thinking of another programme - my mistake
> 
> If anyone can remember the programme I'm referring to; it was on either BBC or Channel 4 and was on after crufts last year?


alot of people have previously said that there are reason this breed wasnt made on to the film, being her choosen breed and all 
- she has wrote about them else where mind, maybe her blog?

The programme was done three years ago  (2008)


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> she bragged that her last THREE LITTERS all had to have their eyes 'buttoned' open


Oh yuk! Poor dogs. 

I was watching some vids by a well respected ( I think) trainer in the US. She seemed a little sharp in her temperament for me, but was doing quite well, I thought. Until I saw her new Border Collie pup with his ears glued up like they do in the US. 

My BC has very expressive ears and although it might not be painful, like cropping, I think someone who is supposedly into dog training and behaviour, should take this kind of thing into account, especially as she doesn't appear to have any intention of showing him. Put me off her instantly. I'm very judgemental. 



> The programme was done three years ago


I wonder when PDE part 2 will be released. The whole programme (the first one) can be watched on youtube. It's where I looked at it, hadn't seen it on tv. I have to admit that some of it made me very, very sad indeed. :crying:


----------



## mamf (Jun 26, 2011)

hey all apologies for poor posting and that I didnt clarify earlier, I was at work and wrote as rushing out the door. All were correctly Identified though thanks to kind posters.

the traditional pei is referred to as a bone mouth mostly to distinguish whilst we are waiting for a split (which if it comes will probably result in an American Shar Pei/ chinese Shar Pei)

Really sad about that litter lfl posted about but all too common as some back yard breeders see ectropian/ entropian as an unavoidable shar pei trait despite the hong Kong breed standard (which is a pretty good one IMO) stating

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

I feel its a fairly good model for a breed standard put in place to rectify some of the more dodgy breeding it can be found in full here..

standard

edited to add pics








Here you can see the relative lack of wrinkles and tighter skin and more athletic body shape of a bone mouth

here is a more moderate meat mouth (seen as an ideal middle ground by some)









and a meat mouth attached to the post


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Right. I've remembered the programme I was referring to. It was called 'HOW TO BUY A PUPPY' and it was on Channel 4, this was the one which featured flat coats. So sorry Jemima for mixing the two up


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

There was a programme on channel 4 after crufts last year called 'Good Dog, Bad Dog.' which did feature flat coats. It was probably that one if you saw it last year.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> - *just to point out - *
> the interviewer on camera did NOT ask the man if he would sire a child on his own daughter;
> they asked about HIS DOGS, not his personal sexual or breeding choices.
> 
> .


You are wrong. This is a transcript:

JH - Have you got children
RI - Yes
JH Have you got a daughter
RI -Yes
JH Would you have a baby with her
RI - no, of course I wouldn't
JH Why not?

And here is the clip to prove it:

Pedigree Dogs Exposed Full Movie - YouTube

It's at point 22.36 to 22.44

Yet another case of someone having a selective memory about this program


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Please, not the same old nonsense about cross breeds. Every breed we have is the result of crossbreeding at some time, we'd all be walking around with bloody wolves on the end of our leads otherwise,


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> Please, not the same old nonsense about cross breeds. Every breed we have is the result of crossbreeding at some time, we'd all be walking around with bloody wolves on the end of our leads otherwise,


The issue is Pete, alot of the crosses of today have no reason behind them - our established breeds were nearly all created for a 'vaild' reason. - not to over supply the pet market. - Thats the issue alot of us have


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> As a generic entity people are stupid. We have people buying from back yard breeders. Should we simply ignore the problem and say "no don't buy from them" or should there be an effort to shut them down whenever possible?


There should be a very concerted effort to shut them down. But while ever people are running around like headless chickens and trying to lay the blame at the door of the KC and ethical breeders, then the puppy farmers and the bybs will be laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

springerpete said:


> Please, not the same old nonsense about cross breeds. Every breed we have is the result of crossbreeding at some time, we'd all be walking around with bloody wolves on the end of our leads otherwise,


Apart from Golden Retrievers... they descended from ANGELS :001_wub:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

JH - Instead of reporting posts, maybe come and answer?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

bearcub said:


> Apart from Golden Retrievers... they descended from ANGELS :001_wub:


And weimaraners from the devil!
Afterall! they are the Devil Dog!


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Wow! I expected a debate but not THIS debate!!

Maybe I should start another thread saying how much I liked the crossbreed article in Dogs Today, and that I'm really proud that pictures of my three were included...

Mind you, going back a few pages - my cockerpoo who just measures into large at agility has won into grade 4 in his first year competing . Whereas someone at my club who breeds border collies for the show ring has one who doesn't want to jump and another who is so aggressive he has to stay on his lead at training...


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> Whereas someone at my club who breeds border collies for the show ring has one who doesn't want to jump and another who is so aggressive he has to stay on his lead at training...


Just because a dogs bred for the ring, a pedigree or even a certain breed doesnt mean it will want to jump - and as for the dog with the aggression are you saying this dog is shown?

- my mother breeds and shows..she has an agrressive dog (infact at present two) ones a permant rescue and ones a foster! 
I dont get your point with regards to the breeder being a show breeder  - maybe she has rescues to..


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Yes the aggressive dog is shown and has done quite well I believe. 

I know collies aren't necessarily bred to do agility but they are working dogs, so for a show quality dog to be so unwilling to work is surprising to me. Fit for function etc...

But I know nothing about showing so maybe I just got it wrong.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

erm because a dog isnt willing to work, does not mean its not fit for funcation 
- Border Collies are bred to herd shep - agility is some fun, some dogs like it some dont - has nothing what so ever to do with being 'fit for function' that is complete rubbish.

and as for the aggressive dog being show, I am shocked - and being placed. Must say I dont believe this one bit, an aggressive dog wouldnt do well stood behind and in front of other dogs, and then gone over by a judge. NO serious, or educated/decent person would put an aggressive dog in the right, its not fair on the dog nor other and is terrible on THEIR name


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Funny that, so the golden retriever seen to curl its lip and bare its teeth at the judge yet still pick up 3rd place this weekend was a figment of our imagination???


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

freddies_mum said:


> Funny that, so the golden retriever seen to curl its lip and bare its teeth at the judge yet still pick up 3rd place this weekend was a figment of our imagination???


what show? - (and you can hardly slate the owners/dog for this - its the judges fault for picking) - judges should be picking all round nice dogs. - some judges are rough handed mind, and if I was a dog I would bite. - If a dog attacks a judge, the judge have the choice to report to the KC. The KC will then ban the dog from being shown, and put a ban on puppies being registered from said dog - assuming you are talking about a KC event here.


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

An agricultural show - I was there doing agility but there was also a breed show taking place.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> The issue is Pete, alot of the crosses of today have no reason behind them - our established breeds were nearly all created for a 'vaild' reason. - not to over supply the pet market. - Thats the issue alot of us have


Please justify show lines differing from working breeds where the show lines have more health issues than the working lines if this is your argument. The only thing I have heard show lines improving on is temperament and looks at times (depending on eye of the beholder). Then again I keep being told that showing is not about looks.

Over supplying the pet market is not unique to crossbreeds. In the eyes of a lot of crossbreeders there is a valid reason. All you do with this argument is appear arrogant and elitist which I am sure is not your intention. I know this is a standard argument point which has been flogged to death. It's simply not accepted by any person owning a crossbreed and creates even more of a them and us feeling when we should all be getting together to fight BYB.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

freddies_mum said:


> Yes the aggressive dog is shown and has done quite well I believe.
> 
> I know collies aren't necessarily bred to do agility but they are working dogs, so for a show quality dog to be so unwilling to work is surprising to me. Fit for function etc...
> 
> But I know nothing about showing so maybe I just got it wrong.


As someone who shows border collies regularly, at breed, championship and open shows (including breed shows at several agricultural shows) I am surprised that I have not come across this aggressive border collie, especially if, as you intimate, it has actually done well in the show ring! I would be extremely perturbed if I found someone showing an aggressive border collie - although I do have to say that as I have never yet seen an aggressive border collie in the show ring I'm a bit sceptical about this one. An aggressive dog will not show well and is unlikely to have won much - if it has been shown at all. Are you willing to back up your statement with fact and let me know who this dog is, including its kennel name? Also, could you let me know which agricultural show, as it is highly likely that either I, or people I know well and whose observations I trust, were actually there. Please feel free to pm me if you don't want to put it on the open forum.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

springerpete said:


> Please, not the same old nonsense about cross breeds. Every breed we have is the result of crossbreeding at some time, we'd all be walking around with bloody wolves on the end of our leads otherwise,


actually some breeds, like some of the nordic breeds for example, are little changed from the original phenotype and thats why they still have a similar look to the wolf they wernt deliberatly crossed with other breeds!...they 'evolved' to survive their harsh environment and to do so retained their wolf like characteristics which best suit arctic conditions!


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> The issue is Pete, alot of the crosses of today have no reason behind them - our established breeds were nearly all created for a 'vaild' reason. - not to over supply the pet market. - Thats the issue alot of us have


Why do they need a valid reason for crossing? Like everything in this world nowadays people like more choice and the fact that crossbreeds have become so popular is that they seem to have wonderful natures and we have got past the stage where everyone had a pedigree. From what I have seen nowadays the public talk about "status dogs" being staffs and bull terriers etc but I sense that some pedigree breeders are trying to hold on to their staus with their dogs. I have never bought a dog from a breeder so could be so wrong but feel its down to snobbery how much they buy/sell their dogs for and they feel it helps their status.

How sad that people can be so cruel towards dogs and yet cite that they are doglovers and breed for the love of their breed and dogs.

Luckily there is only a tiny minority on here who are so pompous and inane otherwise it would spoil this forum but what are 5 out of many 1000's?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

AlisonLyn said:


> Why do they need a valid reason for crossing? Like everything in this world nowadays people like more choice and the fact that crossbreeds have become so popular is that they seem to have wonderful natures and we have got past the stage where everyone had a pedigree. From what I have seen nowadays the public talk about "status dogs" being staffs and bull terriers etc but I sense that some pedigree breeders are trying to hold on to their staus with their dogs. I have never bought a dog from a breeder so could be so wrong but feel its down to snobbery how much they buy/sell their dogs for and they feel it helps their status.
> 
> How sad that people can be so cruel towards dogs and yet cite that they are doglovers and breed for the love of their breed and dogs.
> 
> Luckily there is only a tiny minority on here who are so pompous and inane otherwise it would spoil this forum but what are 5 out of many 1000's?


Rubbish! no one has been cruel towards any dog! quite the opposite infact! its because some of us care about dogs that we feel the way we do! just look at the free ad sites! jam packed with irresponsible, greedy breeders most of who know zero about breeding so put their dogs at risk all for £££££££££!

and responsible staffy breeders who are passionate about their breed dont have them for status! as the majority of staffy owners dont! many of these breeders you slate will be doing plenty for staffy rescue....picking up the pieces of all those irresponsible BYB's who are churning them out:cursing:


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

whoa there guys, this is turning into a pedigree dog vs crossbreed and that's not allowed, as it creates digs at cross breeds which ain't allowed either.

You can't imply that someone's much loved pet has no purpose just because it's not a pedigree dog bred for the show ring or the police force and surely no-one can think all pedigree dogs are status symbols. hmy:

If a person likes a particular cross, they're just as entitled to like it as a person who likes a particular pedigree. 

By all means complain about breeders who breed sick dogs, but please don't start attacking each other's pets.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> whoa there guys, this is turning into a pedigree dog vs crossbreed and that's not allowed, as it creates digs at cross breeds which ain't allowed either.
> 
> You can't imply that someone's much loved pet has no purpose just because it's not a pedigree dog bred for the show ring or the police force and surely no-one can think all pedigree dogs are status symbols. hmy:
> 
> ...


ive NEVER attacked anyones pet, i love all dogs,pedigree,crossbreed,mongrel ...i like others am only ever against irresponsible breeders..


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> whoa there guys, *this is turning into a pedigree dog vs crossbreed and that's not allowed, as it creates digs at cross breeds which ain't allowed either.*
> 
> You can't imply that someone's much loved pet has no purpose just because it's not a pedigree dog bred for the show ring or the police force and surely no-one can think all pedigree dogs are status symbols. hmy:
> 
> ...


You're right, it's not allowed
This is a constant problem on the forum though, there was a direct insult towards pedigree dog owners or breeders a few posts ago, apparently this _is_ allowed & personal insults like pedigree owners getting called snobs or cruel are apparently acceptable. I don't think that's at all fair TBH


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> ive NEVER attacked anyones pet, i love all dogs,pedigree,crossbreed,mongrel ...i like others am only ever against irresponsible breeders..


I know exactly what you mean Noushka, but somewhere this gets lost in translation by a few people


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

freddies_mum said:


> Wow! I expected a debate but not THIS debate!!
> 
> Maybe I should start another thread saying how much I liked the crossbreed article in Dogs Today, and that I'm really proud that pictures of my three were included...
> 
> Mind you, going back a few pages - my cockerpoo who just measures into large at agility has won into grade 4 in his first year competing . Whereas someone at my club who breeds border collies for the show ring has one who doesn't want to jump and another who is so aggressive he has to stay on his lead at training...


Congratulations on getting your dogs in the article of Dogs Today.

No wonder you are proud 

At the end of the day rather than enter into yet another crossbreeding debate it would be nice for once for a forum of dog lovers to share the OP's excitement 

I couldn't careless whether the dogs were cross or pedigree on the magazine- at the end of the day I would be happy for any member on here to have their dogs published- just as I am pleased for you all when your dogs win at shows etc...

I know some of you hate the magazine- but can you understand that the op is proud her dogs out of thousands probably have been chosen?


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Well, I think I need another coffee now after sitting and reading through all that - I dont know how I missed it TBH, PMSL!!! hmy: I too, was horrified at JH and PDE. I can only reply with the writing I did for my website - 


The Pedigree Dog World and the Show Fraternity have taken some hard knocks in the last year or so, mainly due to the BBC Documentary screened in August 2008. This programme led to many people, including the RSPCA, DEFRA and the Government itself questioning the health and welfare of Pedigree dogs in general and specifically focusing in Show Breeders. While, here at Ceearott, we have always tried to breed healthy dogs first and foremost, we now feel that we must take further steps to ensure we are doing all we can to breed healthy puppies, now and in the future. The Kennel Club has a Scheme called The Accredited Breeder Scheme, which has been in place now for about 3 years. This allows certain Breeders who abide by Rules and Recommendations laid down the KC, to become Accredited Breeders and listed as so on the KC Website. More about this can be found elsewhere on our site and on the KC Website. We have become Accredited Breeders and therefore obliged to follow the rules and guidelines. Much of the attention surrounding Pedigree Breeders is about the control of genetic disease within dogs, and just how much Breeders are doing to eliminate them. We would like to assure you that we are working hard within our own kennel to eliminate these diseases.

Genetic diseases in dogs have been with us for a long time. In fact, they probably started when dogs evolved many millenia ago. Because dogs are biologic mechanisms, as are people and all other living things, they are subject to mutations. Sometimes it is easy to tell whether a condition is genetic, but at other times, especially if there are only one or two cases, it is very difficult to determine whether it is or not. To attempt to control genetic disease within your kennel and breeding stock requires only three things - KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND HONESTY.

So what evidence is there that shows that genetic disease is a problem in purebred dogs? There is the general evidence - statements by veterinarians, breeders and purchasers of purebreds that genetic disease is common in their experience. About 500 genetic diseases have been reported in purebred dogs, and if the diagnostics were better, there would probably be more. If dogs carried no defective genes or only one defective gene, genetic disease would not be common, we could avoid it with ease. The problem in dogs that compounds the situation is that we also have MATADORS. Matadors are dogs that produce large numbers, perhaps even hundreds or thousands of offspring. These dogs spread their genes over an entire breed so that not only the number of defective genes is high (although no higher than in people), but the frequency of genes for a given set of traits is high (those traits carried by the Matadors). As a result, with many traits in dogs, (unlike in people), the risk of producing a given defect is just as high with an outcross as with inbreeding. 

Tradition states that breedable dogs are dogs that win in the Showring, in fact, determining the breeding worth of dogs is the major purpose of showing dogs. The purpose of a Show should be to evaluate dogs competitively, matching them against the best animals in the breed to evaluate their potential value as breeding stock, and to have FUN - to take part in the sport of dogs with or without the goal of breeding the winners. Showing dogs should be in and of itself fun, being involved in competition should be enjoyable and there shouldnt be any other goal. There are far more important factors than just looking at the Phenotype of the dog, whether you are breeding for disease control or conformation. The conformation of the dog involved is important, of course it is, but it is just one parameter. If we want to make any impact in controlling genetic disease in dogs, we must agree that an ethical approach is based on FAIRNESS, OPENNESS & HONESTY. While traditions are important to us and should remain important, they should be changed if they conflict with the exercise of our Ethics as Dog Breeders. The important points to consider when selecting a dog for breeding are -

1. What the grandparents and parents produced.
2. What the parents' littermates are like.
3. What the dogs's littermates are like.
4. What the dog has produced previously.

A Pedigree is the time-honoured method we use to illustrate inheritance. There are 2 types of Pedigrees. One, the most common, shows the linear inheritance of an individual dog, starting with the dog in question and goes back through the ancestors, listing the immediate forebears of each generation. This is the Pedigree that most people know and is what you get from your Breeder when you buy a puppy. The other Pedigree is a genetic analysis pedigree. It goes back through the ancestors in much the same way as the other pedigree, but instead of names, symbols are used, and symbols are used to note any genetic disease in any of the dogs. As the Breeding Program continues, more dogs are added. The purpose of this, is that it allows us to follow and visualise any traits and how they are being passed among the family members. It can be a major help in determining the most likely mode of inheritance within a trait. It is especially helpful in allowing us to select those animals least likely for the various traits found in our bloodlines. 

There is much more we could write as Genetics is a deep and complex subject, and many more factors need to be taken into consideration, in much more depth, as to the breeding of healthy pedigree dogs. We hope this has given you a little insight into the work and thoughts of ourselves, and also many other Show Breeders out there in all breeds, not just Rottweilers. Although we cannot deny there are many ignorant and unscrupulous breeders out there, please rest assured that the majority of Show Breeders are very caring people who care very much about the health and welfare of the dogs they own and breed and are working hard to eliminate genetic disease. What you must realise is, the control of genetic diseases within the canine world, is something which is going to take a long time and many generations of dogs to improve drastically. The Kennel Club has many Health Testing Schemes, relevant to many breeds and the KC work hard to promote these schemes and encourage breeders to use them within their breeding stock.

The BVA/KC Hip Scoring Scheme -
This has been designed to address the problem of hip dysplasia, one of those complex inherited diseases. The scheme evaluates radiographs that have been taken of an individual dog's hips. Each hip is evaluated by 2 experts who score nine anatomical features of the hip and score each hip out of a total of 53. The 2 scores are added together to give the dog's overall hip score. So a dogs hip score can range from 0 - 106 and the lower the hip score the better the anatomy of the dogs hips. In breeds where significant numbers of dogs have been through the hip scheme it is possible to calculate a breed mean hip score, which gives a feel for the average quality of the hips within that breed. The average score for Rottweilers is 12, so any score below 12 is an excellent result. The KC recommends that only dogs with a score of average or below should be used for breeding.

The BVA/KC Elbow Grading Scheme -
This is to address elbow dysplasia. Again, each dog is graded on a scale of 0 - 3, again by 2 specialists. The lower the grade the better the elbow anatomy. In this scheme if the dog has 2 different elbow grades, the higher of the two is used as the dogs elbow grades. Advice to breeders is to use only dogs with an elbow grade of 0 - 1 for breeding.

The BVA/KC/ISDS Eye Scheme -
This scheme has a list, Schedule A, which contains all of the known inherited eye diseases and the breeds that are currently known to be affected by these conditions. It also has a Schedule B, which lists breeds and conditions where further investigation is urged. Specialist panelists appointed by the BVA can examine any individual dog for clinical signs of these diseases. Because some of these inherited eye diseases are not congenital, breeders are advised to have their breeding stock examined each year throughout the dogs life.

DNA Testing Schemes -
The last ten years have seen spectacular progress in our understanding of the canine genome, the genes that make up a dog. Significant technological advances and injection of substantial funding to support research means the KC is now directly able to read the genetic code that is embedded in each and everyone of the 20,000 or so canine genes. This means that not only can we now identify the genes that are involved in inherited disease in the dog, but we can also identify the mutation, the error on the gene's code, that is responsible for the disease.

We at Ceearott, have always hips scored our breeding stock and will continue to do so. We also intend to have our next generation of breeding stock elbow scored and DNA profiled. We are also beginning to put together a Genetic Analysis Pedigree for our dogs, hoping it will help us keep health records of any dogs bred or owned by us, and allow us to make sensible, informed decisions in the future re breeding. We ask all puppy owners to keep in touch and let us know if the dog is diagnosed with a genetic disease at any time in its life so we can update our records and build up a true picture.

We hope all this information has helped you understand that we are caring, ethical breeders who only want the best for our dogs, both now and in the future!


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> You're right, it's not allowed
> This is a constant problem on the forum though, there was a direct insult towards pedigree dog owners or breeders a few posts ago, apparently this _is_ allowed & personal insults like pedigree owners getting called snobs or cruel are apparently acceptable. I don't think that's at all fair TBH


Actually I believe the mods now allow it as long as it doesnt turn to nasty.

And I have lost count how many times I have been called a pedigree snob...even compared to hitler.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> whoa there guys, this is turning into a pedigree dog vs crossbreed and that's not allowed, as it creates digs at cross breeds which ain't allowed either.
> 
> You can't imply that someone's much loved pet has no purpose just because it's not a pedigree dog bred for the show ring or the police force and surely no-one can think all pedigree dogs are status symbols. hmy:
> 
> ...


I am sick and fed up about accusations of attacking others' pets. This has been said on this thread several times - and each time by someone who owns a crossbreed. I challenge any of you to quote ANY post on here where someone has attacked someone's pet. For every one that you can find, I will donate £1.00 to charity.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> You're right, it's not allowed
> This is a constant problem on the forum though, there was a direct insult towards pedigree dog owners or breeders a few posts ago, apparently this _is_ allowed & personal insults like pedigree owners getting called snobs or cruel are apparently acceptable. I don't think that's at all fair TBH


Think you'll find the original was :


> alot of the crosses of today have no reason behind them - our established breeds were nearly all created for a 'vaild' reason. - not to over supply the pet market. - Thats the issue alot of us have


This comment is certainly not directed towards pedigree dogs. You'll find most people on this forum are not against pedigree, nor against crossbreed or mongrels. Most are against BYB and breeding unhealthy dogs in general and once again it needs to be pointed out that these are the areas we should be concentrating on as dog lovers. However when crossbreeds are not valid is brought up, expect people to get defensive just as pedigree breeders would do if they were told their breed is not "valid".


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> As someone who shows border collies regularly, at breed, championship and open shows (including breed shows at several agricultural shows) I am surprised that I have not come across this aggressive border collie, especially if, as you intimate, it has actually done well in the show ring! I would be extremely perturbed if I found someone showing an aggressive border collie - although I do have to say that as I have never yet seen an aggressive border collie in the show ring I'm a bit sceptical about this one. An aggressive dog will not show well and is unlikely to have won much - if it has been shown at all. Are you willing to back up your statement with fact and let me know who this dog is, including its kennel name? Also, could you let me know which agricultural show, as it is highly likely that either I, or people I know well and whose observations I trust, were actually there. Please feel free to pm me if you don't want to put it on the open forum.


I'll pm you.


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2011)

I think the issue is and always will be that those who are shouting the loudest about how the kennel club didnt stop in breeding ect until 2008 are those with doodles, poo's crosses. Which has no governing body at all to stop doodle or cross breeders from inbreeding. 

So if the kennel club are so bad and are such a bad example of governing body why do the doodles, poo's and other crosses not have a governing body that's "better" than the kennel club?

Those who claim that nasty comments have been said about their crosses on this thread. Where? Whenever a discussion like this comes up cross owners are the first to say "oh they are slagging off my dogs" ect. Yet pedigree owners have had to put up with constant accusations pedigree's are inbred and sick as well as in the past personal attacks within pm's. 

Dont like the kennel club? Set up your own governing body. 

There is no one to police inbreeding of crosses or unregistered dogs.
There is no one to police the number of litters a cross or unregistered bitch has.

So in my eyes although the kennel club has some down falls its better than NO governing dog body.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Who actually polices the breeding clubs and what actual powers do they have. Most people believe it to be the KC. They are, as far as I am aware neither a governing body or an establishment with any authority. The only way the can directly influence things is to require things like the vet check at Crufts.

Saying that the VDH (the German Kennel Club) has announced that it is taking over the English Bulldog breed club because they were not doing enough. The reason.. an equivalent program to PDE aired on German TV.
Viel Rasse, wenig Klasse - Das Geschäft mit der Hundezucht - die story - WDR Fernsehen (if you speak german).

Does the KC in the UK have the ability to do this?

Would also say I do own a crossbreed. A beagle/cocker who we brought for €250. Hardly a designer breed or price. Accidental breeding and we are still in contact with the breeder who actually took one pup back when owner could no longer look after it.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

I don't have time to read the whole of this thread so apologies if I am repeating something that has already been said! 

I am a Cockapoo owner and have never made rude comments about the KC or pedigree dogs or breeders. I love all dogs and I love ethical breeding.

Myself and Cockerpoo Lover are constantly trying to get spread the word on more ethical breeding of crosses. It is incredibly frustrating as for some reason because they are only bred for the pet market there appears to be a view that you don't need to health test everything! 

Several times in the last couple of weeks I have mentioned that not everyone spays/neuters and 'accidental matings' happen and if half the crosses out there are PRA carrier then potentially there could be a lot of affected dogs. Why do breeders think if they sell for the pet market Joe Bloggs wont wake up one morning and decide to breed his Cockapoo Poo to 'make a few bob'  Which obviously we know if done properly would do nothing of the sort! 

We might only be pet owners but we deserve to have happy healthy dogs aswell! 

But I would just like to add that whilst searching Poodle and Cocker Spaniel breeders to look at what tests they did there were alot that did not appear to test for everything aswell. 

All breeders have a responsibility to ensure that the puppies are as healthy as possible by testing their dogs, they have a duty not only to the public but also to the poor dogs that might become ill. 

I am not sure that I will be getting another Cockerpoo, not because I don't like them as my girlie is just fabulous but I am not sure that there will be a breeder who ticks all of my boxes.


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

I'd love there to be some kind of crossbreed council - or perhaps even for the KC to extend their approved breeder scheme to crossbreeds. This wouldn't mean them having to accept doodles etc as 'breeds' but would help any member of the public looking for a crossbreed puppy.

And until then - well, we have the United Kingdom Labradoodle Association (UKLA) who publish a code of conduct for labradoodle breeders. We have the Labradoodle Trust who are a rescue organisation but also seek to educate the public on everything 'doodle, such as the allergy myth, coat types, sizes, living with a doodle and information on how to find a reputable breeder. And most recently we have the labradoodle puppy finder - which lists breeders and puppies who comply fully with their code of practice including all relevant health tests (and much more). Check it out - Labradoodles


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

I think there might a Cockerpoo Club starting in this country aswell which would advise people on the types of cross, finding ethical breeders, health tests etc. Things are improving but it is taking a long time.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Most breed breeders, even if not recognized by the KC, start to form breeding societies much like pedigree breed clubs. Only difference as far as I can see is the lack of ability to register to a central authority and the name "pedigree". Most create individual registries containing similar information to the KC.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I think the issue is and always will be that those who are shouting the loudest about how the kennel club didnt stop in breeding ect until 2008 are those with doodles, poo's crosses. Which has no governing body at all to stop doodle or cross breeders from inbreeding.
> 
> So if the kennel club are so bad and are such a bad example of governing body why do the doodles, poo's and other crosses not have a governing body that's "better" than the kennel club?
> 
> ...


There are people who are interested in having a registry/council for crosses myself and Sezra included 

We both like the idea of a " Cockapoo club of GB" which we thought would be good to promote good breeding practices /breeders etc..........

MY oh MY you wouldn't believe the hmy:hmy:hmy: it caused on a cockapoo forum especially when two breeders had the same idea of being the ones to start it up!!!

You wouldn't believe the flack I have had from other cockapoo owners and breeders either when I try and raise issues.

Same as Sezra really- we just want our dogs to be bred healthily and we want them to be accepted for the lovely crosses they are and not ridiculed for the way they look or their names which does happen on this forum.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> I am sick and fed up about accusations of attacking others' pets. This has been said on this thread several times - and each time by someone who owns a crossbreed.


There, there Elles, close your ears. 

Elles is a purebred Border Collie, she's not a crossbreed, if that makes my point more valid. 

I am not having a pop at pedigree dog breeders, I was having a pop at both sides. Both the side that call pedigree breeders elitist snobs and the side that says cross breed dogs have no value.

I don't agree with either side.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

sezra said:


> I think there might a Cockerpoo Club starting in this country aswell which would advise people on the types of cross, finding ethical breeders, health tests etc. Things are improving but it is taking a long time.


Ha ha you beat me to it!!


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

freddies_mum said:


> Funny that, so the golden retriever seen to curl its lip and bare its teeth at the judge yet still pick up 3rd place this weekend was a figment of our imagination???


This just shows that the judge was not very good (to say the least). If a dog bared its teeth at me while judging, I would tell the owner to withdraw it immediately. No matter how good it was conformationally, an aggressive dog should not be placed.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

I have found myself agreeing with nearly everything on the last 2 pages which is a first for me, but simply cannot agree with those who feel the need to defend their crosses and their right to purchase them from any old breeder. There is simply no difference between buying a Labradoodle from a breeder who doesn't health test and a German Shepherd from a breeder who doesn't health test. This absolute myth that Labradoodles or any cross for that matter is not affected by genetic diseases or conditions is long since dead, and I think we all know that on the forum. 

What disgusts me the most is seeing adverts on the you-know-what sites for doodle/oodle/poo pups, hundreds of them, so a poodle crossed with any old dog. There was one advert for a flat coat x poodle, one for a stud and the advert said, "all breeds welcome"... 

Is this progress? No. Do people really think that moving away from pedigree breeding is the way forward if this is the result?! I am absolutely sure that there are some fantastic doodle breeders out there and that's how it should be. They should be a specialist breed, bred by a small number of experienced and ethical breeders. Not by every Tom, Dick and Harry who fancies making a bit of extra cash because people will always buy the next 'trend'.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> Please justify show lines differing from working breeds where the show lines have more health issues than the working lines if this is your argument. The only thing I have heard show lines improving on is temperament and looks at times (depending on eye of the beholder). Then again I keep being told that showing is not about looks.
> 
> Over supplying the pet market is not unique to crossbreeds. In the eyes of a lot of crossbreeders there is a valid reason. All you do with this argument is appear arrogant and elitist which I am sure is not your intention. I know this is a standard argument point which has been flogged to death. It's simply not accepted by any person owning a crossbreed and creates even more of a them and us feeling when we should all be getting together to fight BYB.


Can I just say that although you can never justify any dogs bred for one area suffering more issues. Its not a fair arguements simply because there will be more cases of 'issues' withing show lines becauase more breeders test, leaving more dogs tested with results avaliable.  Them breeding for the pet market and the working fields, do not test (or publish) results as openly as the show folk. You only need to look into breed databases to gather that information.

Showing is NOT all about looks - there is much more to a single dog, and an overall breed to its looks. Tempermant, and health are both important. what would be the point in breeding and establishing a line of dogs that couldnt enter the ring due to tempermant and health issues? 
People will always see what they want to see, and are quick to judge - these people like I have said many a times are not involved in showing themselves, are not apart of the breed/breed clubs ect and just like to pretend they know whats going on.

I have said a number of times I dont agree with breeding to supply the pet marker ALTOGETHER. - pedigree or cross breed. I would go as far to say I get most upset when its MY PEDIGREE breed that I see being produced as such.



> Why do they need a valid reason for crossing?


Are you serious!?  ANYONE breeding let that be pedigrees, or crosses should have a 'vaild' reason. WHY? Because enough dogs are already suffering with no homes to go to, simply because people want a litter, the bitch would make a nice mum, each bitch should have a litter, shes will make nice babies, it was an accident yada yada..Most dogs coming into rescue (we work with three one being breed rescue so I can only comment on that) - come in from people having brought from people breeding only to supply a pet market - of course their not the only breeders to allow their dogs to end up in rescue, but dogs coming in from such breeders are higher than that of any other.
- It also P's me off that people will willy nilly claim that us pedigree folk dont like these crosses themselves - Thats why breed rescue pick up the pieces of these unwanted crosses then? There no rescues for most of these types, the breeders havent took back - so its left to us snobby pedigree folk 
WHY do we take them? - You got it because we CARE and I am sick to death of people claiming that we dont like the dogs themselves - Thats far from the truth, infact I could have kept a few of the crosses we have fostered.



> Think you'll find the original was :
> This comment is certainly not directed towards pedigree dogs. You'll find most people on this forum are not against pedigree, nor against crossbreed or mongrels. Most are against BYB and breeding unhealthy dogs in general and once again it needs to be pointed out that these are the areas we should be concentrating on as dog lovers. However when crossbreeds are not valid is brought up, expect people to get defensive just as pedigree breeders would do if they were told their breed is not "valid".


That was my comment - and cant be taken as an insult to the dogs or their owners, merely the folk brining them into the world - I am against ANY breeder, breeding for the pet market alone! we all have our own 'vaild' reasons for having a litter, mine doesnt include breeding for the pet market - crosses or pedigree.



> This just shows that the judge was not very good (to say the least). If a dog bared its teeth at me while judging, I would tell the owner to withdraw it immediately. No matter how good it was conformationally, an aggressive dog should not be placed.


Exactly - I am judging on sunday (my first time  ... ) any dog acting in an aggressive manner will be asked to leave the ring. Lets hope theres not though.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> Check it out - Labradoodles


The very first sentance is misleading as it is;

''In comparison to the majority of pedigree dogs, Labradoodles are still a relatively new breed''..

If I didnt know I would take that as it meant they were a breed! - They are not.

But its good there is something in place - just I spose you now hope for breeders to take it on bored. - Because just like with pedigrees, the decent folk will - the not so decent folk wont! & with around 10 pages of labradoodles on one selling site, I wonder how many are in actuall fact decent breeders? - because the 4 pages of my breed on the same site, I would say none are!


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2011)

freddies_mum said:


> Check it out - Labradoodles


Thank you Freddies mum. Its an interesting read however I have to pick this up.

This is basically a club. It has a form of accredited breeders scheme which advocates health testing. (fantastic). Like the kennel clubs accredited scheme.

It says;



> Care should be taken to avoid the mating together of closely related dogs, for example mother/son, father/daughter and sibling/sibling matings.


The kennel club says;



> d) Offspring of any mating between father and daughter, mother and son or brother and sister, save in exceptional circumstance, for scientifically proven welfare reasons.


Labradoodle club (because puppy finder doesnt sound very professional) states;



> bitches to be limited to 4 litters.


The kennel club as of 2012 have reduced the number of litters allowed by a bitch to 4.

So in a nutshell this club serves the same purpose as the kennel club.
The club and the kennel club are both unable to force folk to health test, they are unable to force folk not to inbreed, they are also unable to force folk not over breed. (teh KC will not register more than 4 litters from 2012 however I am sure some will sell them non-registered to make a quick £).

Both clubs serve the exact same purpose. So why is it the kennel club are being bashed constantly? Line breeding is allowed by the labradoodle club accredited scheme as it is with the KC scheme.

I am not seeing much of a difference between the two except one its okay to bash the other who has pretty much the exact same rules is fine. :huh:


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

Forgive me as I haven't read the whole thread but has the Kennel club been bashed?

I think that any club that promotes ethical breeding is a positive thing. The problem if I am correct with pedigree breeding in the past is more down to the interpretation of breed standards in the show ring rather than the Kennel Club itself?

I am quite new to the world of dog breeding and I am learning all the time so I may have this wrong.


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2011)

sezra said:


> Forgive me as I haven't read the whole thread but has the Kennel club been bashed?
> 
> I think that any club that promotes ethical breeding is a positive thing. The problem if I am correct with pedigree breeding in the past is more down to the interpretation of breed standards in the show ring rather than the Kennel Club itself?
> 
> I am quite new to the world of dog breeding and I am learning all the time so I may have this wrong.


This thread is about dogs today (the mag) and Jemima Harrison (pedigree dogs exposed). If you read some of the things she has blogged or written in articles you can see why so many pedigree breeders are against her. She is not the sort of journalist that should be rewarded. She put things into PDE that were not actually what she made them out to be. (un-registered dogs featured in the program amungst other things).


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Other people feel many points in Pedigree Dogs Exposed were factual and forced changes to breeding standards in some of the minority of breeds which do have problems. These changes may have been made without the program but, as far as most people outside pedigree circles are concerned, the quantity of changes would not have been made and certainly not implemented so quickly.


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Other people feel many points in Pedigree Dogs Exposed were factual and forced changes to breeding standards in some of the minority of breeds which do have problems. These changes may have been made without the program but, as far as most people outside pedigree circles are concerned, the quantity of changes would not have been made and certainly not implemented so quickly.


How can it have been factual when it failed to mention that (I cant remember which dog it was) was not infact KC registered and is likely to be from a puppy farm. How is that giving a fair insight to pedigree dogs?

The kennel club and breed clubs policies were being changed long before pedigree dogs exposed. All that did was push more folk towards unregistered dogs. Major fail on JH's part.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> This thread is about dogs today (the mag) and Jemima Harrison (pedigree dogs exposed). If you read some of the things she has blogged or written in articles you can see why so many pedigree breeders are against her. She is not the sort of journalist that should be rewarded. She put things into PDE that were not actually what she made them out to be. (un-registered dogs featured in the program amungst other things).


Oh my mistake! 

I thought the thread was about Freddies Mum getting her dogs pictures in Dogs Today Magazine! 

I then joined at page 18 and it had descended into the same old ethical/cross/pedigree breeding debate! 

I haven't read any of her articles but will if I get a moment so cannot comment on her at present.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> s policies were being changed long before pedigree dogs exposed. All that did was push more folk towards unregistered dogs. Major fail on JH's part.


Already posted but In 2008 after the program.. Kennel Club changes breeding rules to end cruelty - Times Online



> Caroline Kisko, secretary of the Kennel Club, played down fears over future breeding.
> 
> She admitted the shake-up in breeding rules was in response to public opinion that more needed to be done.
> 
> Ms Kisko said: Our new breed health plans will enable us to ensure that the health of every dog is a number one priority and we are taking a tougher line with breed clubs by adjusting those breed standards that fail to promote good health.


Policies may have been changing but little was seen. Even now KC and breed clubs do not do enough to get the message of progress out. Instead we get denials that the problems existed/still exist and deflections onto BYB issues.

As already stated as well, it took a program similar to PDE here in germany for breed clubs and the KC equivalent to actually do things. That was only this year. It was mentioned the Bulldog Breed in the UK has stronger standards for health.

I can understand the frustration shown, especially to people who breed ethically and look to the health of their breeds first and foremost. Being let down by a minority hurts but, my opinion is that hurt is being pushed on JH rather than the minority of breeds/breeders who really deserve the anger.

Thing is I'm not anti pedigree. My next dog is likely to be one, just not one of the minority of breeds which have major health problems. I also have respect for some pedigree breeders here.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> I can understand the frustration shown, especially to people who breed ethically and look to the health of their breeds first and foremost. Being let down by a minority hurts but, my opinion is that hurt is being pushed on JH rather than the minority of breeds/breeders who really deserve the anger.


not at all - I feel hurt that we are only part of a handful of breeders in our breed carrying out health tests, I feel hurt that the breed clubs arent pushing for more to be done with regards to health (because most simply feel the problems are not 'big' enough!) - all I can blame for this is fellow breeders, and club members - JH is blamed for putting across an unblanced programme, of course she high lighted certain issues, what she failed to highlight was the good ALREADY being done, she failed to advise how to responsibly avoid such breeders and left people thinking the problem was across the whole of the choosen breeds, which isnt the case. - She also used false information, to portray the programme in a way in which she wanted, with the follow up articles ect'


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

bearcub said:


> I have found myself agreeing with nearly everything on the last 2 pages which is a first for me, but simply cannot agree with those who feel the need to defend their crosses and their right to purchase them from any old breeder. There is simply no difference between buying a Labradoodle from a breeder who doesn't health test and a German Shepherd from a breeder who doesn't health test. This absolute myth that Labradoodles or any cross for that matter is not affected by genetic diseases or conditions is long since dead, and I think we all know that on the forum.
> 
> What disgusts me the most is seeing adverts on the you-know-what sites for doodle/oodle/poo pups, hundreds of them, so a poodle crossed with any old dog. There was one advert for a flat coat x poodle, one for a stud and the advert said, "all breeds welcome"...
> 
> Is this progress? No. Do people really think that moving away from pedigree breeding is the way forward if this is the result?! *I am absolutely sure that there are some fantastic doodle breeders out there and that's how it should be. They should be a specialist breed, bred by a small number of experienced and ethical breeders. Not by every Tom, Dick and Harry who fancies making a bit of extra cash because people will always buy the next 'trend'.*


*
*

Yes I agree - I am hating how one of my crosses seems to be bred more and more by all and sundry.

Cockapoos are a fantastic popular cross and I would like to see them bred well. Although they have been bred since the 50's in America so not a new "trend" as such but yes relatively new in the UK.

I don't want them as a breed and am happy they are a cross- but want them to be bred with the appropriate health tests and with people who have owned them and have the knowledge of them, I don't want to see them exploited for their cuteness because they are so much more than that.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> How can it have been factual when it failed to mention that (I cant remember which dog it was) was not infact KC registered and is likely to be from a puppy farm. How is that giving a fair insight to pedigree dogs?
> 
> The kennel club and breed clubs policies were being changed long before pedigree dogs exposed. All that did was push more folk towards unregistered dogs. Major fail on JH's part.


It was the Boxer with epilepsy. He was not KC registered and was pet bred from a full brother and sister mating, so solely for no other reason than to supply the pet market. I do have an issue that this fact was excluded in the program as the viewer would naturally assume that he was KC reg and probably show bred as her main thrust was against both of these. She did admit this on Champdogs after the program aired, though.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Problem is champdogs doesnt get even half the amount of views as the orginal programme did (still does) - cant under do the damage that was done there!


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

I think the biggest farce of the programme was what was said about Rhodesian Ridgebacks, I know this was edited out for the international version *apparently* (I watched a subtitled version from Albania or something on youtube and it hadn't been).

*I love how the lady at 16.51 thinks its immoral to have dogs﻿ that fight, but its moral to breed dogs that will be in pain for years and years.*7.

This comment from the youtube video I watched sums it up really. The comment is referring to Ridgies.


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> not at all - I feel hurt that we are only part of a handful of breeders in our breed carrying out health tests, I feel hurt that the breed clubs arent pushing for more to be done with regards to health (because most simply feel the problems are not 'big' enough!) - all I can blame for this is fellow breeders, and club members - JH is blamed for putting across an unblanced programme, of course she high lighted certain issues, what she failed to highlight was the good ALREADY being done, she failed to advise how to responsibly avoid such breeders and left people thinking the problem was across the whole of the choosen breeds, which isnt the case. - She also used false information, to portray the programme in a way in which she wanted, with the follow up articles ect'


Exactly.

I watched PDE with my mouth open as to how bad it was then at the end to be left with...well there's no good pedigree breeders. Luckily I soon realized just how many good breeders were left out of the program in favor of a sensationalist program.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

bearcub said:


> I think the biggest farce of the programme was what was said about Rhodesian Ridgebacks, I know this was edited out for the international version *apparently* (I watched a subtitled version from Albania or something on youtube and it hadn't been).
> 
> *I love how the lady at 16.51 thinks its immoral to have dogs﻿ that fight, but its moral to breed dogs that will be in pain for years and years.*7.
> 
> This comment from the youtube video I watched sums it up really. The comment is referring to Ridgies.


Have you seen this? Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: A ridge too far?

A couple of key points made are - they were wrong to say dermoid sinus is a form of spina bifida, it isn't. Ridgeless puppies have had dermoid sinus.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> not at all - I feel hurt that we are only part of a handful of breeders in our breed carrying out health tests, I feel hurt that the breed clubs arent pushing for more to be done with regards to health (because most simply feel the problems are not 'big' enough!) - all I can blame for this is fellow breeders, and club members - JH is blamed for putting across an unblanced programme, of course she high lighted certain issues, what she failed to highlight was the good ALREADY being done, she failed to advise how to responsibly avoid such breeders and left people thinking the problem was across the whole of the choosen breeds, which isnt the case. - She also used false information, to portray the programme in a way in which she wanted, with the follow up articles ect'


The trouble with "good already being done" is that these changes could happen at a much faster pace. The results after the program proved it. How can people outside the circle trust that additional progress will be made in a timely manner? This problem is made worst by the impression that those people discussing things, like within this thread seem to do everything to avoid admitting problems do exist and that things could be resolved faster. From what little I know, whilst there are many ethical breeders pushing for changes, these are often overruled by those breeders who have their own self interest at heart, think the problems aren't "big" enough or potentially simply don't want to rock the boat. These problems will only be "big" enough when there is a public outcry. Or at least that is the way it seems.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Have you seen this? Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: A ridge too far?
> 
> A couple of key points made are - they were wrong to say dermoid sinus is a form of spina bifida, it isn't. Ridgeless puppies have had dermoid sinus.


Very interesting. Thanks for the link, funny how the chief vet of the RSPCA who commented on the programme couldn't have a look at this info though!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> The trouble with "good already being done" is that these changes could happen at a much faster pace.


- Thats not always the case, there are steps to take - we all know things dont happen over night. (although yes I can accept that in some cases, things could be looked into faster, and worked on!)



> The results after the program proved it. How can people outside the circle trust that additional progress will be made in a timely manner?


Because although some may believe JH is the result of the changes, she herself couldnt change things just highlight them. Breed clubs and the KC are responsible for the changes, why wouldnt they continue to make much needed changes after already accepting changes, and taking things on board.



> This problem is made worst by the impression that those people discussing things, like within this thread seem to do everything to avoid admitting problems do exist and that things could be resolved faster.


Most people can admitt there is much needed changes, I have done so myself - but alot of of us are aware that rome wasnt built in a day.



> From what little I know, whilst there are many ethical breeders pushing for changes, these are often overruled by those breeders who have their own self interest, heart or think the problems aren't "big" enough or potentially simply don't want to rock the boat. These problems will only be "big" enough when there is a public outcry. Or at least that is the way it seems.


You are right alot of the time the decent folk are over ruled or pushed out by the unethical lot, who care only for themselves! Thats something ALOT of people, including members on here will continue to work against - instead of just assuming one and all pedigree breeders are one in the same.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Because although some may believe JH is the result of the changes, she herself couldnt change things just highlight them. Breed clubs and the KC are responsible for the changes, why wouldnt they continue to make much needed changes after already accepting changes, and taking things on board.


JH didn't cause the changes, public opinion did. The reason due to the sensationalism of the program. One of the obvious assumptions now is that people are afraid of PDE2 because it will point out where things or attitudes haven't changed.

To me the shock of PDE wasn't the actual breeds or the illnesses, it was the lack of compassion and attitudes of some of the people. The german version is the same.


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

The bottom line is fairly straightforward. The vast majority of breeders, whether of crossbreeds or pedigrees are* unethical, irresponsible people interested only in the money they can make from their "commodities"*

In my breed, this kind of unethical breeder, whether they are large scale puppy farmers, backyard breeders or naive/stupid/ignorant "pet" breeders ("I'd heard that it was good to let her have a litter before spaying"), are responsible for almost 100% of the dogs coming into welfare. Of the 500+ dogs we have taken in and rehomed in the past five years, only 3 were bred by what we would regard as ethical, responsible breeders. These dogs were relinquished to us against the terms of the breeders' contracts and as soon as the breeders knew we had them, they collected them and took responsibiltiy for the dogs immediately.

One of the practical reasons why I am suspicious of crossbreeding is that without KC registration and access to the KC's health database, it is next to impossible to research the health history of a puppy's ancestors. It is not enough for a breeder to test his/her own stock and ensure that the stud dog is similarly tested, they should also look back down the lines for problems in the past. As an example - an acquaintance of ours bred a litter. Both dog and bitch had good hip scores and passed the appropriate eye tests. However, by the time the pups were 10 months old, one of them developed cataracts. After treatment, the dog went on to develop glaucoma in one eye. As a result (and £3000) later the dog had to have an eye removed and faces the likelihood of total blindness at some stage in the future. The breeder, concerned by this, did the research he should have done before breeding and discovered that three generations back, one of the great grandfathers of the bitch failed a gonioscopy test, but was bred from anyway. The condition skipped a few generations, but reappeared in this litter. Without health-testing and access to the KC health database, there is no way that this sort of thing can be checked.

******************************************************

The issue most of us have with Jemima Harrison and PDE is that its totally biassed approach left Joe Public with the view that all pedigree dogs (and especially show-bred dogs) were inbred mutants and that, therefore crossbreeds and/or non KC registered pedigrees were the healthier and morally superior option, despite the fact that almost none of these latter dogs were likely to have been bred from health-tested parents. JH has, in fact done a tragic disservice to dogs in the UK by (possibly inadvertently) promoting unethical and irresponsible commercial breeders.

Mick


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Rubbish! no one has been cruel towards any dog! quite the opposite infact! its because some of us care about dogs that we feel the way we do! just look at the free ad sites! jam packed with irresponsible, greedy breeders most of who know zero about breeding so put their dogs at risk all for £££££££££!
> 
> and responsible staffy breeders who are passionate about their breed dont have them for status! as the majority of staffy owners dont! many of these breeders you slate will be doing plenty for staffy rescue....picking up the pieces of all those irresponsible BYB's who are churning them out:cursing:


Staff breeders who are still breeding when the shelters are stuffed with the breed and have waiting lists while others are putting them to sleep because not enough people are adopting them??:cursing: We have staff crosses but we don't feel you should be breeding on one hand and then helping rescues out on the other its adding to the probelsm:cursing:


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

The OP has poodle crosses but are theirs all health tested I wonder? 

Devil-dogs I am only going on what I have read previously on here and agree about bybs and puppyfarms but I also mentioned a few pages back that there are breeders of all pedigrees as well as crossbreeds that are byb and pfs, it isn't specific in crossbreeds, plus perhaps it is the way you have written it that makes crossbreed owners feel you are picking on them? The MAIN thing is that all dogs are healthchecked before being bred from more than being KC registered as that is vital. next thing should be that breeds don't need changing so that the Bulldog has shorter legs or the Border Collie can only be bred for purpose. I doubt very much that everyone with a BC works it. We should all be working to the same aim - healthchecking before breeding. People are all entitled to their choice of dogs ie_ I can remember when i was a child and the only butter etc available was proper butter or Stork and now due to progress we have around 50 to choose from.. it is the same with dogs and people have more choices now but it doesn't mean that certain types are better or derogatory to pedigrees or whatever.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

AlisonLyn said:


> Staff breeders who are still breeding when the shelters are stuffed with the breed and have waiting lists while others are putting them to sleep because not enough people are adopting them??:cursing: We have staff crosses but we don't feel you should be breeding on one hand and then helping rescues out on the other its adding to the probelsm:cursing:


Actually i think you'll find the ethical show breeders of staffords rarely add to the rescue crisis because they try to protect puppies with contracts and take them back should they need rehoming at any stage in their lifetime, without the ethical breeders there would only be unhealth tested,poor examples of the breed these breeders certainly arnt to blame for the crisis!....and theres Never an ethical reason to breed staff crosses...Never.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Mick that was an excellent post - 


I'm sorry this thread has strayed so far away from the original topic and is now the usual cross breed vs pedigree one - but I 'd like to ask those on here who own Labradoodles (or Cockerpoos) something..........

If the KC assured breeders scheme ( new name for the Kc accredited breeders scheme ) was open to Labradoodle breeders would you seek out such breeders for your next puppy ? ..and if you were a breeder of Labradoodles would you join ? 

If you were an assured Labradoodle breeder would you seek to protect the health of your line by only using dogs that were bred by other assured breeders ( I.e only those that were fully tested ) ?

Would you like Labradoodles to have traceable pedigrees and therefore traceable health data ? ( for the same reason as above ) 

and finally would you like regional breed clubs with Labradoodle only events where you can compare what you are producing against what other Labradoodle breeders are ? 




.....yes ? ....then welcome to the world of pedigree dog breeding ! 

...


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Actually i think you'll find the ethical show breeders of staffords rarely add to the rescue crisis because they try to protect puppies with contracts and take them back should they need rehoming at any stage in their lifetime, without the ethical breeders there would only be unhealth tested,poor examples of the breed these breeders certainly arnt to blame for the crisis!....and theres Never an ethical reason to breed staff crosses...Never.


I wasn't talking about show staff breeders and you didn't mention them in the quote I cited. As for never a good reason to breed staff crosses, if irresponsible owners don't have their bitches speyed and they get pregnant what do you suggest? Drowning at birth? The injection?

The comments Bijou have made are easy: if we had any of these labradoodles etc my oh and I wouldn't want the KC involved nor would we want them to become a "breed" - theres too much playing God around


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

AlisonLyn said:


> I wasn't talking about show staff breeders and you didn't mention them in the quote I cited. As for never a good reason to breed staff crosses, if irresponsible owners don't have their bitches speyed and they get pregnant what do you suggest? Drowning at birth? The injection?
> 
> The comments Bijou have made are easy: *if we had any of these labradoodles etc my oh and I wouldn't want the KC involved nor would we want them to become a "breed" - theres too much playing God around*


Can you explain what you mean by this?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

AlisonLyn said:


> I wasn't talking about show staff breeders and you didn't mention them in the quote I cited. As for never a good reason to breed staff crosses, if irresponsible owners don't have their bitches speyed and they get pregnant what do you suggest? Drowning at birth? The injection?
> 
> The comments Bijou have made are easy: if we had any of these labradoodles etc my oh and I wouldn't want the KC involved nor would we want them to become a "breed" - theres too much playing God around


well then i agree... all other staff breeders should Not be breeding

I suggest the mismate jab

KC 'playing god' ehh


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> I wasn't talking about show staff breeders and you didn't mention them in the quote I cited. As for never a good reason to breed staff crosses, if irresponsible owners don't have their bitches speyed and they get pregnant what do you suggest? Drowning at birth? The injection?
> 
> The comments Bijou have made are easy: *if we had any of these labradoodles etc my oh and I wouldn't want the KC involved nor would we want them to become a "breed" - theres too much playing God around*


Surely this has come full circle then- as the man behind the Labradoodle was playing God himself, moulding dogs for the benefit of humans


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

bearcub said:


> Can you explain what you mean by this?


Self explanatory - 


noushka05 said:


> well then i agree... all other staff breeders should Not be breeding
> 
> Is that all other staff breeders apart from show staff breeders? pmsl impossible!!
> 
> ...





simplysardonic said:


> Surely this has come full circle then- as the man behind the Labradoodle was playing God himself, moulding dogs for the benefit of humans


I don't know enough about those dogs or their origin but aren't all breeders playing God? and antone who breeds dogs does it for human needs not the dogs


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

your posts are so confusing i thought you were agreeing about breeders of show staffords.....but nevermind lol....so IMO the only ethically bred staffords will be found amongst breeders who are in the show world.


OMG no wonder there are thousands of unwanted dogs pts if theres folk out there like you, who believe giving the mismate jab is committing murder! jeezus! im speechless


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Dammit you lot, stop typing so quickly, I can't keep up and I've got to go and get tea on!!!



Elles said:


> You guys that are totally against PDE and Ms Harrison.
> 
> Can I ask you, do you believe that there are some breeds of dogs that are compromised by an interpretation of their breed standard and despite being at the top of their particular breed and being judged to be the best examples of their breed, bred by breeders who would consider themselves very ethical, do have conformation faults and extremes deliberately bred into them that cause them health issues, but wins competition?
> 
> If you do believe this, would you like to see the Kennel Club address these issues and/or do you think they already are?


Elles, I just wanted to answer this for you. Yes, there are breeds that I personally feel have suffered because of a *misinterpretation* of the BS, but they are in a minority. What Ms Harrison did with PDE was almost to make out that all pedigree breeds are unhealthy, and all puppy buyers would be best off looking elsewhere. The backlash from that programme and the belief that pedigrees are generally unhealthy still exists unfortunately, and people still have misconceptions about *some* breeds.

I know for a fact that Labradors narrowly missed being highlighted as one of the breeds in the PDE programme in relation to hip dysplaysia, and yet which breed has more health testing results than Labs?? Which breed are there more health tests for than Labs, with 24 current/soon to be released/in development tests listed?? Could that perhaps be down to the sheer numbers of Labs? Not that I'm cynical, but all of these people developing health tests, have to make their money back in the long run 

So, does the number of health tests act as an indicator for how healthy or unhealthy a breed is? I honestly don't think it can do, because it's driven by economics. What we know about pedigree breeds seems to make people think they're unhealthy, simply because we can be sure of certain genetic conditions, and history, and yet what do we know about cross breeds?

It's not prejudice, nor pride, it's actually based on fact that means that the majority of people who breed ethically, don't like the way that many cross breeds are bred, and you could pretty much say the same about pedigrees. I don't view one better than the other, what I do judge is how they go about breeding


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm just posting this as a *food for thought* sort of thing. I'm friends with someone in my breed, who has more years of knowledge about dogs, than I've been alive. I'm pretty sure Swarthy will know how I'm talking about, when I say that he's incredibly lovely, kind and knowledgeable, and has worked hard to promote health for pedigree dogs long before Jemima Harrison got a chip on her shoulder.

This guy has wanted to take a litter of Labs, to breed a dog that would be what he sees is *the perfect* Lab, he works his dogs regularly, and knows his stuff, really knows his stuff. He has NEVER had the opportunity to take a litter because he refuses to take short cuts, and his life committments mean that he won't just go ahead without knowing he has the time to dedicate to a litter. He may NEVER take a litter because time is fast running out where he feels he has the option to take a litter. 

Then you get a post about someone having an ooops litter and along come fluffy pups of whatever type of dog. Kind of puts it into perspective how much though doesn't go into breeding for some people. And then you get Jemima trying to tell people that pedigree show dogs are all inbred mutants, she doesn't know anything in comparison to many (not me I might add) within the show world, and relies on sensationalism. And why? Because she didn't do her homework when buying a pedigree pup, simple as


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm just posting this as a *food for thought* sort of thing. I'm friends with someone in my breed, who has more years of knowledge about dogs, than I've been alive. I'm pretty sure Swarthy will know how I'm talking about, when I say that he's incredibly lovely, kind and knowledgeable, and has worked hard to promote health for pedigree dogs long before Jemima Harrison got a chip on her shoulder.
> 
> This guy has wanted to take a litter of Labs, to breed a dog that would be what he sees is *the perfect* Lab, he works his dogs regularly, and knows his stuff, really knows his stuff. He has NEVER had the opportunity to take a litter because he refuses to take short cuts, and his life committments mean that he won't just go ahead without knowing he has the time to dedicate to a litter. He may NEVER take a litter because time is fast running out where he feels he has the option to take a litter.
> 
> Then you get a post about someone having an ooops litter and along come fluffy pups of whatever type of dog. Kind of puts it into perspective how much though doesn't go into breeding for some people. And then you get Jemima trying to tell people that pedigree show dogs are all inbred mutants, she doesn't know anything in comparison to many (not me I might add) within the show world, and relies on sensationalism. And why? Because she didn't do her homework when buying a pedigree pup, simple as


Excellent post


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> . One of the obvious assumptions now is that people are afraid of PDE2 because it will point out where things or attitudes haven't changed.


On the contrary - I predict that PDE2 will claim the benefit for ALL the changes that have happened since the program - changes that would have happened anyway or were already in the process of happening even before the program aired. As people have already mentioned on here, when you are talking about altering breeding programs you cannot rush things, so any changes even three years down the line cannot possibly be due to any effect of PDE. Yet what's the betting that - hmy: - they are all due to JGH and PDE - according to PDE2, that is!


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

No way, PDE2 wil show that even though the BBC tried to expose the situation on PDE1 nothing has changed.

The new "contract/legislation of the KC means nothing, if you read it correctly it is a waste of space and as for the person who reckons theya re speechless, i suggest they read what was actually put (nothing confusing in my posts) and absord the info. I was trying to prove a point with you completely missed. When your mouth (or in this case fingers are busy your ears and brain are not. My whole point is that only breeding from healthchecked stock and controlling breeding of certain breeds ie Staffs (sadly at this moment in time) and not trying to change the breed standards (which is only done for humans so is no different to breeding crosses) then it is a start and surely we all want what is right for dogs???


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> No way, PDE2 wil show that even though the BBC tried to expose the situation on PDE1 nothing has changed.


If you really think nothing has changed in the last three years, whether due to PDE or not, then may I respectfully suggest a trip to Specsavers? 

What about breed watch? What about the changes to ABS? What about limiting litters to 4? What about limiting registrations to litters from C-sections to 2? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

AlisonLyn said:


> as for the person who reckons theya re speechless, i suggest they read what was actually put (nothing confusing in my posts) and absord the info. I was trying to prove a point with you completely missed. When your mouth (or in this case fingers are busy your ears and brain are not. My whole point is that only breeding from healthchecked stock and controlling breeding of certain breeds ie Staffs (sadly at this moment in time) and not trying to change the breed standards (which is only done for humans so is no different to breeding crosses) then it is a start and surely we all want what is right for dogs???


that'll be me then

so when i said "i recommend the mismate jab" and you said..."Murder you mean" what exactly did you mean then?

and sorry but youve lost me again ...what do you mean by 'not trying to change breed standards' exactly?? do you mean do away with them? surely you dont want to see all our wonderful breeds disappear do you? breed standards arnt just about aesthetics! breeders breed for the correct conformation, breeds like mine for example, would not be fit for the job they were required to do if they didnt!.

so as its within the show breeders who you'll almost exclusively find the health tested staffords,do you agree that breeders from this section are only ones who should be breeding them then?...


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

_And then you get Jemima trying to tell people that pedigree show dogs are all inbred mutants, she doesn't know anything in comparison to many (not me I might add) within the show world, and relies on sensationalism. And why? Because she didn't do her homework when buying a pedigree pup, simple as _

OK, probably should know better but I am going to rise to that one...What are you referring to when you say I didn't do my homework when buying a pedigree pup?

Jemima


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

Bijou said:


> Mick that was an excellent post -
> 
> I'm sorry this thread has strayed so far away from the original topic and is now the usual cross breed vs pedigree one - but I 'd like to ask those on here who own Labradoodles (or Cockerpoos) something..........
> 
> ...


As no one else has answered yet I will answer from an owners perspective. 

If there was an Accredited scheme whether run by the KC or The Cockapoo Club of GB when it gets going (or Labradoodle club) then yes, I would always choose a breeder from such a scheme.

I can't comment on your breeder questions but one of the things that we who support better breeding practices of crosses would like to see, is traceability of parents. Not only for health issues but if Labradoodles and Cockerpoos are going to stay popular then it is essential to prevent breeding dogs that are related.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Jemima Harrison said:


> _And then you get Jemima trying to tell people that pedigree show dogs are all inbred mutants, she doesn't know anything in comparison to many (not me I might add) within the show world, and relies on sensationalism. And why? Because she didn't do her homework when buying a pedigree pup, simple as _
> 
> OK, probably should know better but I am going to rise to that one...What are you referring to when you say I didn't do my homework when buying a pedigree pup?
> 
> Jemima


Well lets turn the question round and tell us what homework you did do before buying a 'pedigree' dog?


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

sezra said:


> As no one else has answered yet I will answer from an owners perspective.
> 
> If there was an Accredited scheme whether run by the KC or The Cockapoo Club of GB when it gets going (or Labradoodle club) then yes, I would always choose a breeder from such a scheme.
> 
> I can't comment on your breeder questions but one of the things that we who support better breeding practices of crosses would like to see, is traceability of parents. Not only for health issues but if Labradoodles and Cockerpoos are going to stay popular then it is essential to prevent breeding dogs that are related.


Good post, and yes my next pup will come from some sort of accredited breeder, although I want a poodle next (in a few years) so hopefully I'll find some good advice out there.

And since someone asked (not sure why as my original post was nothing to do with breeding) I have 2 dogs bought from breeders, one from health-tested parents and one not although I now know better. The third is a puppy farm pup who came to me from Many Tears Animal Rescue.


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

_"Have you seen this? Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: A ridge too far?

A couple of key points made are - they were wrong to say dermoid sinus is a form of spina bifida, it isn't. Ridgeless puppies have had dermoid sinus."_

Snoring Bear, many ridgeback breeders themselves refer to dermoid sinus as being a condition similar to spina bifida - including, actually, one of the breeders in the film who complained about it afterwards (see Ann Woodrow's comment here in Our Dogs: BBC Programme Comments) We would not have made the connection otherise. Both spina bifida and dermoid sinus are neural tube defects caused by incomplete closure of the neural sheath during development.

There have been a few anecdotal reports of ridgeless ridgebacks having a dermoid sinus - although none documented at all in Sweden and Germany where all litters are checked and recorded independently. The Swedish scientists have said categorically - as I have stated clearly in my article - that it is possible for a ridgeless dog to have DS but only as a one-off developmental problem (as indeed sometimes happens in other, non-ridged genes) ie. very rarely and not inherited as it is in the ridged dogs.

I think I might need to repeat here, again, that the issue with Ridgebacks is - and remains to a greater or lesser extent - that breeding for the ridge results in some puppies being put to sleep, either because they are born with dermoid sinus or because they are born without a ridge. Following our raising the issue, the Kennel Club forced a review of every Club's Code of Ethics so that none could ask for a dog to be PTS on purely cosmetic grounds (as the RR Club of GB's C of E used to do). I trust as a result that ridgeless dogs are now rarely PTS here in the UK, but those born with DS are - and ridgeless dogs are still culled in other countries.

Jemima


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

springerpete said:


> Please, not the same old nonsense about cross-breeds. Every breed we have is the result
> of crossbreeding at some time, we'd all be walking around with bloody wolves on the end of our leads otherwise,


oy.  This is a perfect illustration of misunderstanding evolution & domestication.

- *WOLVES as we know them*, or as they have existed for the past 50k years [that's 50 millennia] 
*are Not ancestors of domestic dogs*; mitochondrial-DNA [mDNA] indicates that wolves & domestic-k9s 
have been separate breeding-pools genetically, other than the rare now & then intercross, for 100k years: 
that's 100,000 years.

human evolution: 
http://archaeologyinfo.com/human-evolution-timeline/

dom-dog evolution: 
Wolf to Woof: The Evolution of Dogs @ nationalgeographic.com

- *Wolves & Domestic-Dogs share a common ancestor - * just like dogs & bears, salmon & trout, 
all the primate-species from humans to chimps, orangs & gorilla-spp; a *common ancestor* means 
that just like my American relatives, near & distant, & my unknown Irish relatives in Ireland if any, 
*we share a common ancestor from my great-grandmother's era* - the time of the potato-famine, 
the Enclosure Act, & the genocide of Irish peasants & tenant-farmers & villagers by Britain.

- *Modern Dogs do not descend from 'cross-breeding' because there were no breeds, at the time, to "cross".* 
Landraces & working-types like herding-dogs only became recognized breeds in developed-countries in the late-1880s 
& early-1900s; before that, dogs were described by their work: turnspit dogs, shepherds' dogs, hunting hounds, etc.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

so this....










isn't a picture of Florence's grandma?! I'm shocked LFL, truly shocked


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> The OP has poodle crosses but are theirs all health tested I wonder?
> 
> Devil-dogs I am only going on what I have read previously on here and agree about bybs and puppyfarms but I also mentioned a few pages back that there are breeders of all pedigrees as well as crossbreeds that are byb and pfs, it isn't specific in crossbreeds


Interesting point I do wonder, having used their images as part of the article..

I have never stated it is just cross breeds I have ten times over there are bad breeders within ALL types of breeding INCLUDING pedigrees - People are just not reading my posts, or taking them out on context!


----------



## HGV (Sep 13, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> Well lets turn the question round and tell us what homework you did do before buying a 'pedigree' dog?


So do we get an answer Jemima?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> If there was an Accredited scheme whether run by the KC or The Cockapoo Club of GB when it gets going (or Labradoodle club) then yes, I would always choose a breeder from such a scheme.


...thank you for that ....I do believe that the Kc are open to this idea but are worried about how pedigree dog breeders might react - it's a gap in the market that will surely be filled - after all Cockerpoos and Labradoodles are firmly established and sought after - perhaps the scheme being developed by the Dog Advisory Council will encompass crosses as well .


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

What I'm referring to is the incidence of cancer in FCR's, it's quite high in some lines, and, as the gene pool is quite narrow (find me an FCR without Shargleam Blackcap in there), if you take the time to speak to people within the breed who are aware and avoid these lines (not referring to Shargleam here but any lines with a high incidence of cancer), then you have a better chance of buying from a breeder who does their best to produce pups with a lower risk of developing cancer. There is no test for any cancer, as yet, but the knowledge of people within the breed is there for anyone to make use of. I know because I've done so many times for my breed. 

While you're here, perhaps you'd like to explain why you took footage of a Bergamasco, without the permission of the owner, and used it in one of your programmes, with a voice over giving inaccurate information about the breed?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> What about breed watch? What about the changes to ABS? What about limiting litters to 4? What about limiting registrations to litters from C-sections to 2? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.


I think most people will not argue that progress has been made BUT how long would it have taken for this progress to be made without the backlash of public opinion due to PDE. It's already been stated that it takes time to make changes. First the problems have to be recognized as being a major problem. Then you have to get enough people actually voting for the change despite potential hardship, the inability to show overseas etc. Yes there are people doing their utmost to make changes but these are frequently blocked. I think what PDE showed most is the amount of people who do not accept that there are problems and close ranks. Those who speak out about the problems, to the general public, are likely to be penalized for doing so.

PDE2 needs to highlight those who make effort within the breed clubs to make changes. It needs to point out health testing, not just within pedigrees but universally. To do that it needs people to actually not tow the "party line" and go out on a limb. If they feel they will be taken out of context why don't they make their own video of any interview so they can highlight any misrepresentation due to editing. You-tube would be a great tool for that and it's a lot easier to do now than in 2008. Closing ranks and not talking will only make the breed clubs seem as though they do not want progress as they are happy with the status-quo.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Goblin said:


> I think most people will not argue that progress has been made BUT how long would it have taken for this progress to be made without the backlash of public opinion due to PDE. It's already been stated that it takes time to make changes. First the problems have to be recognized as being a major problem. Then you have to get enough people actually voting for the change despite potential hardship, the inability to show overseas etc. Yes there are people doing their utmost to make changes but these are frequently blocked. I think what PDE showed most is the amount of people who do not accept that there are problems and close ranks. Those who speak out about the problems, to the general public, are likely to be penalized for doing so.
> 
> PDE2 needs to highlight those who make effort within the breed clubs to make changes. It needs to point out health testing, not just within pedigrees but universally. To do that it needs people to actually not tow the "party line" and go out on a limb. If they feel they will be taken out of context why don't they make their own video of any interview so they can highlight any misrepresentation due to editing. You-tube would be a great tool for that and it's a lot easier to do now than in 2008. Closing ranks and not talking will only make the breed clubs seem as though they do not want progress as they are happy with the status-quo.


PDE2 would have a greater impact on the overall health and welfare of dogs if it actually concentrated on the main problem, puppy farmers and byb's, but that really wouldn't be popular! Much easier to mock those who are actually doing something, and who won't bite back because they actually care about dogs. The only thing PDE has done is slightly speed up what was already happening, possibly. Is that worth it for the amount of backlash seen with people believing the hype that all pedigree breeds are unhealthy? Not in my book, no.

While I continue to see people believing Labs all suffer from hip dysplasia, and other joint problems, and it's much better to buy from someone who doesn't KC register because pedigrees are unhealthy, then no, that programme will never be worth it. And no, Labs weren't included, they got off the *hook*, but the way the programme was structured put all people who breed pedigrees under one hat, they're all breeding 'inbred mutants'


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

Cancer isn't just "quite high" in some FCR lines - it is endemic pretty much throughout the breed. Cambridge is among the centres studying it and they found in a recent study that over 50 per cent of flatties developed cancer by the age of 8/9 - mostly soft-tissue sarcoma. (Abstract here.) Yes, Shargleam Blackcap is in almost every pedigree - beautiful dog but an overused popular sire thanks to his Crufts win in the 1980s.But the breed is inbred for reasons additional to that; notably a severe bottleneck post WW2.

My first flatcoat, Fred, born in 1987, had no Blackcap in his pedigree - one of only two working lines that I know of in which there is no Blackcap. He also had a very low COI. Coincidentally or not, Fred lived until he was 15.

The charge re using the footage of the Bergamasco is unfounded. We had permission from the Kennel Club to film at Discover Dogs and it covered the use of generic pictures of dogs. The Bergamasco appeared in a montage of dog shots under commentary which explained: "Today's dogs have been shaped by man into almost every possible shape and size… from dogs as small as kittens… to giant great danes…". The Bergamasco, or an earlier version of it, may be 2000 yrs old, the mutation that gave rise to the unusual coat may be an old one, and the breed may be relatively unchanged, but it has indeed, been shaped largely by human selection and man's needs (in this case for a livestock guardian) not by evolution - as have other old landrace breeds like the Saluki. There is no evidence of wild packs of proto-Bergamascos running round Asia spontaneously guarding sheep thousands of years ago.

Jemima


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> Cancer isn't just "quite high" in some FCR lines - it is endemic pretty much throughout the breed. Cambridge is among the centres studying it and they found in a recent study that over 50 per cent of flatties developed cancer by the age of 8 - mostly soft-tissue sarcoma. Yes, Shargleam Blackcap is in almost every pedigree - beautiful dog but an overused popular sire thanks to his Crufts win in the 1980s. But the breed is inbred for reasons additional to that; notably a severe bottleneck post WW2.
> 
> My first flatcoat, Fred, had no Blackcap in his pedigree - one of only two working lines that I know of in which there is no Blackcap. Fred lived until he was 15.
> 
> ...


I'm more than aware of the bottle neck(s) in FCR lines particularly following the war, it didn't just affect FCR's but quite a number of breeds, including some of the more popular breeds today, like Goldies 

You took footage of someone's dog without asking *them* and used it in a programme without their permission. I doubt very much if that person agrees with the aims of the programme, did you ask? Neatly sidestepped though, but if it were my dog I would be fuming, and rightly so. If someone had done the same to you, I'd suggest you would also have a right to be bl**dy angry.


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Interesting point I do wonder, having used their images as part of the article..


I think you'll find I answered this a couple of pages ago. I have nothing to hide. One of the reasons I care so much about ethical breeding is that the pup I got from Many Tears was in a terrible state due to her puppy farm beginning.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> My first flatcoat, Fred, had no Blackcap in his pedigree - one of only two working lines that I know of in which there is no Blackcap. Fred lived until he was 15.


Jemima is the inference here that working Flatcoats don't have a problem with cancer ? .....and that it's only the show lines that are inbred ? -do breeders of working line flatties ever use show lines in their breeding programmes ? ...if not then I'd venture to guess that by restricting themselves to only the very few working lines available they are as much or if not MORE inbred and just as likely to have inherited problems !


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Jemima is the inference here that working Flatcoats don't have a problem with cancer ? .....and that it's only the show lines that are inbred ? -do breeders of working line flatties ever use show lines in their breeding programmes ? ...if not then I'd venture to guess that by restricting themselves to only the very few working lines available they are as much or if not MORE inbred and just as likely to have inherited problems !


This is part of the problem with the PDE message, it bangs on about health problems, which if you exclude dogs that aren't 100% genetically perfect, you narrow the gene pool, and then what happens?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> PDE2 would have a greater impact on the overall health and welfare of dogs if it actually concentrated on the main problem, puppy farmers and byb's, but that really wouldn't be popular!


Which to me, as a pleb member of the public seems to indicate a desire to simply ignore the problem. The cat's out the bag now and needs to be resolved to the general public's satisfaction, not any specific breed club's satisfaction. If the basic health of all accredited pedigree breeders was impeccable, it would be something to push for in any program relating to BYB. All the time someone can get accredited breeder status but still have fundamental health flaw possibilities within a breed it's not so easy.. Buy from an accredited breeder if not X,Y,Z breed. If X then you need to check for A,B,C. If Y check for D,E etc. The general public want to trust the label pedigree as a whole, not to be feel betrayed when getting a dog, doing all the right things and finding out that there is a fundamental health problem in a breed which the relevant breed club simply isn't prepared to accept or fix.

Wasn't there a program in the UK recently about "How to buy a puppy" which surely would have touched on the BYB issue ?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Which to me, as a pleb member of the public seems to indicate a desire to simply ignore the problem. The cat's out the bag now and needs to be resolved to the general public's satisfaction, not any specific breed club's satisfaction. If the basic health of all accredited pedigree breeders was impeccable, it would be something to push for in any program relating to BYB. All the time someone can get accredited breeder status but still have fundamental health flaw possibilities within a breed it's not so easy.. Buy from an accredited breeder if not X,Y,Z breed. If X then you need to check for A,B,C. If Y check for D,E etc. The general public want to trust the label pedigree as a whole, not to be feel betrayed when getting a dog, doing all the right things and finding out that there is a fundamental health problem in a breed which the relevant breed club simply isn't prepared to accept or fix.
> 
> Wasn't there a program in the UK recently about "How to buy a puppy" which surely would have touched on the BYB issue ?


But that's just it, there were already people working to try and achieve better breeding practices. Yes there were/are people who don't have the best interest of the dog(s) at heart, but PDE won't change their ethics, nothing will change people like that! And as much as the ABS is good, it doesn't guarantee anything, it just has certain guidelines, I know of puppy farmers who are ABS members who abide by the guidelines, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. I spend quite a bit of time helping people to find pups from good breeders, and it's heart breaking to tell people please don't buy from that breeder, give them the reasons why, only to see they've gone ahead anyway. The attitude of puppy buyers needs to change, and I firmly believe that sale under contract for all pups/dogs would be the best way forward, and would help to drive down the over breeding by puppy farmers and bybs.

I wouldn't know about the 'how to buy a puppy' programme, I don't have a tv licence, can't be bothered, there's just so much rubbish on the tele these days :lol:


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes there were/are people who don't have the best interest of the dog(s) at heart, but PDE won't change their ethics, nothing will change people like that!


Public opinion can, as has been proved by the speed of changes since PDE. Nobody has actually stated how long they think the progress made since PDE would have taken if not for the program. I personally don't think even half of them would have been implemented.



> The attitude of puppy buyers needs to change, and I firmly believe that sale under contract for all pups/dogs would be the best way forward, and would help to drive down the over breeding by puppy farmers and bybs.


With you 100% there.



> I wouldn't know about the 'how to buy a puppy' programme, I don't have a tv licence, can't be bothered, there's just so much rubbish on the tele these days :lol:


Not quite in the same boat but in another country. Amount of rubbish on is the same though.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> All the time someone can get accredited breeder status but still have fundamental health flaw possibilities within a breed it's not so easy.. Buy from an accredited breeder if not X,Y,Z breed. If X then you need to check for A,B,C. If Y check for D,E etc. The general public want to trust the label pedigree as a whole, not to be feel betrayed when getting a dog, doing all the right things and finding out that there is a fundamental health problem .....


then that will never happen ....there will always be 'fundamental health flaw possibilities' endemic in ANY living species - you cannot view dogs in the same way as you do other comsumer goods ....nature does'nt come with a neat guarantee - and if you try your damnest to solve one 'flaw' you very often simply allow another to take it's place.

Of course that does'nt mean that we should'nt do the best we can but if you truly want something without fundamental health flaw possibilities then buy a stuffed toy NOT a living dog .

look at this list of inherited conditions

List of genetic disorders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

can you guess the species with so *many* 'fundamental health flaw possibilities " ?......yep .....HUMANS !!!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ...thank you for that ....I do believe that the Kc are open to this idea but are worried about how pedigree dog breeders might react - it's a gap in the market that will surely be filled - after all Cockerpoos and Labradoodles are firmly established and sought after - perhaps the scheme being developed by the Dog Advisory Council will encompass crosses as well .


I think maybe if there was a separate crossbreed section to the KC as opposed to them merging into the main body would probably be more acceptable to both pedigree breeders and crossbreeders alike?

But unless all breeders work together ( as I have been saying all the time on this forum) things will not change for the best 

I would like to see the ABS scheme adopted by all breeders and a registry for crossbreeds so that lines can be traced. But the ABS scheme must be strictly controlled and working properly i.e no loopholes!!! and a scheme that people can trust when looking to buy a puppy.

I don't want a breed standard on aesthetics as that goes against why I chose a cross as I like diversity etc... but then you have the standards for each of the parent breeds anyway for breeders to see.

As I have said before I personally would like to see more regulation because I feel especially with cockapoos that they are being bred more and more and lately there seem to be an interest in F2 breeding with peoples pets.

I would rather as anyone would that it is left to responsible, ethical breeders who know the cross and produce the best cockapoos they can.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Public opinion can, as has been proved by the speed of changes since PDE. Nobody has actually stated how long they think the progress made since PDE would have taken if not for the program. I personally don't think even half of them would have been implemented.


Gaaahhh, but that perception is the problem, I firmly believe the changes WOULD have happened, and yet the PDE programme is viewed as the catalyst for change. It wasn't in any way a catalyst for anything, except driving people to puppy farmers overnight and away from any breeder of pedigree dogs. I would much rather the changes happened more slowly, and people still had the confidence to buy from pedigree breeders, alongside doing their research to ensure they bought from someone who breeds ethically and responsibly.



Bijou said:


> then that will never happen ....there will always be 'fundamental health flaw possibilities' endemic in ANY living species - you cannot view dogs in the same way as you do other comsumer goods ....nature does'nt come with a neat guarantee - and if you try your damnest to solve one 'flaw' you very often simply allow another to take it's place.
> 
> Of course that does'nt mean that we should'nt do the best we can but if you truly want something without fundamental health flaw possibilities then buy a stuffed toy NOT a living dog .
> 
> ...


Absolutely spot on (as usual) - there's no such thing as a genetically perfect dog, health testing is great to tell us what we have, but we cannot expect to breed 100% healthy dogs, it's not just impossible, I personally believe it's unethical. We play God enough with dog breeding without trying to create the impossible.



Cockerpoo lover said:


> I think maybe if there was a separate crossbreed section to the KC as opposed to them merging into the main body would probably be more acceptable to both pedigree breeders and crossbreeders alike?
> 
> But unless all breeders work together ( as I have been saying all the time on this forum) things will not change for the best
> 
> ...


Oooooh I'd love to see a *cross breed* registry that linked in with the current KC database, that would be just brilliant. Where you could view the ancestry of your dog, and see all health tests etc, that would be a HUGE step forward in my books.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Yes a registry would be good although some crossbreed owners could trace their dogs on the KC database now if all the dogs are KC registered.

I know Milly my Cavapoos parents are on there but not her grandparents for example.

The problem I have recently become aware of is the over use of stud dogs that some are used to produce a vast number of puppies.

If these are not logged then the potential is there for an inexperienced breeder to mate half siblings etc........


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes a registry would be good although some crossbreed owners could trace their dogs on the KC database now if all the dogs are KC registered.
> 
> I know Milly my Cavapoos parents are on there but not her grandparents for example.
> 
> ...


The parents could only be KC reg if the grandparents were.

I do think it would be a good thing if the KC were to have a registry for crossbreeds.


----------



## HGV (Sep 13, 2011)

The Kc have a registry for cross breeds and unregistered pedigree dogs ..companion dog club , register , get a number , newsletter , own classes at CDC shows.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

HGV said:


> The Kc have a registry for cross breeds and unregistered pedigree dogs ..companion dog club , register , get a number , newsletter , own classes at CDC shows.


That doesn't work the same as the pedigree registry as it doesn't have a record of ancestry.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> We had permission from the Kennel Club to film at Discover Dogs and it covered the use of generic pictures of dogs.


since when have you cared about permission  - recently met your camera man at a show, you DIDNT have permission at - very interested in our breed, a local hobby photographer - wanted to take piccies of everyones dogs..
- only to turn the computer on when we get home to hear of who this man really was  talk about cheeky, sneaky and damn right sly!


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

We didn't need permission for Jon to be there in the capacity in which he attended. That was Newbury Show - our local show. Jon had a stills camera, not a video camera and any photographs he took were not for the film (and indeed, I haven't even looked at them) because we had requested filming access and been turned down. There are strict rules governing this (and there was never any secretly shot footage in PDE1). Saying he was a local hobby photographer who loves dogs is absolutely true - he has taken thousands. Sure, Jon didn't volunteer that he was part of Passionate Productions, but as no pictures he took would ever be used for broadcast, the feeling was that it might have caused a quite unncessary fuss. We were perfectly entitled to be there in a research capacity. In fact, I was also at the show - as I have attended others. Whether or not we are allowed access to film, it is important for me to see for myself what dogs are competing/winning as otherwise it's hard for me to draw any conclusions over whether there has been an improvement in terms of the dogs, particularly in the exaggerated breeds, that are winning. 

In fact, at one recent dog show to which we had been refused access, a very moderate Neapolitan Mastiff bitch was put up - a definite improvement (although this has not been the case universally). If we'd been filming that day, we wouldn't have ignored that (even if we might temper it with evidence from other shows).

On my blog, too, last Crufts I highlighted more moderate winning dogs (such as the Clumber). And why wouldn't I? I am delighted when more obviously functional dogs take top prizes as it sets such a fantastic example. 

Jemima


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Gaaahhh, but that perception is the problem, I firmly believe the changes WOULD have happened, and yet the PDE programme is viewed as the catalyst for change. It wasn't in any way a catalyst for anything, except driving people to puppy farmers overnight and away from any breeder of pedigree dogs. I would much rather the changes happened more slowly, and people still had the confidence to buy from pedigree breeders, alongside doing their research to ensure they bought from someone who breeds ethically and responsibly.
> 
> Oooooh I'd love to see a *cross breed* registry that linked in with the current KC database, that would be just brilliant. Where you could view the ancestry of your dog, and see all health tests etc, that would be a HUGE step forward in my books.


I would love a registery too, i'm a cross breed breeder and you wouldn't believe how difficult it is to find out the history of some studs. and as an "ethical" breeder i think it would allow a transparency that is sadly lacking at the moment. 
I can't see why there needs to be such a furore over the PDE programmes, surely if anything helps to highlight the plight of these dogs, wether pure bred or anything else then that has to be good. Why are people so defensive, the PDE programme in itself and llike many other documentaries is bound to have some inaccuracies but on the whole i would have thought that the sentiment behind it i.e. higlighting some of the issues around the health of dogs has to be the main issue here. If the issue is really about that then people who feel that it did nothing "except driving people to puppy farmers overnight and away from any breeder of pedigree dogs" Have in my opinion missed the point, sometime it's takes something drastic to shock people into change. The KC might well have been in the process of making changes but wouldn't it be better to come out and say that yes there are problems, we embrace the majiroty of what has been highlighted and are doing things to change it. Instead of going down the route of rubbishing it!! You cannot say this programme didn't help to speed things along.
there are a lot of changes needing to be made and not just by breeders and the KC, it includes vets (who by the way told me i didn't really need to have health tests for my dogs as their puppies were going to be cross bred so there was no need, I changed vet and got them done anyway), puppy buyers and the general public. there will always be backyard breeders, puppy farmers and uneducated people, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the problem, if everyone can pull together and make changes then surely we can put a stop to this in the longer term.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Of course you didnt need permission, but if you had been accepted for the right to film Jon wouldnt have been there in the capacity he was! - It is underhand to not be honest as to who you are - leaves us folk feeling cheated, when we learn the truth. we wonder why there is a need for the lack of honesty. 

KC rules however state that you can not take photos of peoples dogs with out 'their' permission. we approached Jon as he was acting oddly around a fellow showers show trolley, infact taking photos of the wee dog - with the owner at ring side, not present. - he asked about the dog and the breed - we spoke for a while but when asked if he wanted the owner of the dog he has such a high interest in he refused, and sharply left!

Each judge has a different opinion on the breed, whats ones CC winner is not anothers - some judges have always placed the less exaggerated, this is not new! Just depends which judge you are watching on the day


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Dumfriesdoods what crosses do you breed ?

With the studs are you finding it easy to find ones that are happy for you to use to crossbreed?

In the past there has been much discussion that crossbreeders get poor quality dogs as no ethical pedigree breeder would sell dogs to a crossbreeders. Have you found this to be a barrier for you?

Sorry hope you don't mind the questions- just interested .


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> The KC might well have been in the process of making changes but wouldn't it be better to come out and say that yes there are problems, we embrace the majiroty of what has been highlighted and are doing things to change it. Instead of going down the route of rubbishing it!!


The KC has done nothing but promote the changes being made! - even spending aload of time and money at crufts promoting the message of what has been happening, and what changes are being made and whats done to do so.

Jemima her self commented on her blog agreeing that some progress has been made, for that progress to have been made the KC must have taken on board the changes that needed to have been worked on.

Remember mind that things dont happen over night - it takes time, we all need to ensure that these changes only improve things, not make things worse. - For it to be a success its not something that can be rushed, it will take time, effort, patients and most importantly SUPPORT!

The changes need to be made for the DOGS sake, not for the sake of those that disapprove.


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

Jemima; A few questions if you wouldnt mind answering please. 

I watched pedigree dogs exposed while waiting for my pedigree puppy to be ready (waiting list). Watching your program nearly made me call up my breeder and cancel my name from the waiting list in favor of a cross breed from an "oops" back yard breeder litter because the program gave the clear impression that ALL pedigree dogs were sick and the breeders were vile human beings.

3 years on now I am showing my own dogs and have my own litter planned (I re-searched my breed for years before going on the waiting list). I have met many different kinds of breeders and I am shocked that pedigree dogs exposed over looked so many good breeders who work hard to make their dogs healthy and worthy of being bred. 

How did you happen to over look these breeders?

My little brother who has just started coming to shows with us (he's only 10) watched your program the other week and said;

"Why does she think all pedigree's are sick? Where are the good breeders?" 

Now I can put my hand on the bible and say this is 100% what he said to me (I can have him tell you that himself if you like, he's a bit outspoken like his sister). 

Now if a 10 year old who's new to dogs knows the program is biest, how do you expect any good breeders to trust you? 

Is getting more people watching more important to you than a fair truth?

What can pedigree dogs exposed 2 do after only 3 years? 

Where's the program on puppy farmers? Back yard breeders?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> and as an "ethical" breeder i think it would allow a transparency that is sadly lacking at the moment.


Shame no health tests are mentioned on any of your adverts, or your own website! - ethical breeders health test!

(although you advise on your own site that people should only go to health checked dogs ..)


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Shame no health tests are mentioned on any of your adverts, or your own website! - ethical breeders health test!
> 
> (although you advise on your own site that people should only go to health checked dogs ..)


Health checked or health tested? Its often a mistake that lets folk get away with only a nip to the vets.:wink:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

They go on to say what tests should be done, yet have no information around themselves for tests they have carried out, not on their website.


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Dumfriesdoods what crosses do you breed ?
> 
> With the studs are you finding it easy to find ones that are happy for you to use to crossbreed?
> 
> ...


No prob, i cross golden retriever and standard poodles, goldendoodles!! As yet i've not used studs as i'm at the very beginning of the breeding, i'm more of a hobby breeder, i've also got a retriever and a poodle as well as my 2 doodles, but i've made enquiries, and i'm potentially looking to backcross with my doodle girl later this year but we'll see. i'm not sure about that argument as all my dogs have very good hip & elbow scores. I've read on some breeders ads that there is no point in asking as they will not allow their dog to be used for cross breeding and that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't actually see the correlation between selling a puppy to a crossbreeder and being an ethical breeder, unless you mean selling in the sense of selling the stud duties out?

As i said some won't and some will, in my opinion that has nothing to do with being ethical or otherwise that's more to do with their personal opinion on cross breeding. I would only use a stud dog that hadn't been studded out too much and had good hip and elbow scores and a clear eye certificate. I also know the lineage of my dogs so i would be looking for a stud that didn't have the same lines on either the poodle or the retriever sides (if it was another doodle).


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Shame no health tests are mentioned on any of your adverts, or your own website! - ethical breeders health test!
> 
> (although you advise on your own site that people should only go to health checked dogs ..)


You obviously can't read then, very quick to look up though i'm impressed, my website is puely for info and if anyone wants to get in touch they can. You obviously looking in the wrong place but keep looking. Nice way to broach a conversation. hmy:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

dumfriesdoods said:


> You obviously can't read then, very quick to look up though i'm impressed, my website is puely for info and if anyone wants to get in touch they can. You obviously looking in the wrong place but keep looking. Nice way to broach a conversation. hmy:


Im looking in the right place, you was easy to find! 'galloway golden doodles'
- Its good theres information, but I would have thought any breeder advertising litters, would also promote the fact that they are health testing, and parents fully health tested..

(see how quick it was for me to jump to the conclusion? - I wont be the only one ..)


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Just had another look at my website. And it is there, it's in the section about choosing a puppy, parents health testing about under hip and elbows scores but then you obviously have a problem with selctive reading. It's 2nd last sentence in that paragraph, maybe you should have another read you were obviously having a blind moment!!.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

dumfriesdoods said:


> Just had another look at my website. And it is there, it's in the section about choosing a puppy, parents health testing about under hip and elbows scores but then you obviously have a problem with selctive reading. It's 2nd last sentence in that paragraph, maybe you should have another read you were obviously having a blind moment!!.


If you want to insult, its you with the selective reading - I said you put the information on the site, with regards to what tests 'should' be done, what I saud was you havent said what tests you have done, with what scores.

eta! - Right I see you have added it, well done! - wasnt there before  I read it over and over!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> The charge re using the footage of the Bergamasco is unfounded. We had permission from the Kennel Club to film at Discover Dogs and it covered the use of generic pictures of dogs. The Bergamasco appeared in a montage of dog shots under commentary which explained: "Today's dogs have been shaped by man into almost every possible shape and size… from dogs as small as kittens… to giant great danes…". The Bergamasco, or an earlier version of it, may be 2000 yrs old, the mutation that gave rise to the unusual coat may be an old one, and the breed may be relatively unchanged, but it has indeed, been shaped largely by human selection and man's needs (in this case for a livestock guardian) not by evolution - as have other old landrace breeds like the Saluki. There is no evidence of wild packs of proto-Bergamascos running round Asia spontaneously guarding sheep thousands of years ago.
> 
> Jemima


I cannot reply to this fully because I am at work on a 13 hr shift, but either tonight when I get in, or tomorrow, I will paste links which will show you where and how you are wrong about this breed.


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Im looking in the right place, you was easy to find! 'galloway golden doodles'
> - Its good theres information, but I would have thought any breeder advertising litters, would also promote the fact that they are health testing, and parents fully health tested..
> 
> (see how quick it was for me to jump to the conclusion? - I wont be the only one ..)


See the thing is you were looking to jump to a conclusion before you started, different thing altogether and you were wrong so i think that says it all!! Nice of you to have a look though as you obviously have no issue with cross breeds!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

dumfriesdoods said:


> Just had another look at my website. And it is there, it's in the section about choosing a puppy, parents health testing about under hip and elbows scores but then you obviously have a problem with selctive reading. It's 2nd last sentence in that paragraph, maybe you should have another read you were obviously having a blind moment!!.


I dont see any eye test results or optigen PRA dna resuts....


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

dumfriesdoods said:


> See the thing is you were looking to jump to a conclusion before you started, different thing altogether and you were wrong so i think that says it all!! Nice of you to have a look though as you obviously have no issue with cross breeds!!


Your right I have no issues with cross breeds.. Just the breeders 

(anyways enough about you, you have added it now - good job their tested, and good job the infos there for others to see!).


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> If you want to insult, its you with the selective reading - I said you put the information on the site, with regards to what tests 'should' be done, what I saud was you havent said what tests you have done, with what scores.
> 
> eta! - Right I see you have added it, well done! - wasnt there before  I read it over and over!!


Well done, really can't admit you were wrong can you, if you read it over and over then you would have seen it, you obviously chose not to see it and caught out can't admit you were wrong. End of conversation!! Not getting into a slanging match with you, you have your opinions and you're welcome to them.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I can happily admit when I am wrong (infact have done often on here!) - I wouldnt have commented until I was sure 
But like you said I am entitled to my own opinion and if I wanted to comment on yourself theres other things I could point out, but it was the health tests that caught my eye.


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> I dont see any eye test results or optigen PRA dna resuts....


Oops terribly sorry i'l go add it now, oh no that's what i was accused of the last time, and yes you're right it's not there, an omission on my part, like i would have admitted in devil dogz questioning if that had been the case. But it's nice to get a nice positive welcome on here, i post a perfectly reasonable response to a discussion and as usual the anti cross breeders alliance jumps on the bandwagon. Nice to get a balanced forum that is welcoming to all.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

It is welcoming to all has NOTHING to do with the fact that you have cross breeds, I would have said the same to a pedigree breeder claiming to be ethical with no mention of health tests - I cant even be bothered with more folk that will play the anti cross breeds card, bored of that now.


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I can happily admit when I am wrong (infact have done often on here!) - I wouldnt have commented until I was sure
> But like you said I am entitled to my own opinion and if I wanted to comment on yourself theres other things I could point out, but it was the health tests that caught my eye.


Nice!! But you weren't but did anyway, I'm sure you could and so could i if i could be bothered but needless to say i have a life and i'm now going to go live it, well done on another satisfying character assasination. It's nice to be nice you know!!


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> It is welcoming to all has NOTHING to do with the fact that you have cross breeds, I would have said the same to a pedigree breeder claiming to be ethical with no mention of health tests - I cant even be bothered with more folk that will play the anti cross breeds card, bored of that now.


Seriously get a life!!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I have a life also, that also included being hugly passionate about dog breeding/welfare.

I think we have established that you have done the tests, thats great I commented and said it would be good if they were on the site with the litters advertised, you have since pointed out that some of the tests are now on there some arent - as long as there done then who cares - but like my orginal post said its nice when there, there to see.

- it is nice to be nice, just remember I havent insulted you..you have in more than one post 

Bye now, before the thread is wrecked any more...


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I have a life also, that also included being hugly passionate about dog breeding/welfare.
> 
> I think we have established that you have done the tests, thats great I commented and said it would be good if they were on the site with the litters advertised, you have since pointed out that some of the tests are now on there some arent - as long as there done then who cares - but like my orginal post said its nice when there, there to see.
> 
> ...


Don't think that's what you said originally but hey ho!! And i don't remember insulting anyone, if i have i apologise. 
Bye!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

dumfriesdoods said:


> Oops terribly sorry i'l go add it now, oh no that's what i was accused of the last time, and yes you're right it's not there, an omission on my part, like i would have admitted in devil dogz questioning if that had been the case. But it's nice to get a nice positive welcome on here, i post a perfectly reasonable response to a discussion and as usual the anti cross breeders alliance jumps on the bandwagon. Nice to get a balanced forum that is welcoming to all.


Good.

I have always said I dont have an issue with cross breeding as long as its done correctly. I expect nothing more of cross breeders than I do of pedigree breeders which includes health testing.

You need as a breeder to have the health testing information easily to find. May I suggest a page dedicated to your dogs with a bit of information about them and then their health tests. As many potential owners will judge you by your website and may not feel comfortable contacting you when unsure if your the breeder for them. If that makes sense.


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Good.
> 
> I have always said I dont have an issue with cross breeding as long as its done correctly. I expect nothing more of cross breeders than I do of pedigree breeders which includes health testing.
> 
> You need as a breeder to have the health testing information easily to find. May I suggest a page dedicated to your dogs with a bit of information about them and then their health tests. As many potential owners will judge you by your website and may not feel comfortable contacting you when unsure if your the breeder for them. If that makes sense.


That's a fair point, as i've said in the early points, i'm new to this and any contructive help is greatly appreciated. The website is in it's early stages and as i get more used to working with it and adding things it will have more, it is not there as a vehicle to sell puppies, i have a business and work from home this is more about the enjoyment of being with my dogs and rearing a well rounded puppy. I am always open to learn new things and have done a fair bit of research prior to breeding, however, i welcome suggestions from those who have more experience of these things.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Puppy farmers can still manage to get KC accreditation.  :crying:

I listened to a radio interview with a representative from the KC talking about puppy farms. She said to buy a pup from a KC accredited breeder and most definitely implied that you would avoid entirely dogs from puppy farms if you did so.

I looked at a well known puppy farmers website. Of the number of puppy litters advertised on the website, there were over 8 times more pedigree pups (with KC pedigree papers) than cross bred pups. Most people wouldn't know the difference between having KC pedigree papers printed by themselves and actually being KC registered.

They would view the dog as being a KC pedigree dog.

I can only conclude that they have not been put off pedigree dogs by the programme.

I myself believed Pedigree dogs to be likely to be unhealthier than mongrels and held that believe for over 40 years, since friends and family also expressed the belief (hybrid vigour). Having seen a number of pedigree dogs die an early death from genetic disorders, often receiving medication for their whole lives, my belief wasn't exactly challenged. At least 9 of these pups were offspring of successful show breeders, being merely the ones in the litter considered less of a show standard.

Yes, these pups could be returned to the breeder at any time, but that doesn't make their suffering any less.

When I researched and purchased Elles I hadn't seen PDE. I saw it later on youtube. I already was looking to avoid inbred dogs and show dogs (and puppy farms). Nothing to do with PDE. I didn't believe dogs should be bred purely for the show ring. It led, imo, to their being bred for ego, trophies and ribbons and I believed the judges to be as corrupt as the handlers, if not more so, with what I saw as dogs deteriorating in the quest for that elusive win.

My opinion of pedigree show dogs and *some* of their breeders has become more moderate since joining Pet Forums, but I can't have been alone in my belief.

Any pedigree dog breeder, breeding for the show ring, should join in the condemnation of unhealthy dogs being bred for the show ring and not keep on about how things are changing and how healthy dogs are now. If it's true and dogs are getting better, their condemnation makes it more true. If false and they aren't, it can help prompt people into changing their ways, for fear of being ostracised by their peers.

I'll just finish to say, that when watching the interviewer talking on the programme to a breeder of Cavalier King Charles Spaniel dogs, the breeder was absolutely adamant that her dogs would not be MRI scanned for Syringomygelia. That kind of attitude, proves the point being made, does show breeders no favours at all and does the dogs a real disservice. :crying:


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elles said:


> Puppy farmers can still manage to get KC accreditation.  :crying:
> 
> I listened to a radio interview with a representative from the KC talking about puppy farms. She said to buy a pup from a KC accredited breeder and most definitely implied that you would avoid entirely dogs from puppy farms if you did so.


Anyone can register a KC dog assuming the required criteria is met and the KC can't do anything to stop that. I'm guessing that the KC representative was refering to the Accredited Breeder Scheme (now Assured Breeder Scheme) which affords the KC more power over the breeder.

Accredited Breeder Scheme | The Kennel Club


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Yes at the moment there will still be some less than ethical breeders on the scheme, but this is being improved with the home checks being done on breeders, and the like - there is always the option to report any breeder who is claiming to be on the scheme, with less than ethical practice - I have done so before, and in more than one case the breeders claiming to be on the scheme, were not - and just used the logo to make themselves look better to the unknowing public.

There are good and bad breeders on and off the scheme, hence the improvements to rid the bad on the scheme, however it should not have been implied that breeders on the scheme are the bee knees, this isnt always the case, and plus we all have our own standards - however the scheme is a starting point!

Alot of breeders will state pups are pedigree (this doesnt mean their registered, just a pedigree dog) - some will say parents are KC registered (this doesnt mean the puppies are) - theres lot of different wording used to make the uneducated believe something thats not true! Some breeders even use false pedigree paper, or register litters with other organisations!

Lots of people 'have' been put off pedigree dogs, its been mentioned with dogs beging handed into rescue, people looking for dogs, people around shows - and even resulted in folk (the decent folk) stop breeding. - The amount of puppies for sale doesnt prove that the demand is still there, just proves the suppling of that breed/type is there!

People often believe that a certain dog is at more risk of health issues, and thats true for some breeds - but the underlying issue is that ANY dog can suffer, through lack of health testing and care.

Im glad your opinion on show breeders has some what changed, its a wee bit annoying to read folk saying these dogs are bred for egos, and trophies, and are inbred so and sos - there is far more to breeding show dogs and establishing a line, its about maintaining and breed, and healthy, happy line of dogs bred to type. 

EVERY SINGLE decent show breeder I know stands against them in the breed that are breeding for wrong reason, with poor breeding practices, after all if these breeders continue they are destroying the breed - and affecting the decents breeders aims and goals in the first place!!


Your right about the cav breeder, and also right when saying it does not do the show breeders any good - this is why many were miffed at the programme, as for that one refusing to test there are 10 more testing before mating, and thats the key point. Dont just show the bad, and leave a bad name for all - show the good and the bad, then folk can make an educated choice, and form their opinion after seeing the true, full picture!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> Puppy farmers can still manage to get KC accreditation.  :crying:
> 
> I listened to a radio interview with a representative from the KC talking about puppy farms. She said to buy a pup from a KC accredited breeder and most definitely implied that you would avoid entirely dogs from puppy farms if you did so.
> 
> ...


Your whole post just highlights to me how the bias of the programme has been taken on by the general public.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Your whole post just highlights to me how the bias of the programme has been taken on by the general public


How? I'd say my whole post highlights how the bias of the general public has been taken on by a programme and found enough evidence to back it up.

I pointed out that I already held my views, for many years, long before the programme and mostly based on personal experience. hmy:


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

PS: My eldest son bred what I think are red Miniature Pinschers this year, but he and his (Gibraltarian) wife live in Spain, near Gib and call them something else. Forget what it is. They have bred one litter so far, kept one of the pups themselves and had a waiting list that meant they could have sold them at least 4 times over. 

After their experience of breeding, worrying about the mum and then having to let the puppies go to their new homes, they've said never again.  

Their dogs look like big dogs that have been hit with a shrink ray. lol

Mummy I've shrunk the dogs. :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> How? I'd say my whole post highlights how the bias of the general public has been taken on by a programme and found enough evidence to back it up.
> 
> I pointed out that I already held my views, for many years, long before the programme and mostly based on personal experience. hmy:


You may have already held your views, unfortunately, many who didn't hold your views previously changed theirs overnight following the programme. I know good breeders whose waiting lists suddenly had folk dropping out after PDE 

The continual criticism of people involved with pedigree breeds and breeding really does just wear you down. How on earth can I be held responsible for unethical breeders within my breed? I DO condemn unhealthy dogs and unethical breeding, and I spend a great deal of my own time trying to help people find good breeders, not just for Labs, but really for anyone, at the very least pointing them in the right direction to start looking, hopefully armed with a few pointers about what they should be asking. Other than go and buy a puppy for people, I'm not sure what else I should be doing?

I decided when I first even thought about breeding, that if I couldn't be open and honest about every aspect of what and why, then I shouldn't be doing it. I can't make every single Labrador breeder be the same as me, some will be, most of the ones I know are, some aren't and I try to steer folk away from them when looking for a pup. If I posted openly about some breeders I know, I'd leave myself open to litigation, which I'm not happy to do.

Anyway, I'm off to post happy pics of puppy socialisation with my mutant pedigree dogs


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> PS: My eldest son bred what I think are red Miniature Pinschers this year, but he and his (Gibraltarian) wife live in Spain, near Gib and call them something else. Forget what it is. They have bred one litter so far, kept one of the pups themselves and had a waiting list that meant they could have sold them at least 4 times over.
> 
> After their experience of breeding, worrying about the mum and then having to let the puppies go to their new homes, they've said never again.
> 
> ...


Teckels possibly??


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

Bijou said:


> Jemima is the inference here that working Flatcoats don't have a problem with cancer ? .....and that it's only the show lines that are inbred ? -do breeders of working line flatties ever use show lines in their breeding programmes ? ...if not then I'd venture to guess that by restricting themselves to only the very few working lines available they are as much or if not MORE inbred and just as likely to have inherited problems !


No, it's not only the show lines that are inbred - and as there are still a fair few dual purpose flatcoats being both shown and worked - yes, working-line breeders do use showdogs (although I would think not many without the all-important working credentials).

I've just been told, btw, that on the anti-PDE Facebook site there is a comment by Stephanie Presdee saying that - apparently - I told CNN that I am a flatcoat breeder. This is not true. Stephanie also claims that I have got my facts wrong about flatcoats here. If so Stephanie, and as you're obviously reading this and reporting on it elsewhere, please offer some supporting evidence for this.

I would also like to ask everyone to please treat with a little caution statements made either here or elsewhere which imply I have acted unprofessionally or dishonourably. I can't pretend to have never made any mistake, but most of what is written is completely untrue. I have tried to deal with some of it here or anyone is welcome to check facts directly with me. You can email me at jem[AT]pedigreedogsexposed.com

Jemima


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Puppy Farming and Back yard breeders, breeding for nothing else except profit with dogs being kept in digusting cramped conditions and treated as no more then money making breeding machines, of course has to be highlighted and stopped. I read Dogs Today and puppy farming is one of the major points of Dogs Today and Jemima Harrisons too, they do both highlight and promote awareness that buyers should go to breeders who health test, and raise the pups properly, and what buyers should be on the lookout for.

At the end of the day it is only Bad Breeders full stop, regardless of who they are they are trying to high light and make people aware of, and that dogs have got hereditary health problems, some breeds more then others, and if you are looking to buy a puppy how you should and shouldnt go about it. Incidently both do regular articles too and promote rescue, in fact Jemima actually runs an independant rescue finding homes for retrievers and retriever crosses I believe too.

One fact does remain, Pedigree/show dogs have always been help up as a bench mark for excellence. There are good pedigree breeders, who have the dogs welfare and health paramount above all thats without doubt. Who do all the things that they should. But there is also no two ways about it, there are also bad ones too,
who dont do what they should, and where looks and winning does come first, and if anyone tells you different they are telling giant sized porkies.

Take the LUA Dalmatians for example, The programme commenced in 1973 an outcross of an AKC Champ pointer sire and an AKC Reg. Dalmatian Dam. Dr Robert Schiable did it in an effort to correct the fixed genetic defect in Dallys that effects
Uric acid metabolism that may lead to increased urinary acid, urate crystals, Urinary bladder aggregate formation,stones, urinary tract obstruction and even death. Long story short it did work, Low Uric acid Dallys exhibit a 10 fold lower uric acid to creatinine ratio when compared to other Dallys. It is now at least 14 generations on and only the one outcross. Yet when a certain kennel in the UK imported two of these American Dallys to include in their breeding programme and help with the problem here there was an outcry from certain members and fellow breeders at the Dalmatian club. It went on for weeks in Dog World and the other show dog press,
some where outraged, especially pureists that said these where not Dallys and shouldnt be registered allowed to be shown etc etc. So unless Im personally missing something, or it looks like its not beyond the realms of possibility, that there could well be those in the show world where looks, purity and winning does come ahead of health and the dog being fit for function.

I remember a Big RSPCA case too, where 2 people were prosecuted, and they were top winners in their breed,breeders and judges as well. From the RSPCA footage there were many dogs kept in bad conditions and some with conditions that should have had veterinary attention.

When the ruling was bought in about progeny of close matings now not being able to be registered by the KC, I also remember reading in Dog World, the letters from some breeders saying how proposterous it was, they had done it for the last 20 blah, 30blah years and it hadnt caused any problems, it had produced top winning healthy dogs Blah. Granted some of it may have been done in innocence or ignorance and I mean that in a lack of knowledge of basic genetics way. Whatever way you look at it though whatever reason, some of the problems need to be high lighted, to root out the bad breeders whether show or not, highlight the good, and in the name of education to prevent problems keep happening, and try to rectify ones that have already taken place.

What Im saying is that Jemima Harrison and Dogs today, might have made the odd or a few mistakes here and there in reporting a few things, show me anyone who does get it right 100% of the time, but you have to admit there is a very big proportion of what they do report is true.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Of course some show folk will be unethical breeders, some even keeping their dogs on un kind conditions, thats not right not should be support - nor should it reflect all breeders.
- when someone is done for harming animals, and are just pet owners/pet breeders - this is not a reflecting on them as a whole.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> *emphasis added - *
> 
> The Swedish scientists have said categorically - as I have stated clearly in my article -
> that it is possible for a ridgeless dog to have DS but only as a one-off developmental problem (as indeed
> ...


incidence of DS in RR-crossbreds - 
- crossbreed-progeny of Ridgeback dogs can also have dermoid-sinus, & IMO it is obviously inherited. 
there are a half-dozen dogs photographed by a USA vet-hospital which can be found by using Google-Images; 
3/4 or more are *RR-crossbreeds*, not RR-purebreds. If they didn't inherit it, where did it come from?

correction - 
- dermoid-sinus is easily correctable via surgery, which while vital is not extremely risky or co$tly. 
IMO destroying a pup simply to avoid the repair is highly-unethical behavior.

prevention - 
- a USA vet-tech who also breeds Rhodies has succeeded in *preventing* even one dermoid-sinus 
in any of the litters she's bred by supplementing the dam's intake of folic-acid, prior to mating & thru-out 
the pregnancy; not one pup has had a dermoid-sinus.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I texted him to find out what they are and I was completely wrong, they aren't Miniature Pinschers, they just look a bit like them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praský_Krysařík

They're these ones, the red version.


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> since when have you cared about permission  - recently met your camera man at a show, you DIDNT have permission at - very interested in our breed, a local hobby photographer - wanted to take piccies of everyones dogs..
> - only to turn the computer on when we get home to hear of who this man really was  talk about cheeky, sneaky and damn right sly!


Surely if you got nothing to hide then it doens't matter?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> Surely if you got nothing to hide then it doens't matter?


I have nothing to hide, I post enough photos on the net as it is - It wasnt my dog he was taking photos of - my point is, why do you need to be dishonest to get what you want - whos really got something to hide


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> I texted him to find out what they are and I was completely wrong, they aren't Miniature Pinschers, they just look a bit like them.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praský_Krysařík
> 
> They're these ones, the red version.


They're very cute, love black & tan dogs


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

dumfriesdoods said:


> See the thing is you were looking to jump to a conclusion before you started, different thing altogether and you were wrong so i think that says it all!! Nice of you to have a look though as you obviously have no issue with cross breeds!!


There seems to be a lot of certain people doing that so I wouldn't worry - it is what makes them right and us crossbreedies wrong :wink:


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I have nothing to hide, I post enough photos on the net as it is - It wasnt my dog he was taking photos of - my point is, why do you need to be dishonest to get what you want - whos really got something to hide


Sometimes though to root out the unscrupulous you have to be under the radar yourself. Unscrupulous can make out they doing and saying the right things if they know they are under scrutiny. Think rescue and rescuing dogs that have been in trouble as an example.


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I have nothing to hide, I post enough photos on the net as it is - It wasnt my dog he was taking photos of - my point is, why do you need to be dishonest to get what you want - whos really got something to hide


If it wasn't your dogs they were taking pics of whats your problem? You dodn't need to be dishonest to be hiding something but I was questioning why you were making such an issue of what this Jemima was saying.. at times it seems like some people are just desparate to find something to bitch about and its silly why not agree to disagree? Can't see your probs meself and it seems to be just a small clique that has issues and don't want to let things lie


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Sometimes though to root out the unscrupulous you have to be under the radar yourself. Unscrupulous can make out they doing and saying the right things if they know they are under scrutiny. Think rescue and rescuing dogs that have been in trouble as an example.


???????? please explain


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

They were under the radar because filming has been refused, they would not have been under the radar if it had been accepted!!

People are lied to and give info or allow photos to someone not being totally honest, it does leave folk feeling cheated..

Overall people get their points over better, and what they want better if they are honest. 

- if Jon has said to me Im bla bla - and wanted to take photos of my dogs, I would have allowed - maybe then some of the good dogs, tested ect would also have been featured in places - but I would have been miffed if I was lied to.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

As someone who owns both pedigrees & a crossbreed I really, really don't understand why certain crossbreed people on this forum have such a chip on their shoulder & think all pedigree owners/breeders are out to pick on them, nobody on here attacks you people personally or your dogs, from what I read people just have the welfare of the dogs at heart


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> If it wasn't your dogs they were taking pics of whats your problem? You dodn't need to be dishonest to be hiding something but I was questioning why you were making such an issue of what this Jemima was saying.. at times it seems like some people are just desparate to find something to bitch about and its silly why not agree to disagree? Can't see your probs meself and it seems to be just a small clique that has issues and don't want to let things lie


I explained what my problem was in my post..   - everyone else seems to have understood what I was saying, agreeing or not!

It is against KC rules to take photos of someone elses dog with out permission, when I approached someone doing so - I was led to believe the person, was someone other than who he was.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Of course some show folk will be unethical breeders, some even keeping their dogs on un kind conditions, thats not right not should be support - nor should it reflect all breeders.
> - when someone is done for harming animals, and are just pet owners/pet breeders - this is not a reflecting on them as a whole.


But its not a reflection on all breeders is it? Its a reflection on the Bad breeders,
The good breeders, can hold their heads up safe in the knowledge they are ethical and doing the right thing. I dont think PDE was ever meant to slate all show breeders. A lot of the bad practices they highlighted isnt anything new, there has always been bad practices, Ive known some of the things for ages before PDE, a lot of its not rocket science. it just took someone to have the B**** to stand up and say it. Like a lot of things though the rebels who rock the boat always get it in the neck.


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> They were under the radar because filming has been refused, they would not have been under the radar if it had been accepted!!
> 
> People are lied to and give info or allow photos to someone not being totally honest, it does leave folk feeling cheated..
> 
> ...


Thanks


simplysardonic said:


> As someone who owns both pedigrees & a crossbreed I really, really don't understand why certain crossbreed people on this forum have such a chip on their shoulder & think all pedigree owners/breeders are out to pick on them, nobody on here attacks you people personally or your dogs, from what I read people just have the welfare of the dogs at heart


I don't want to be one of "you people2 if you mean all crossbreed owners, I just wanna be me and our dogs. I don't see pedigree owners as "you people". Im just going on stuff I have read on here and the minority who seem to relish a row about crossbreeds and it is this that got my back up.


Devil-Dogz said:


> I explained what my problem was in my post..   - everyone else seems to have understood what I was saying, agreeing or not!
> 
> It is against KC rules to take photos of someone elses dog with out permission, when I approached someone doing so - I was led to believe the person, was someone other than who he was.


I agree with the last paragraph but I wasn't asking you to explain but the person above so sorry for the confusion


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Thats the problem its affected alot of pedigree breeders, even the good! & to alot of the general public, it is a refelection on all pedigree breeders as they know no better.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

sezra said:


> Several times in the last [few] weeks I've mentioned that not everyone S/N
> & 'accidental matings'  happen...


just because a bitch has mated & there's an *unplanned, un-intended, un-wanted * pregnancy is no reason 
to carry the litter to term; the bitch can be given a mismate jab ASAP & the litter is never born.

there is IMO no excuse for producing pups who were not carefully planned, from a sire & dam who were 
BOTH screened for generic issues, BOTH screened for breed- [or *breedS]* specific issues, 
BOTH have good temps & are behaviorally-normal, & BOTH are at least 24-MO.

bitches who are accidentally-bred do not have to carry the litter; the mismate jab eliminates the risk 
of pregnancy complications, Caesarean-deliveries, etc; she can continue to show, work or compete, & she is 
still able to be bred in the future. There are no justifications for LETTING AN UNINTENDED LITTER go to term.

the needle is CHEAPER than the time & cost of whelping, rearing, feeding, etc, even if we ignore the risk 
to the prospective-dam or any possible unexpected crises.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> I don't want to be one of "you people2 if you mean all crossbreed owners, I just wanna be me and our dogs. I don't see pedigree owners as "you people". Im just going on stuff I have read on here and the minority who seem to relish a row about crossbreeds and it is this that got my back up.


Sorry to be pedantic but you're the one who brought 'us & them' into it, a few posts ago


> There seems to be a lot of certain people doing that so I wouldn't worry - it is what makes them right and us crossbreedies wrong


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> Im just going on stuff I have read on here and the minority who seem to relish a row about crossbreeds and it is this that got my back up.


Thats abit of a cheek coming from you, as if I remember rightly it was you that came on and launched a 'show' breeder saying they should not be breeding...Yet the cross breed folk still believe they are the victims


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

AlisonLyn said:


> ???????? please explain


basically I meant that if you were not doing something as you should be doing, and you knew you were being checked up on, then you are hardly going to carry on doing it the same way or admit to it with an audience.


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Jemima; A few questions if you wouldnt mind answering please.
> 
> I watched pedigree dogs exposed while waiting for my pedigree puppy to be ready (waiting list). Watching your program nearly made me call up my breeder and cancel my name from the waiting list in favor of a cross breed from an "oops" back yard breeder litter because the program gave the clear impression that ALL pedigree dogs were sick and the breeders were vile human beings.
> 
> ...


Jemima.
Is it possible to get a reply please. I would rather have a reply on here than email as I know many pedigree folk are reading this wanting to know the answers to these questions.

Thank you.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Of course PDE was one sided - it was showing the bad pracitices in pedigree breeding, that was the aim of the programme. Every exposee documentary does not counter with the opposing good sides story. 

If you see a TV programme about bad parenting/delinquent drunk teens - are all the parents amongst us up in arms saying how awful you have tarred all parents with the same brush, my kids are lovely bla bla so programme must all be false because it doesn't show the other side of the coin? 

My decisions were not based on a tv programme but on my own experience and those of my friends/acquaintances. I can't see much has changed to be honest, as recent as last year the breed I was looking for still had the closest permissble in-breeding. An acquaintance has a dog that at 12 weeks old was found to be totally blind as are two other of its litter mates, the KC can do nothing to stop the same dogs being used to produce further litters. Where is the progress? To me the register is of little use unless you can log on to see lifespan and health records of all litters/siblings etc rather than just what tests have been carried out


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> They were under the radar because filming has been refused, they would not have been under the radar if it had been accepted!!
> 
> People are lied to and give info or allow photos to someone not being totally honest, it does leave folk feeling cheated..
> 
> ...


The KC refused the filming though. The KC has had their pulse on whats going on for years and done nothing about it. If you take the breed supplements alone. They know whos breeding what and how many times a year, Ages the dams and sires are, age when dam is first bred, frequency of litters, how many litters she has had,Number of pups in total. They could have refused years ago to register if certain criteria wasnt meet and hit the iffy breeders where it hurt, but they didnt the changes have only been made in the last few months to a year.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> The very first sentence is misleading...
> 
> ''In comparison to the majority of pedigree dogs, Labradoodles are still a relatively new breed''...
> 
> If I didnt know [otherwise], I'd take that [to mean] they're a breed! - They are not.


agreed - 
that is exceedingly misleading, & IMO they are not that 'recent', having been around for 30-years. 

referring to them casually as a breed is flatly wrong; a BREED throws recognizable type from parents who are 
also of recognizable, distinguishable type; the parents are visually consistent & recognizable - which Lab x Poodles 
are ONLY to a degree, & ONLY when they are F1 - not when bred as F1 progeny to F1 progeny.

that is precisely what makes them a hybrid: mating F1 x F1 creates an assortment of traits in pups.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> The KC refused the filming though. The KC has had their pulse on whats going on for years and done nothing about it. If you take the breed supplements alone. They know whos breeding what and how many times a year, Ages the dams and sires are, age when dam is first bred, frequency of litters, how many litters she has had,Number of pups in total. They could have refused years ago to register if certain criteria wasnt meet and hit the iffy breeders where it hurt, but they didnt the changes have only been made in the last few months to a year.


I havent said different - I for one am glad for the changes! (however the point is the responsible breeders dont need these rules in place - and them that do will find themselves away around it!)


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> Sorry to be pedantic but you're the one who brought 'us & them' into it, a few posts ago


On reading back as I explained, it is around 5 members on here out of 1000s that keep chundering about how appaling it is to have crossbreeds because all the breeders are bybs or pfs and it isn't - im only going on what has been put before and so ive been trying to explain that breeders of all types of dogs pedigree and mongrels and crossbreeds have good and bad breeders. Bybs and pfs are not exclusive to crossbreeds and the same people ahve been very rude about some other members dogs, not mine obviously but surely it doesn't have anything to do with anyone else what sort of dog people have or where they got them unless something constructive is going to be done to close down pfs and bybs and more regulations are made to control the whole breeding practices? I doubt anyone dare as=dmit that through not doing their research they now realise that they got their dogs from a puppyfarm because of the abuse they have received just by admitting they have certain crossbreeds. I just think it is sad that assuming we are all mature adults (which some don't seem to be) we are wary what we put in fear of retribution.


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> agreed -
> that is exceedingly misleading, & IMO they are not that 'recent', having been around for 30-years.
> 
> referring to them casually as a breed is flatly wrong; a BREED throws recognizable type from parents who are
> ...


Can I just ask one question about these threads? Is it certain crossbreeds that are wrong because these Labradoodles keep being brought up over and over and no-one can say that all those types of dogs are bred from puppyfarms. I think that the worry is that so many breeders reckon they are good yet others see them as bybs/pfs - lets face it we all think we are right don't we? Just another question and pardon my ignorance as I don't know that much about breeding.. what are F1 progeny?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> On reading back as I explained, it is around 5 members on here out of 1000s that keep chundering about how appaling it is to have crossbreeds because all the breeders are bybs or pfs and it isn't


Do people make things up as they go along  I havent ever read anything like that from anyone on here


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> On reading back as I explained, it is around 5 members on here out of 1000s that keep chundering about how appaling it is to have crossbreeds because all the breeders are bybs or pfs and it isn't - im only going on what has been put before and so ive been trying to explain that breeders of all types of dogs pedigree and mongrels and crossbreeds have good and bad breeders. Bybs and pfs are not exclusive to crossbreeds and the same people ahve been very rude about some other members dogs, not mine obviously but surely it doesn't have anything to do with anyone else what sort of dog people have or where they got them unless something constructive is going to be done to close down pfs and bybs and more regulations are made to control the whole breeding practices? I doubt anyone dare as=dmit that through not doing their research they now realise that they got their dogs from a puppyfarm because of the abuse they have received just by admitting they have certain crossbreeds. I just think it is sad that assuming we are all mature adults (which some don't seem to be) we are wary what we put in fear of retribution.


Please find me one post that says it's awful to have a dog that's a cross breed because *all* the breeders are byb's and puppy farmers.


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Do people make things up as they go along  I havent ever read anything like that from anyone on here


Same here.:huh:

Only a few pages back I applauded a breeder for health testing her dogs before breeding.


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Reading back this is the impression some of you give with the comments made, I wasn't quoting which was why I didn't use speechmarks


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> ...if irresponsible owners don't have their bitches [spayed] & they get pregnant, what do you suggest?
> Drowning at birth? * The [mismate] injection? *


Yes - i very-strongly advocate a mismate injection FOR ANY BITCH BRED UN-intentionally - 
whether she's a purebred, random-bred or cross-bred, ANY UNPLANNED LITTER should be short-stopped.

- the risk of terminating is far-less than the risk of carrying to term. 
- the co$t of a mismate-jab is less than whelping, rearing, feeding, etc, co$ts - even if TIME to socialize, 
habituate, handle, clean, etc, is not accounted for, but ignored entirely, & only ca$h-costs are counted.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I agree with you LFL - Sick of people claiming accidental matings, I often say there is NO such thing (or very rare)...accidental mating, yes but once you know about the mating - you have the choice to continue, if you choose to continue it can not be classed an accident as you knowingly allowed pregnancy.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> Reading back this is the impression some of you give with the comments made, I wasn't quoting which was why I didn't use speechmarks


You can't have read many posts then.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> On reading back as I explained, it is around 5 members on here out of 1000s that keep chundering about how appaling it is to have crossbreeds because all the breeders are bybs or pfs and it isn't - im only going on what has been put before and so ive been trying to explain that breeders of all types of dogs pedigree and mongrels and crossbreeds have good and bad breeders. Bybs and pfs are not exclusive to crossbreeds and the same people ahve been very rude about some other members dogs, not mine obviously but surely it doesn't have anything to do with anyone else what sort of dog people have or where they got them unless something constructive is going to be done to close down pfs and bybs and more regulations are made to control the whole breeding practices? I doubt anyone dare as=dmit that through not doing their research they now realise that they got their dogs from a puppyfarm because of the abuse they have received just by admitting they have certain crossbreeds. I just think it is sad that assuming we are all mature adults (which some don't seem to be) we are wary what we put in fear of retribution.


Afraid I can't comment as I haven't seen posts from these members stating that. Unfortunately until the day that PFs & BYBs of both pedigrees & crossbreeds are outlawed all that anyone can do is advise potential puppy buyers about the conditions these dogs live in & hope they will choose to vote with their feet & not line the pockets of the unethical


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

_incidence of DS in RR-crossbreds -
- crossbreed-progeny of Ridgeback dogs can also have dermoid-sinus, & IMO it is obviously inherited.
there are a half-dozen dogs photographed by a USA vet-hospital which can be found by using Google-Images;
3/4 or more are RR-crossbreeds, not RR-purebreds. If they didn't inherit it, where did it come from?_

They DID inherit it. The ridge gene is dominant. A dog only has to have one copy of the ridge gene to have a ridge.

_correction -
- dermoid-sinus is easily correctable via surgery, which while vital is not extremely risky or co$tly.
IMO destroying a pup simply to avoid the repair is highly-unethical behavior._

When the DS is deep, there can be considerable risk in removing them, but new surgical techniques do make it much safer today. Unfortunatey, DS pups are still PTS. Both the Irish and Swedish Clubs say DS pups should be PTS and so do two Australian RR clubs (In fact, the RR Club of Victoria still says that _ridgeless _pups should be culled).

_- a USA vet-tech who also breeds Rhodies has succeeded in preventing even one dermoid-sinus
in any of the litters she's bred by supplementing the dam's intake of folic-acid, prior to mating & thru-out
the pregnancy; not one pup has had a dermoid-sinus._

There are mixed reports on the use of folic acid.

Jemima


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I agree with you LFL - Sick of people claiming accidental matings, I often say there is NO such thing (or very rare)...accidental mating, yes but once you know about the mating - you have the choice to continue, if you choose to continue it can not be classed an accident as you knowingly allowed pregnancy.


Years ago you did get litters of crossbreeds mongrels I suppose we called them,
because you did also get dogs running loose in the streets it almost seemed to be a "normal" occurance. Even then though I suppose it still reverts back to being irresponsible if you look at it one way, as someone (apart from the odd genuine escapee) must have let them out to roam in the first place. There is very few excuses for having accidental matings now, people are more aware of seasons and what the signs are, there is neutering and spaying and if an unfortuanate genuine accident does happen there is the mismate.

Personally Ive got nothing against actual crossbreeds, I own a rescue one. What I am against though is people breeding irresponsibly and badly with no thought of the dogs themselves or their welfare or health or any consideration whether those little lifes they are ultimately responsible for are going to end up in good loving forever homes. Doesnt matter what they actually are breedwise.
So whatever the actual finite disagreements some of us may have with each other, I should imagine that is one thing we may possibly agree on. Dogs and some of the Pups that are born deserve a lot better hand then some of them are dealt.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> *Is it certain crossbreeds that are wrong* because these Lab x Poodles [are] brought up
> over & over... no-one can say that all those types of dogs are bred from puppyfarms.


 - Lab-Doodles as a specific purpose-bred cross kicked off the entire range of so-called _*designer dog-breeds*_ 
for the pet-owning public; before that, only _serious sport competitors_ bred designer-breeds, 
EX: Border-Border, Border-Jack, BC-Pit, & so on are 3 deliberate designer-crosses produced for flyball - 
unfortunately *of course* not all the breeders are 'ethical' in getting reservations for pups or placing pups 
carefully; a Border-Collie x Border-Terrier is often a hellion, ditto for the BC x JRT, *& unethical breeders 
place 'extra' pups who have no sport-competitor reserving them, with pet-dog buyers - who often give them up 
to shelters, rescues or via classified-ads. *

- Doodles commanded insane prices in the USA, especially after _*Good Morning, America*_ had a couple 
of the cross-breeds on the program, laid out a lot of inaccurate claims ['hypoallergenic', NONshed, easy to 
train, good with children... the usual B-S plus a few specialist add-ons to sell the concept],  & overnite, 
they became the mix everybody 'had to have', the flavor of the month. Given that they cost $1200 to $1600/pup, 
the profit motive had everyone & their mother's brother's eejit 3rd-cousin producing Lab x Poodle litters.

- other designer cross-breeds latched onto the profit-laden coattails of the Doodle, & suddenly Puggles, 
etcetera, were on every magazine-cover & in the classifieds of every newspaper & on-line ad-lists.



AlisonLyn said:


> IMO the worry is that so many breeders reckon they're good [breeders] yet others
> see them as BYBs/PFs - ...we all think we're [ethical], don't we?


there are specific qualifications which any breeder of any breed must meet to be ETHICAL.

one's own opinion of oneself is no more a measure of one's ethics than is one's own opinion of the perfection 
[or flaws if any] of one's own dogs - *kennel blindness* is the reason we ask other people to look at our dogs 
& give us a fair evaluation. TESTING is essential to be considered ethical; no screens? No ethics.

that means any, every, all dogs: M or F, purebred or crossbred or random-bred; IF THE DOG WILL BE BRED 
that dog should be tested: eyes, hips/knees, any apparent skin issues, food allergies, temp, etc, are basics. 
BREED SPECIFIC heritable issues are to be added on to all of the generic tests, AND IF THERE ARE TWO 
or more BREEDS INVOLVED, tests for BOTH or ALL breeds should be done.

that means the other Doodle-breeder who was here & plans to *back-cross her bitch*... 


dumfriesdoods said:


> ...i'm potentially looking to backcross with my doodle girl later this year but we'll see.
> ...all my dogs have very good hip & elbow scores.


should also plan to do do a skin-test for Sebaceous-Adenitis, which requires 3 full-depth skin-punches to be taken, 
with local anaesthetic injected for each & a small stitch to close them; they must come from 3 different areas 
of the body, & be sent off for a pathology exam under the scope... Among Other Tests, including: radiographs 
of elbows [UAP], knees [luxation] & hips [dysplasia], DNA-test for cataracts, etc, etc.



AlisonLyn said:


> I don't know that much about breeding... what are F1 progeny?


that's not 'breeding', per se - it's *genetics*.

F1 progeny are the offspring of the first breeding - in this case, the Lab x Poodle pups produced by mating 
a Lab to an opposite-sex Poodle. An F2 would be the pups resulting from crossing F1 x F1, or 2nd-generation - 
highly inadvisable as the only 'consistency' to be found in hybrids is created by crossing 2 separate strains. 
EX: Puggles are remarkably consistent in type when a Beagle is bred to a Pug: fawn body, dark mask, 
moderate size, gay tail, mid-size ear often with a tab set, short smooth coat, short face.

BUT... breed a Puggle to a Puggle & anything can happen: hound-sterns, hound ears, pied or tri-coat, 
with or without a mask, bench-legged, etc; any trait of either Beagle or Pug can be seen in combo with any other.

the consistency of hybrids is found in F1 progeny - not in breeding the hybrids themselves, & back-crossing 
only succeeds in intensifying the traits of the parent-strain used in the backcross. 
[i-e, Doodle x Lab = more Lab type, while Doodle x Poodle = more Poodle type.]

if U don't know anything about Mendelian genetics, i'd take an on-line tutorial - there are many good ones.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Thats the problem its affected alot of pedigree breeders, even the good! & to alot of the general public, it is a refelection on all pedigree breeders as they know no better.


Maybe the good pedigree breeders, and there are very good ones who care about the health and welfare of their breed and their dogs, I and Im sure anybody else will acknowledge and recognise the fact, maybe should approach publications like Dogs Today and writers like Jemima harrison, and talk to them about how they feel, instead of being at loggerheads. Then maybe everyone could work together for one aim, happy healthy dogs, and informed educated buyers. At the end of the day surely the ultimate is that your all striving for the same purpose.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> just because a bitch has mated & there's an *unplanned, un-intended, un-wanted * pregnancy is no reason
> to carry the litter to term; the bitch can be given a mismate jab ASAP & the litter is never born.
> 
> there is IMO no excuse for producing pups who were not carefully planned, from a sire & dam who were
> ...


My post may have not been clear but the 'accidental matings' being in inverted commas was meant to be sarcastic!  I shall put a smilie with it next time. I am aware of mismate however often 'accidental matings'   are often just two idiots who 'accidentally'  let their dogs play together (every day for 10 days  ) whilst the bitch was in season! Unfortunately no matter how breeding standards are improved it will be unlikely to affect this kind of thing occuring. 

Being from the crossbreeder camp   (that was a joke just incase it gets misinterpreted ) the way I see things is that basically we would all like to see ethical breeding practices whether for cross breeders or pedigree breeders. I am aware that for some being ethical includes not cross breeding, which is fine, I can appreciate that point of view. As long as no one is negative towards owners or dogs I dont have any issues.  I have always said that we should all be working together to improve things not against eachother.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> from LeashedForLife AKA terry -
> 
> _incidence of DS in RR-crossbreds -
> - crossbreed-progeny of Ridgeback dogs can also have dermoid-sinus, & IMO it is obviously inherited.
> ...





Jemima Harrison said:


> They DID inherit it. The ridge gene is dominant. A dog only has to have one copy
> of the ridge gene to have a ridge.


excuse me - they HAD NO RIDGES; the dogs in question had DERMOID SINUSES - one dog had 3.

please see this post for the link & all the photos: 
Pet Forums Community - View Single Post - structure, immune-health + cross-breeds: Photos

to clarify -
i was not referring to the heritability of the ridge, but the heritability of *dermoid-sinus* 
in crossbred dogs with one Rhodie-parent.


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> - Lab-Doodles as a specific purpose-bred cross kicked off the entire range of so-called _*designer dog-breeds*_
> for the pet-owning public; before that, only _serious sport competitors_ bred designer-breeds,
> EX: Border-Border, Border-Jack, BC-Pit, & so on are 3 deliberate designer-crosses produced for flyball -
> unfortunately *of course* not all the breeders are 'ethical' in getting reservations for pups or placing pups
> ...




OMG thanks, I must be really thick then :blush2:. Never heard of Puggles and had to re-read it at first. Assuming the exchange rate $12000-$16000 equates to roughly £1000 upwards??? For a dog??? Are people that well off to afford that? Each to their own but I would rather have a new car for that!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

sezra said:


> My post may have not been clear but the 'accidental matings' being in inverted commas was meant to be sarcastic!  I shall put a smilie with it next time. I am aware of mismate however often 'accidental matings'   are often just two idiots who 'accidentally'  let their dogs play together (every day for 10 days  ) whilst the bitch was in season! Unfortunately no matter how breeding standards are improved it will be unlikely to affect this kind of thing occuring.
> 
> Being from the crossbreeder camp   (that was a joke just incase it gets misinterpreted ) the way I see things is that basically we would all like to see ethical breeding practices whether for cross breeders or pedigree breeders. I am aware that for some being ethical includes not cross breeding, which is fine, I can appreciate that point of view. *As long as no one is negative towards owners or dogs I dont have any issues.  I have always said that we should all be working together to improve things not against eachother.   *




Ditto


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Jemima.
> Is it possible to get a reply please. I would rather have a reply on here than email as I know many pedigree folk are reading this wanting to know the answers to these questions.
> 
> Thank you.


I am not sure I owe you the courtesy of a reply given the extremely discourteous remarks you have made about me on the anti-PDE Facebook site in the past few weeks but, as I have explained many times before, Pedigree Dogs Exposed was made the way it was because after three years very extensive research, we felt there was a huge problem. The problem is three-fold: too much selection on looks-alone; genetic diversity; and how little was being done to tackle those two core problems. Conformation problems are not evident in every breed (but are creepingly insidious in more breeds than is often recognised), but the issue of genetic diversity is a big issue problem in most. Indeed, I do not believe that our breeds can survive long-term without a radical change in the way we breed our dogs.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed was made the way it was because I (and many experts) believe the situation is far more serious that was - and is - being acknowledged. The film was an impassioned plea for change before it is too late - for those that love and treasure their dogs to step back and look at what they are doing with a broader view and realise that things must change.

Yes, I accept that some people saw PDE as a condemnation of all breeds and breeders but, equally, many others did not. I talk regularly with many breeders who wholeheartedly support the film and I know many good breeders who never for one moment thought the film was about them, in the same way that few would think that every care worker was a monster just because a Panorama exposed one particularly bad care home, or would think that every single MP was corrupt because of the expenses scandal.

We felt the seriousness of the situation warranted the strong approach and we wanted every minute of the 59 minutes we had to count. Remember that PDE's core findings have been endorsed by three independent inquiries, including the KC's own, and much-needed change has followed - some of which was in the pipeline already I'm sure, but quite a lot of which was not.

Jemima


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> Assuming the exchange rate $12000-$16000 equates to roughly £1000 upwards???
> For a [Lab x Poodle puppy]? Are people that well-off to afford that? ...I would rather have a new car for that!


currently, $1200-USA = 1,899.16-British pounds; 
$1600-USA = 2,532.21 " "

mid-September 2005 the Brit-pound was worth 1.82 to every USA-dollar; 
that's [1200 x 1.82] to [1600 x 1.82], then.

2005 - 
Are Designer Dog Trends Bad For Dogs? - ABC News

2004 - 
Mixed-Breed 'Doodle' Dogs Are All the Rage - ABC News

i agree - unless i was buying a future foundation sire/dam or a working-titled dog for work or breeding, 
NO WAY i'd lay out that sort of money; especially for a crossbred pup with no tests on either parent, which was 
the rule for over 90% of the Lab x Poodle pups *then*, & it still is today. :thumbdown:

prices have fallen precipitously, but profit-minded breeders can still make a bundle - & Doodles are now found 
in shelters & rescues, too.


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> excuse me - they HAD NO RIDGES; the dogs in question had DERMOID SINUSES - one dog had 3.
> 
> please see this post for the link & all the photos:
> Pet Forums Community - View Single Post - structure, immune-health + cross-breeds: Photos
> ...


Apologies... mis-read. The same gene responsible for the ridge is responsible for dermoid sinus. Although it is more likely that dogs with two copies of the ridge gene will have a dermoid, it is possible for heterozygous dogs to get them too. This is quite a collection, though. Would be interesting to know more about them (ie how many over how many years, drawn from how big a population).

Jemima


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

Thank you for your reply Jemima.



Jemima Harrison said:


> I am not sure I owe you the courtesy of a reply given the extremely discourteous remarks you have made about me on the anti-PDE Facebook site in the past few weeks but,


Which remarks might they have been? I believe that up until today the only thing I have said is that your a sensationalist which I find to be true.
The main issue I have is the damage you have caused which you will no doubt not see by pushing people away from pedigree's and into the rubbing hands of selfish puppy farmers or back yard breeders. You only have to google pedigree dogs exposed to find websites and forums full of people saying they are now staying away from pedigree's. Where are these people going to get their dogs if not to respected show breeders?



Jemima Harrison said:


> as I have explained many times before, Pedigree Dogs Exposed was made the way it was because after three years very extensive research, we felt there was a huge problem.


So instead of showing a program of the bad breeders followed by the good breeders to show the bad breeders what can be done to change their ways you aired a program full of bad breeders and left the audience feeling the issue is ALL breeders of ALL pedigree dogs?



Jemima Harrison said:


> Pedigree Dogs Exposed was made the way it was because I (and many experts) believe the situation is far more serious that was - and is - being acknowledged.


Which experts are these? The RSPCA imo do not count as experts. Most dogs that pass through their doors are either crosses or poorly bred dogs. Surely the RSPCA cant give a true view on pedigree dogs when it 98% of the time deals with those from puppy farmers and back yard breeders.



Jemima Harrison said:


> The film was an impassioned plea for change before it is too late - for those that love and treasure their dogs to step back and look at what they are doing with a broader view and realise that things must change.


Your program offended many within all breeds because well the message your trying to get across is a very good one, the only people who are interested are those who do LOVE the breed(s) and have already completed health tests on their dogs ect however you have offended them by showing only poor breeders and leaving many with pedigree dogs having to defend their dogs in the street (this has happened to me many times...folk telling me my dogs are sick because they are pedigree's and "that" crufts is to blame".


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> This is quite a collection... Would be interesting to know more about them
> (i-e, how many over how many years, drawn from how big a population).


i know all the photos are from one vet-hospital, & i would presume that someone local breeds Rhodies, 
& that some of their puppy-buyers are criminally negligent about S/N, safe confinement, etc; i'd bet that 
more of the cross-bred pups were sired by a Rhodie than were whelped by one.

but those are mere presumptions on my part; & i've no idea how many years their collection spans.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> Pedigree Dogs Exposed was made the way it was because I (and many experts) believe the situation
> is far more serious that was - and is - being acknowledged.





shetlandlover said:


> Which experts are these? The RSPCA [IMO] do not count as experts.


here's just one - 
Amazon.com: Control of Canine Genetic Diseases (Howell reference books) (0021898050045): George A. Padgett: Books

Great Dane Club of America - Breeding for disease control, longevity and temperament.

see the list of books on this page under GENETICS - 
BMD Health Links 2

a single example of a statistical guesstimate: 
Hardy

general summary - 
Dogs That Changed the World - Selective Breeding Problems - Genetics | Nature | PBS

more experts - 
Canine Genetics for Dog breeders


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> here's just one -
> Amazon.com: Control of Canine Genetic Diseases (Howell reference books) (0021898050045): George A. Padgett: Books
> 
> Great Dane Club of America - Breeding for disease control, longevity and temperament.
> ...


Is this the list of experts who helped with pedigree dogs exposed?


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

Shetlandlover, have you read the three key reports that followed PDE? (RSPCA/APGAW/Bateson) If not, please do:

They (and two earlier reports) are listed at the top of this page with download links to the pdfs.

If you only have the energy for one, make it the Bateson inquiry, which was commissioned by the Kennel Club + Dogs Trust, although fully independent. (And it is probably the kindest re showing).

It is important that you know it isn't just me saying there is a problem. There really is an enormous body of evidence spelling it out if you are willing to read and keep an open mind.

Jemima


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

I thought the Bateson report was very good, especially liked his comments regarding inbreeding and linebreeding.


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

Jemima Harrison said:


> Shetlandlover, have you read the three key reports that followed PDE? (RSPCA/APGAW/Bateson) If not, please do:
> 
> They (and two earlier reports) are listed at the top of this page with download links to the pdfs.
> 
> ...


I shall sit down tonight and read the Bateson inquiry. Then come back to the thread.

Thank you.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Thank you for your reply Jemima.
> Which remarks might they have been? I believe that up until today the only thing I have said is that your a sensationalist which I find to be true.
> The main issue I have is the damage you have caused which you will no doubt not see by pushing people away from pedigree's and into the rubbing hands of selfish puppy farmers or back yard breeders. You only have to google pedigree dogs exposed to find websites and forums full of people saying they are now staying away from pedigree's. Where are these people going to get their dogs if not to respected
> 
> Which experts are these? The RSPCA imo do not count as experts. Most dogs that pass through their doors are either crosses or poorly bred dogs. Surely the RSPCA cant give a true view on pedigree dogs when it 98% of the time deals with those from puppy farmers and back yard


Not everything can be blamed on back yard breeders and un-registered pups though. As regards to most Dogs going through the RSPCA being crosses or badly bred dogs comparisons of Registrations and Most Popular breeds cared for in Dogs Trusts homes are quite interesting.

Top 10 KC Registrations for 2010 2010 Top breeds cared for by Dogs Trust
Labrador Labrador
Cocker Spaniel Jack Russell
English Springr Spaniel Staffordshire Bull Terrier
German Shepherd Dog Border Collie
Staffordshire Bull Terrier German Shepherd Dog
Border Terrier Greyhound
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel english Springer Spaniel 
Golden Retriever Yorkshire Terrier
Pug Rottweiler
Boxer Boxer

Its Quite interesting that 5 of the top 10 registrations breeds also appear on the top 10 of breeds cared for by the Dogs Trust for re-homing

Also there was some surprises too in the most unusual breeds cared for that year 2010 by the dogs trust, They Included Shiba Inu, Spinone, Portugese water spaniel,
Poshie (Pomeranianxsheltie) Northern Inuit, Keeshond, Musterlander, Cockerpoo (cockper spanielxpoodle) and a Schipperke.

There were cross breeds and they were as follows;-
Generic crosses
Colliex
Terrierx
Staffordshire Bull Terrier Cross
Jack Russellx
Lurcher
GSDx
Spanielx
Border terrierx
Rottweillerx


----------



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

edited as i see my question as been answered


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Is this the list of experts who helped with pedigree dogs exposed?


i haven't the vaguest idea. :huh: is that a required criterion?

they are, however, experts who in Jemima's phrase 


> _ ...believe the situation [re heritable problems in purebred dogs] is far more serious than was -
> and is - being acknowledged. _


Padgett has begged breeders & breed-clubs to change specific accepted breeding practices for a decade, 
*EX matador breeding* of big-winners, where everybody with a bitch under 10-YO & over 6-MO 
wants to use the same stud - he won Crufts [UK] / Westminster [USA] / FCI World-Show [Intl] this year... etc.


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> i know all the photos are from one vet-hospital, & i would presume that someone local breeds Rhodies,
> & that some of their puppy-buyers are criminally negligent about S/N, safe confinement, etc; i'd bet that
> more of the cross-bred pups were sired by a Rhodie than were whelped by one.
> 
> but those are mere presumptions on my part; & i've no idea how many years their collection spans.


One big question is how do they know that the crosses are an RR mix (or could they have assumed it because of the DS?). It is a bit unexpected for them to have a DS and not be ridged as the inherited form is thought to be linked to the ridge (ergo they should have a ridge, too). That said, it is perfectly possible for non-ridged dogs to get a DS and it has been reported in several breeds - although it is rare. It is not, however, inherited in those cases - just what is known as a stochastic (one-off developmental) defect.

Jemima


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Not everything can be blamed on back yard breeders and un-registered pups though. As regards to most Dogs going through the RSPCA being crosses or badly bred dogs comparisons of Registrations and Most Popular breeds cared for in Dogs Trusts homes are quite interesting.
> 
> Top 10 KC Registrations for 2010 2010 Top breeds cared for by Dogs Trust
> Labrador Labrador
> ...


Not really a surprise to me, look at how many of those are bred, only a minority are bred by good breeders, who also KC register.

Just interested, what criteria do the Dogs Trust actually state for putting dogs into these categories? Are these dogs that are handed in as pedigree breeds with papers? Or are they handed in/found and assumed to be a particular breed?


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Not really a surprise to me, look at how many of those are bred, only a minority are bred by good breeders, who also KC register.
> 
> Just interested, what criteria do the Dogs Trust actually state for putting dogs into these categories? Are these dogs that are handed in as pedigree breeds with papers? Or are they handed in/found and assumed to be a particular breed?


All the above figures apart from the KC top 10 registrations obviously came from the Dogs Trust Annual review listings, Ive supplied the Link 
Dogs Trust - Annual Review


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

You know what?? I know things needed to happen regarding the health and welfare of pedigree dogs, in some breeds more than others, but I cannot say that PDE was anything other than a 'sensationalism' portrayal specifically designed and edited to get the reaction it did. Any attention is better than none huh? Admittedly, the KC did move forward, faster than ever before on making changes. But the fact remains, the majority of the general public tarred all show breeders with the same brush - a very negative one - and I was upset by that. I even had very good friends question my breeding practices and ask why I was in-breeding my dogs - they had taken it as gospel that I was in-breeding dogs to the detriment of their health, when in fact, all but my first breeding, which was a line-breeding, were classed as outcrosses and I also bought in a male from another country to use in my lines too. My friends arent uneducated, they are intelligent - yet they assumed that I was in the wrong and breeding unhealthy animals in the name of beauty and beauty alone because of PDE - fact. I spent much time after PDE, explaining and trying to justify my breeding program, and explain the ins and outs of dog genetics/breeding to friends and colleagues and it all became rather tedious in the end.

I do my own research into genetic diseases and canine health and I KNOW there is much more at play than pure genetics. Many more factors need to be taken into account when looking at diseases which afflict mans best friend - perhaps Ms Jemima Harrison would care to look into this and make anothe documentary to be shown on mainstream TV - the subject could certainly do with some exposure!!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> All the above figures apart from the KC top 10 registrations obviously came from the Dogs Trust Annual review listings, Ive supplied the Link
> Dogs Trust - Annual Review


Ok, I've only had a quick peek (the OH is DESPERATE to chuck me off the laptop to go on geeky photography forums :lol but there appears to be no definitive check that these are *pedigree* breeds, either registered or unregistered, ie they appear to be just labelled a Labrador, if they look like a Labrador. Now knowing someone who has a rescue Labrador cross *something*, I find this a bit perturbing and possibly very misleading (if I'm right with these assumptions); she actually took the time to have her dog dna profiled and found absolutely NO Labrador in there. I think if this is the case, that list is incredibly misleading even though I know Labradors are hugely over bred and badly bred.....


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, I've only had a quick peek (the OH is DESPERATE to chuck me off the laptop to go on geeky photography forums :lol but there appears to be no definitive check that these are *pedigree* breeds, either registered or unregistered, ie they appear to be just labelled a Labrador, if they look like a Labrador. Now knowing someone who has a rescue Labrador cross *something*, I find this a bit perturbing and possibly very misleading (if I'm right with these assumptions); she actually took the time to have her dog dna profiled and found absolutely NO Labrador in there. I think if this is the case, that list is incredibly misleading even though I know Labradors are hugely over bred and badly bred.....


Well looking at the report for just one year 2011, there was a break down of strays,
handed in by an individual, and actually born in the homes. Havent checked all years yet, but the year I did check over half of the total dogs that did come in were handed in by individuals, so assuming that the individuals know what breeds they owned then over 50% of the figures at least must be correct identification. The strays obviously must have been "identified" assuming that some breeds are easily recognisable then i would think you could safely assume that a good portion of them would be identified correctly. Or then again Dogs Trust could have made all the figures up as they went couldnt they.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Not really a surprise to me, look at how many of those are bred, only a minority are bred by good breeders, who also KC register.
> 
> Just interested, what criteria do the Dogs Trust actually state for putting dogs into these categories? Are these dogs that are handed in as pedigree breeds with papers? Or are they handed in/found and assumed to be a particular breed?


Do I take it that you agree then that only a minority of KC registered dogs are bred by good breeders? Or have I misunderstood what you are trying to say by Its mot a surprise to you, look how many of those are bred, only a majority are bred by good breeders, who also KC register.

That being the case why the doubt that dogs trust figures could be incorrect?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Jemima, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on dogues de bordeaux. I know they weren't in your program or have been on your blog but were put on the "at risk" list prior to Crufts 2009.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> I shall sit down tonight and read the Bateson inquiry. Then come back to the thread.
> 
> Thank you.


I have, based on your previous posts, assumed you are a breeder? Sorry if thats not correct but as a member of the uninformed Joe Public I read the Bateston report some time ago after my last dog died tragically early. So I just thought it surprising that you you have not read this already .

I think what everyone needs to think about is that neither Jemima or PDE created the issues, just reported them. If the problems are purely down to bad breeders then why haven't the good breeders and/or KC done something about it before in the years before PDE


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> I have, based on your previous posts, assumed you are a breeder? Sorry if thats not correct but as a member of the uninformed Joe Public I read the Bateston report some time ago after my last dog died tragically early. So I just thought it surprising that you you have not read this already .
> 
> I think what everyone needs to think about is that neither Jemima or PDE created the issues, just reported them. If the problems are purely down to bad breeders then why haven't the good breeders and/or KC done something about it before in the years before PDE


Nope not yet a breeder. Hoping to have my first litter towards the end of this year.

No, I have read many reports along time ago but not this one.
So far its telling me what I already know which is inbreeding is wrong, by inbreeding you risk the offsprings health...already knew that.

Anyone who closely inbreeds is questionable in my opinion. However its not a hidden fact that the stud I have picked for my girl is a distant relative.

What I would be interested to know Jemima is why you are not using your status as a journalist to premote good breeders?

Having a journalist to help plug health tests and ethical breeding to back yard breeders would be a huge asset. However instead its gone the opposite way.

So my major question is;

*Will pedigree dogs exposed 2 give a fair insight into good breeders and bad?*


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> she actually took the time to have her dog dna profiled and found absolutely NO Labrador in there.


I believe that the currently available commercial dna testing has its limits. A few owners of actual Pedigree dogs have sent in their dog's dna to be told they have a mix of various breeds, not including their actual breed.

People have also sent in dna samples to more than one lab, to get back completely different results. Lots of info on the 'net, I did a search of 'dna testing dogs forums' to get to see what people were saying.

I was looking as I was going to pay for a dna test for friends' dog. They've been told the dog is lab x collie, I believe she's more likely staffy x with some greyhound or whippet in there.

I think at the moment these tests are not at all accurate if you want to find out what mix your mixed breed dog is and dna profiling is only useful to test if the parents or siblings of a dog are actually its parents or siblings etc. with dna from all parties involved, or to tell if you do in fact own a dog and not a cat or a hamster, or I'd be booking one for their dog next week.

Who's the Daddy? Jerry Springer Spaniel anyone?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Nope not yet a breeder. Hoping to have my first litter towards the end of this year.
> 
> No, I have read many reports along time ago but not this one.
> So far its telling me what I already know which is inbreeding is wrong, by inbreeding you risk the offsprings health...already knew that.
> ...


Do you think there should be more openness as breeders views of what they deem to be too close/acceptable may not tally with the public? Can I ask how distant a relative and why the need for a relative mating at all? I am not making a judgement at all just interested and if this sort of info was more openly available to enable pet buyers to make thier own informed decisions surely it would be a good thing. I had reserved a pup last year but when I found out the dams father was her grandfather I declined - the breeder thought it was acceptable/justified but I personally did not.

As I have said earlier I don't feel its up to PDE2 to deal with what the good breeders do - its the same in all walks of life on this particular type of programme. They are dealing with one side of the coin - do you believe all builders/nurses/doctors/nursery staff etc etc are rotton to the core because there has been a programme in the past relating to a particular issue


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Jemima, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on dogues de bordeaux. I know they weren't in your program or have been on your blog but were put on the "at risk" list prior to Crufts 2009.


When we were filming, I saw a two-year-old Dogue die at a vets - suspected lymphoma and breed typical. We filmed him, in fact - a story (the salutory tale of what can go wrong when a breed becomes popular for the wrong reasons) that didn't make the final cut.

The 2004 KC survey found that the median age of death to be 3yrs 10 months (although not that many survey returns). A worry. I see the GB Club website has no health info on it all all - not good for a breed on the KC's watchlist. It would be good to know what proactive steps are being taken to tackle issues.

However, at least conformaton wise, the Neapoltian Mastiffs make Dogues look the very picture of unexaggerated health and it seems to me that they look much better than they did in the Turner + Hooch heyday. That's my impression, at least - would you agree?

Jemima


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

People continue to say that they dont feel its the programms job to also bring up the good breeders, I cant think of any reason why not to?
- Its clear how the first programme affected the general public - The point is not leaving people pushing all pedigree breeders into the same boat, it should be about educating them on the bad, therefore they can then make an educated choice themselves when selecting a breeder, or forming an opinion. - when you leave the majority of people believing that these issues within some of the breeds is across the board, you push the buyers into the hands of the not so ethical - who have only jumped on the bandwagon because of the demand they will recieve because of the issues highlighted in the programme.


Maybe I should get aload of ethical breeders from across the breeds, breeding for all different reasons and follow them in their steps of breeding from first buying/breeding their female to health testing, campaigning it (in what ever area) selecting a mate ect' until pups arrive - show folk the hard work put in by them breeding for the right reasons, also as aside note show what sort of breeder not to support, and reason why.

(You know what if I knew where to start, I would aswell).


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Jemima Harrison said:


> The 2004 KC survey found that the *median* age of death to be 3yrs 10 months (although not that many survey returns). A worry. I see the GB Club website has no health info on it all all - not good for a breed on the KC's watchlist. It would be good to know what proactive steps are being taken to tackle issues.
> 
> Jemima


I just want to point out that the median is just the middle value in a list of numbers, not the *mean*. To illustrate:
In the list 1,2,5, the median is 2 but the mean is 4.

Sorry, I just had to mention this. I'm a mathematician. I can't help myself :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> People continue to say that they dont feel its the programms job to also bring up the good breeders, I cant think of any reason why not to?
> - Its clear how the first programme affected the general public - The point is not leaving people pushing all pedigree breeders into the same boat, it should be about educating them on the bad, therefore they can then make an educated choice themselves when selecting a breeder, or forming an opinion. - when you leave the majority of people believing that these issues within some of the breeds is across the board, you push the buyers into the hands of the not so ethical - who have only jumped on the bandwagon because of the demand they will recieve because of the issues highlighted in the programme.
> 
> *Maybe I should get aload of ethical breeders from across the breeds, breeding for all different reasons and follow them in their steps of breeding from first buying/breeding their female to health testing, campaigning it (in what ever area) selecting a mate ect' until pups arrive - show folk the hard work put in by them breeding for the right reasons, also as aside note show what sort of breeder not to support, and reason why.
> ...


I'm surprised considering the amount of uproar PDE caused amongst pedigree breeders that some of the "ethical" breeders didn't actually do this.

Or maybe they did and all will be revealed ..........


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I'm surprised considering the amount of uproar PDE caused amongst pedigree breeders that some of the "ethical" breeders didn't actually do this.
> 
> Or maybe they did and all will be revealed ..........


The difference is though I wouldnt limit it to pedigree dogs  - most know I do not agree with pet breeding (which is for both cross breeds and pedigrees) - but leaving that area out of the programme would do more damage than good, right?
- and as I have said I accept there is a demand for soley pet bred dogs, pedigree and crosses - so would also feature them. I would rather highlight the good in that area, hoping then that less dodgy breeders are supported, leaving even more dogs suffering.

- I hope someone has done so, and all will be revealed - wait they stole my idea


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> People continue to say that they dont feel its the programms job to also bring up the good breeders, I cant think of any reason why not to?
> - Its clear how the first programme affected the general public - The point is not leaving people pushing all pedigree breeders into the same boat, it should be about educating them on the bad, therefore they can then make an educated choice themselves when selecting a breeder, or forming an opinion. - when you leave the majority of people believing that these issues within some of the breeds is across the board, you push the buyers into the hands of the not so ethical - who have only jumped on the bandwagon because of the demand they will recieve because of the issues highlighted in the programme.
> 
> Maybe I should get aload of ethical breeders from across the breeds, breeding for all different reasons and follow them in their steps of breeding from first buying/breeding their female to health testing, campaigning it (in what ever area) selecting a mate ect' until pups arrive - show folk the hard work put in by them breeding for the right reasons, also as aside note show what sort of breeder not to support, and reason why.
> ...


Why though? From memory it was Panorama wasn't it - well they have done programmes on hospital food/nursing homes/financial advisors/builders endless things & they don't have a rider saying by the way sorry no offence meant for all you jolly nice people out there so here is another hour long programme showing how the ethical ones amongst you work.

For goodness sake it was one programme, what 2 or 3 years ago. If you really do feel it has caused such damage to all the good breeders & still does after all this time, then you must have had a pretty poor reputation to start with. Get over it, deal with it - free information will convince the public more than complaining on forums


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> The difference is though I wouldnt limit it to pedigree dogs  - most know I do not agree with pet breeding (which is for both cross breeds and pedigrees) - but leaving that area out of the programme would do more damage than good, right?
> - and as I have said I accept there is a demand for soley pet bred dogs, pedigree and crosses - so would also feature them. I would rather highlight the good in that area, hoping then that less dodgy breeders are supported, leaving even more dogs suffering.
> 
> - I hope someone has done so, and all will ve revealed - they stole my idea


Actual doing a show that encompasses all types of dogs i.e pedigrees/crosses/bred for show/working and bred for pets would fare much better than just one group and more people would watch.

Would be a good time to educate people on how to chose the right breeder and highlight the dangers of letting your pet mate with anything to produce puppies to sell.

I'm surprised that with all their advertising they do on TV now and money stashed that the DT and RSPCA don't invest in making short educational programmes on 'how to chose a breeder' and 'the dangers of dog breeding'. This hopefully would have some impact on the public? and help reduce some unwanted litters and another smack in the face to puppyfarmers.

or is that wishful thinking


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Actual doing a show that encompasses all types of dogs i.e pedigrees/crosses/bred for show/working and bred for pets would fare much better than just one group and more people would watch.
> 
> Would be a good time to educate people on how to chose the right breeder and highlight the dangers of letting your pet mate with anything to produce puppies to sell.
> 
> ...


OR, we could get a bunch of us together and literally do this


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

bearcub said:


> OR, we could get a bunch of us together and literally do this


The petforum Show 

Trouble is I can see fistycuffs over who would be presenter


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> For goodness sake it was one programme, what 2 or 3 years ago. If you really do feel it has caused such damage to all the good breeders & still does after all this time, then you must have had a pretty poor reputation to start with. Get over it, deal with it - free information will convince the public more than complaining on forums


  Typical..

The programme HAS done damage, with mum working with rescues I see the damage, I have seen the breeders leave the breed..and god knows what else.
- It hasnt wrecked our reputation, I never mentioned us?  - But since the programme, our reputation has grown..Mum being a breeder that fully tests, although not required to do so - its commented on often! 

and I will not get over it, its my opinion to which I am entitled to. - I am not talking about other programmes I am talking about this one alone, so dont care to read you comparing to others - I stand by the fact that I believe the programme, would have served the dog world a whole lot better if it has not stuck to just pedigree dogs and had given information on bad breeding practices as a whole,instead of in one area - show breeders only make up a number of the breeders breeding pedigree dogs, and only a number of over all breeders.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> People continue to say that they dont feel its the programms job to also bring up the good breeders, I cant think of any reason why not to?
> - Its clear how the first programme affected the general public - The point is not leaving people pushing all pedigree breeders into the same boat, it should be about educating them on the bad, therefore they can then make an educated choice themselves when selecting a breeder, or forming an opinion. - when you leave the majority of people believing that these issues within some of the breeds is across the board, you push the buyers into the hands of the not so ethical - who have only jumped on the bandwagon because of the demand they will recieve because of the issues highlighted in the programme.
> 
> Maybe I should get aload of ethical breeders from across the breeds, breeding for all different reasons and follow them in their steps of breeding from first buying/breeding their female to health testing, campaigning it (in what ever area) selecting a mate ect' until pups arrive - show folk the hard work put in by them breeding for the right reasons, also as aside note show what sort of breeder not to support, and reason why.
> ...


I agree Bad breeding needs to be highlighted, but so does the good and how to find a good breeder and what to look for. The number or pet owners I talk too,who just thinks a breeder is someone who has puppies to sell basically. Ive had blank looks if you ask about a pedigree,registration of an affix or kennel names. If you ask who bred the pup, usually its a christian name in milton keynes or where ever.
I honestly think in a lot of cases its not a matter of being pushed into the hands of BYBs or PFs a lot of puppy buyers I think still dont have a clue, and I dont mean that in a disrespectable way either. How many Newbies have we had on here, at their wits end, who have sick puppies, under age puppies, havent got paperwork they were promised, and if they have got paperwork is it right. How many haive queries on feeding, No puppy packs,diets sheets etc etc.

I can see why the good breeders are upset, who do put their heart and soul into their dogs and do all the right things, like quite a few good breeders who are on here. Wouldnt it be better though to speak up about it and discuss it with the lady in question while you have the opportunity, and discuss ways you all might be able to make things better and raise awareness.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I'm surprised that with all their advertising they do on TV now and money stashed that the DT and RSPCA don't invest in making short educational programmes on 'how to chose a breeder' and 'the dangers of dog breeding'. This hopefully would have some impact on the public? and help reduce some unwanted litters and another smack in the face to puppyfarmers.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Surely that is something the KC should do?


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Eek, correction earlier. The mean of 1,2 and 5 is 2.6666. Sorry, I blame the wine


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

terencesmum said:


> I just want to point out that the median is just the middle value in a list of numbers, not the *mean*. To illustrate:
> In the list 1,2,5, the median is 2 but the mean is 4.
> 
> Sorry, I just had to mention this. I'm a mathematician. I can't help myself :smilewinkgrin:


However, also as mathematician, you'll know that there are some advantages to using the median rather than the mean in a small sample size with outliers. The oldest Dogue in this survey was 16, and was I suspect an outlier who would have artificially raised the mean.

Jemima


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> Cockerpoo lover said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised that with all their advertising they do on TV now and money stashed that the DT and RSPCA don't invest in making short educational programmes on 'how to chose a breeder' and 'the dangers of dog breeding'. This hopefully would have some impact on the public? and help reduce some unwanted litters and another smack in the face to puppyfarmers.
> ...


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Typical..
> 
> The programme HAS done damage, with mum working with rescues I see the damage, I have seen the breeders leave the breed..and god knows what else.
> - It hasnt wrecked our reputation, I never mentioned us?  - But since the programme, our reputation has grown..Mum being a breeder that fully tests, although not required to do so - its commented on often!
> ...


"You" was meant in a generic way, not you/your mum personally.

As a matter of interest though why have breeders left your breed? If they were doing things correctly then surely the programme did not apply to them.

I don't know why it focused on show breeders, nows your chance to ask! But I suspect show breeders supposedly should know more about their breeds and therefore should be breeding better/healthier dogs?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Cockerpoo lover said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised that with all their advertising they do on TV now and money stashed that the DT and RSPCA don't invest in making short educational programmes on 'how to chose a breeder' and 'the dangers of dog breeding'. This hopefully would have some impact on the public? and help reduce some unwanted litters and another smack in the face to puppyfarmers.
> ...


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> "You" was meant in a generic way, not you/your mum personally.
> 
> As a matter of interest though why have breeders left your breed? If they were doing things correctly then surely the programme did not apply to them.
> 
> I don't know why it focused on show breeders, nows your chance to ask! But I suspect show breeders supposedly should know more about their breeds and therefore should be breeding better/healthier dogs?


People have left/stop breeding for various reasons.. most of it came about when our breed made number 15 on the high profiled list, showing and breeding is a hobby - take up (mainly) by them most passionate about a breed, and maintaining it, and the back lash and hassle has become to much for some people to want to continue, so have decided to keep their pets and end it there. - cant blame them!

ANY breeder should know their breed, I havent a clue why show breeders should know the breed more - I believe all breeders should have an understanding on their breed, choosen lines, health, tempermant - basic breeding itself, raising puppes (the list is endless).

It focused on show breeders (from what I can make out) because people believe that breeding show dogs is simply about looks, with little thought to other areas of the dogs (like health and tempermant).


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Typical..
> 
> The programme HAS done damage, with mum working with rescues I see the damage, I have seen the breeders leave the breed..and god knows what else.
> - It hasnt wrecked our reputation, I never mentioned us?  - But since the programme, our reputation has grown..Mum being a breeder that fully tests, although not required to do so - its commented on often!
> ...


And yet I have no doubt that you would not have murmured a word of compalint if PDE had only featured puppy farms, despite the fact that that, too, would only have been looking at part of the story.

We had one hour of primtime TV. The scandal was, for us, that the very people who were proclaiming to love their dogs the most; the ones claiming to being doing right by their dogs very often were not - sometimes unwittingly, of course, but not always.

What is your breed, btw, Devil Dogz? If, as I presume, the Dobermann, I would imagine that the jaw-dropping rate of cardiomyopathy is one reason why breeders may be abandoning the breed (I spoke to one US breeder a few weeks ago who had lots 10 Dobes - one after the other - to the disease). That must sap the spirit of any good breeder.

Jemima


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> And yet I have no doubt that you would not have murmured a word of compalint if PDE had only featured puppy farms, despite the fact that that, too, would only have been looking at part of the story.
> 
> We had one hour of primtime TV. The scandal was, for us, that the very people who were proclaiming to love their dogs the most; the ones claiming to being doing right by their dogs very often were not - sometimes unwittingly, of course, but not always.
> 
> ...


Oh dear Jemima thats a very poor comparison, due to the fact that there is no such thing as a good PF, yet there is such a thing as a good pedigree breeders. - so you are right I would not be complaining, I would have applauded.

My breed is the Chinese Crested.


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

Ah, not the Dobermann - wrote that before I saw you mention your breed becoming the 15th breed on the KC watchlist. 

The Chinese Crested?

Jemima


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Yes the Chinese Crested.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Yes the Chinse Crested.


Why is it on the list & why do you not feel its justified? Was the high profile list something from PDE or did the KC produce it?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Why is it on the list & why do you not feel its justified? Was the high profile list something from PDE or did the KC produce it?


Because they will be checking for skin damage, and signs of shaving rash (clipper burns) - 
The KC produced it - and where have I said I didnt feel it to be justified 

no dog should have shaving rash (clipper burns) let that be a Chinese Crested, Poodles, Low Chen or other partly clipped breeds!


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Oh dear Jemima thats a very poor comparison, due to the fact that there is no such thing as a good PF, yet there is such a thing as a good pedigree breeders. - so you are right I would not be complaining, I would have applauded.
> 
> My breed is the Chinese Crested.


Puppy farms are a huge problem - but it has always been my belief that at least part of the answer lies in getting it right at "the top" - make properly-bred pedigree dogs such paragons of health and temperament and function and beauty that it would be stupid to choose anything less.

That patently was NOT happening (and still isn't).

You can certainly blame me - but not PDE - for your breed being on the KC watchlist as I highlighted the dishonesty in the ring regarding the shaving/depilaton of hairy hairless (and in some cases powderpuffs) in pursuit of ribbons. And I badgered the KC about it, who I'm pleased have acknowledged there is an issue. I don't think it is the greatest animal welfare scandal of our time (and these are conformationally sound and athletic little dogs) but I find it disturbing that breeders are shaving/using Veet/Nair etc on often almost full-coated dogs in order to make them appropriately hairless (while hairy in the "right placeS") for the ring.

Jemima


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Because they will be checking for skin damage, and signs of shaving rash (clipper burns) -
> The KC produced it - and where have I said I didnt feel it to be justified
> 
> no dog should have shaving rash (clipper burns) let that be a Chinese Crested, Poodles, Low Chen or other partly clipped breeds!


Oh, weird - shaving rash whilst unpleasant and presumably unnecessary how would this make a breed at risk/high profile - I assumed high profile meant due to known illnesses/health issues.

So if its a KC produced list then thats nothing to do with PDE is it?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Jemima I didn't see the PDE programme though having read posts on here on the subject get the picture!

Will you be doing a follow-up? or looking into other areas of dog breeding etc....?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> Puppy farms are a huge problem - but it has always been my belief that at least part of the answer lies in getting it right at "the top" - make properly-bred pedigree dogs such paragons of health and temperament and function and beauty that it would be stupid to choose anything less.
> 
> That patently was NOT happening (and still isn't).
> 
> ...


Jemima people are uneducated, so it doesnt matter how decent the top breeders are the uneducated folk will always make mistakes, or want something quicker ect!

I didnt blame PDE for the breeds being added to the watch list, I merely pointed out that the breed being added had caused some decent folk to leave the breed.

& as for fully coated dogs being clipped down to look like hairless, the blame there lies with the judges putting these dogs up - AS anyone can tell a hairless apart froma puff, simply through dentition. - Something I would be agasint if I knew it was happening, as its not true to the breed.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Oh, weird - shaving rash whilst unpleasant and presumably unnecessary how would this make a breed at risk/high profile - I assumed high profile meant due to known illnesses/health issues.
> 
> So if its a KC produced list then thats nothing to do with PDE is it?


I havent said it was to do with PDE - I said breeders left the breed after the programme, but more to do with the breed being added to the watch list! 

Its a welfare issues


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Oh, weird - shaving rash whilst unpleasant and presumably unnecessary how would this make a breed at risk/high profile - I assumed high profile meant due to known illnesses/health issues.
> 
> So if its a KC produced list then thats nothing to do with PDE is it?


Ah understand now reading Jemimas post - I honestly did not realise they were shaved to look like that I thought they were naturally hairless. So I do find that rather unpleasant - to clip a dog for health reasons is one thing but shave it etc to conform to a look is well, I don't know


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Ah understand now reading Jemimas post - I honestly did not realise they were shaved to look like that I thought they were naturally hairless. So I do find that rather unpleasant - to clip a dog for health reasons is one thing but shave it etc to conform to a look is well, I don't know


THEY are born hairless!  - They come in two types!! - what Jemima is saying is that the puffs the hairy vairty have been known to have been clipped to look hairless, as this is some eyes leaves a prettier dog, with more funishings!

- and as for clipping dogs is done all the time for looks, pet doodles, poodles for the ring, lowchens - again the list is endless.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Jemima I didn't see the PDE programme though having read posts on here on the subject get the picture!
> 
> Will you be doing a follow-up? or looking into other areas of dog breeding etc....?


Im glad someone has finally asked you a question, Its something I wondered too.
Going by people who have purchased pedigree pups both on here and just speaking to people, its sadly obvious a lot of the puppy buyers dont know where to start. Is it possible that you will be giving an example of a good breeder and how to go about purchasing a puppy and what to look for healthwise on the next programme.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

The programme is available on youtube Cockerpoo lover. Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

PDE2 is in the pipeline.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Jemima Harrison said:


> Puppy farms are a huge problem - but it has always been my belief that at least part of the answer lies in getting it right at "the top" - make properly-bred pedigree dogs such paragons of health and temperament and function and beauty that it would be stupid to choose anything less.
> 
> That patently was NOT happening (and still isn't).
> 
> ...


Just wanted to question this. I feel the majority of puppy buyers are simply not going to 'the top' in the first place.

The average Joe puppy buyer will not have spent hours researching where to buy their chosen breed. They will choose the easiest place, the place where puppies are the cheapest, and the place where the puppies are available to take away, there and then.

This is why puppy farms, back yard breeders and pet shops (like the one near me that 'stocks' around 25 different breeds) will continue to be the first port of call to the majority of puppy buyers.

If PDE can have such a far reaching effect on those buying from 'the top' then wouldn't it be ethical to have the same programme highlighting the other side of the coin?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> THEY are born hairless!  - They come in two types!! - what Jemima is saying is that the puffs the hairy vairty have been known to have been clipped to look hairless, as this is some eyes leaves a prettier dog, with more funishings!
> 
> - and as for clipping dogs is done all the time for looks, pet doodles, poodles for the ring, lowchens - again the list is endless.


Do you think its acceptable to shave them then?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Do you think its acceptable to shave them then?


what the breeds I mentioned that are clipped of, the puffs shaved down as hairless? or the tuffs of hair that may, be clipped off a hairless for the ring?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> what the breeds I mentioned that are clipped of, the puffs shaved down as hairless? or the tuffs of hair that may, be clipped off a hairless for the ring?


Shaving so they look like a hairless if they are not


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Shaving so they look like a hairless if they are not


I find it disgusting, it is not on - it is cheating! - no one who truely cared about the breed, would show something as something it is not!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I find it disgusting, it is not on - it is cheating!


And presumably not comfortable for the dog. So then you surely agree Jemima was right to raise that issue? And why did she need to, why haven't the breed club/KC dealt with it before


----------



## HGV (Sep 13, 2011)

Elles said:


> The programme is available on youtube Cockerpoo lover. Pedigree Dogs Exposed.
> 
> PDE2 is in the pipeline.


The full programme that was seen on BBC2 August 2008. I very much doubt it .There's a few minutes missing.A few very nasty minutes that offended so much that it ended up edited .Anyone who taped the first showing please do share ....so people really can see the full version....


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Doodlesrule, I havent said that it shouldnt have been raised.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Doodlesrule, I havent said that it shouldnt have been raised.


Not said you did, just trying to point out that from you postings you give the impression that you feel the whole PDE programme and anything to do with Jemima is 100% wrong. Obviously thats not the case. Still wonder why breed club/KC had not already dealt with the issue


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Jemima people are uneducated, so it doesnt matter how decent the top breeders are the uneducated folk will always make mistakes, or want something quicker ect!
> 
> I didnt blame PDE for the breeds being added to the watch list, I merely pointed out that the breed being added had caused some decent folk to leave the breed.
> 
> & as for fully coated dogs being clipped down to look like hairless, the blame there lies with the judges putting these dogs up - AS anyone can tell a hairless apart froma puff, simply through dentition. - Something I would be agasint if I knew it was happening, as its not true to the breed.





Devil-Dogz said:


> I havent said it was to do with PDE - I said breeders left the breed after the programme, but more to do with the breed being added to the watch list!
> 
> Its a welfare issues


I understand like yourself if you truly love a breed and are in it for the right reasons
you would be upset by the pratice that some are carrying out with the shaving, and its something you wouldnt do yourself. but if the only reason they have been put on the watch list is this,then why would that make someone leave the breed?

I can understand if it was health problems, or inspite of a breeders best efforts a health problem was inescapable, so they wouldnt breed anymore. But I find for someone who has achieved a lot and contributed a lot to the breed especially health and welfare wise, why would it make someone give up, unless they had of course decided not to breed anymore and be content to just have the breed as pets/companions.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> A few very nasty minutes that offended so much that it ended up edited


What were the nasty minutes about?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

You clearly havent read my posts then, because I know for a fact I have said several times, that things needed highlighting, that there are issues with some breeds and the like even one post alone on this thread meantioned fellow breeders, and breed clubs and how I felt let down them!
- I havent blamed PDE or Jemima hundred percent for anything, I have said that it did cause problems, and that I feel it was gone about in the wrong way (in my opinion!) - Thats all I can do is hold an opinion, and I will however always stand by the fact that I believe it could have done more good if approached from a different angle.

But I cant help that feel I am repeating myself here, over and over


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> I understand like yourself if you truly love a breed and are in it for the right reasons
> you would be upset by the pratice that some are carrying out with the shaving, and its something you wouldnt do yourself. but if the only reason they have been put on the watch list is this,then why would that make someone leave the breed?
> 
> I can understand if it was health problems, or inspite of a breeders best efforts a health problem was inescapable, so they wouldnt breed anymore. But I find for someone who has achieved a lot and contributed a lot to the breed especially health and welfare wise, why would it make someone give up, unless they had of course decided not to breed anymore and be content to just have the breed as pets/companions.


It was more to do with that people are paying to show, and then will have their dogs tested before taking top spots - some (even them doing nothing wrong!) feel its a cheek I spose? But I cant really speak for them  - just know that there are a number of people 'scared' off, or just cant be bothered with he hassle - even them new to the breed are abit like woo is it worth it, and some havent stuck around the showing side of things.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Elles said:


> What were the nasty minutes about?


Thats what I want to know I did see the original, maybe HGV would enlighten us, to jog the memorys of those who did see it, and if its not on You-Tube or that bit in question, then its going to be hard to have a discussion on something we haven't a clue about.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Right all best be off to bed - cant let you lot win, I know your game.....(try and up my number of posts)  

take care..not going to be around all weekend (still got tomorrow actually :lol, so dont be letting this thread move on to much - ohh and wish me luck, am judging for the first time on sunday


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Good luck!


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Right all best be off to bed - cant let you lot win, I know your game.....(try and up my number of posts)
> 
> take care..not going to be around all weekend (still got tomorrow actually :lol, so dont be letting this thread move on to much - ohh and wish me luck, am judging for the first time on sunday


Good Luck xxx


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> It was more to do with that people are paying to show, and then will have their dogs tested before taking top spots - some (even them doing nothing wrong!) But I cant really speak for them  - just know that there are a number of people 'scared' off, or just cant be bothered with he hassle - even them new to the breed are abit like woo is it worth it, and some havent stuck around the showing side of things.


Well it is a shame if you are losing good breeders and good examples of the breed,
but I cant see why it would scare someone off tbh, or maybe its just me, if I knew i was in the right, then I would be all the more determined to stand up. maybe its just me though, just a rebel thing that would kick in Seriously though it is a shame I do agree, If it singles out the ones who are cheating then fair enough I suppose but a shame if its stopping the honest too, could mean the breeds sadly losing out. Like you also correctly said too a lot is the fault of the Judges too agree with you there.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Well it is a shame if you are losing good breeders and good examples of the breed,
> but I cant see why it would scare someone off tbh, or maybe its just me, if I knew i was in the right, then I would be all the more determined to stand up. maybe its just me though, just a rebel thing that would kick in Seriously though it is a shame I do agree, If it singles out the ones who are cheating then fair enough I suppose but a shame if its stopping the honest too, could mean the breeds sadly losing out. Like you also correctly said too a lot is the fault of the Judges too agree with you there.


alot of the breeders are sick of the politics associated with breeding/showing - they tell me after a few more years I will give up to..Pfft dont know DD to well, she dont give up - shes the next generation for the breed


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Right all best be off to bed - cant let you lot win, I know your game.....(try and up my number of posts)
> 
> take care..not going to be around all weekend (still got tomorrow actually :lol, so dont be letting this thread move on to much - ohh and wish me luck, am judging for the first time on sunday


Good luck with the Judging, Night!!!!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> maybe HGV would enlighten us


He hasn't, but I'm guessing he means the Eugenics part. This part was the part of the programme chosen to be edited for some of the International market, due to time constraints, where the programme slot wasn't long enough to show the whole thing.

If it is that part, it is on the youtube version I saw.

If something else is meant, then I'd still like to know what?


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Elles said:


> He hasn't, but I'm guessing he means the Eugenics part. This part was the part of the programme chosen to be edited for some of the International market, due to time constraints, where the programme slot wasn't long enough to show the whole thing.
> 
> If it is that part, it is on the youtube version I saw.
> 
> If something else is meant, then I'd still like to know what?


well we have either bored everyone to tears, upset them all, killed the thread,
or they have just gone off to bed Which is where Im going too!! Nigh Night


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

This is a great thread in many ways. I have found it very interesting to see al the different points of view.

May I ask a question? I'm NOT trying to be provocative I'm just very interested...

Where there are problems like hip dysplasia it is obvious that a lot of very responsible people are working to eliminate it and they look like they will succeed. What happens when the very breed standard asks for a dog probem? I'm thinking flat-faces or other similar things (can't spell the correct term).

Are people working towards altering bulldog specifications, for example? I love bulldogs and I'm NOT getting at their breeders or ANY breeders, I just used them as an example. The basic design of such a dog, it's very characteristic appearence is so familiar and lovable. Will people alter it? Would it be responsible to do that?

What do people think?

IGNORE ME if I'm out of place or causing hurt in any way. It's not my intention to offend, it's just something that worries me. I certainly don't have answers and I know I'm too ignorant to ever tell anyone what to do.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

you know .....people want things to be black and white but it rarely is in breeding ....PDE had three main areas of focus - one was the degree of inbreeding - one was breeding for extremes and the last was health problems endemic in certain breeds - all on the surface very laudable areas to look at BUT .....these things are interconnected and in trying to solve one 'problem you often simply make the others worse

for example ....my breed is prone to late onset epilepsy - thanks to dedicated breeders we now have a comprehensive database highlighting lines that could cause this problem so breeders try and avoid these - along with dogs with high hip scores, failed eye tests, poor temperaments or poor construction ( mine is a working breeds and good construction is vital ) ... this means that we have less dogs to choose from in our breeding programmes ..and this in turn leads to *more* inbreeding not less ... because we are discarding some lines the physical appearance of the breed also gradually changes . For example Europe has done most to produce epilepsy free lines ( often using line breeding techniques to produce them ) so breeders in the UK have predominantly used European dogs - these have longer heads and less stop than our old BSD used to have ..the physical appearnce of the breed has changed becasue of the reduced gene pool we now use.

Every new health test introduced has the potential of narrowing our gene pools even further . ....out crossing to another breed is often cited as being the answer but outcrossing for gentic diversity means that you would need to cross breed every 3/4 generations ....do this and you would have no recognisable breeds left !

It's easy to make pronouncements that on the surface should be easy to follow but the reality is seldom so simple

Perhaps Jemima could tell us how to maintain a breed with a small gene pool across several generations whilst at the same time ONLY using 'healthy' dogs ...what comes first - health or genetic diversity ? because you cannot have both !.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Jemima Harrison said:


> However, also as mathematician, you'll know that there are some advantages to using the median rather than the mean in a small sample size with outliers. The oldest Dogue in this survey was 16, and was I suspect an outlier who would have artificially raised the mean.
> 
> Jemima


Surely, also, as a reputable journalist, you should know to make sweeping generalisations and statements about how long breeds live, you should look at a large sample to make sure your error margins don't affect whatever you are looking at.

In fact, I would argue, it is extremely unusual in "real" scientific circles to make any statements based on the median! hmy:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> I believe that the currently available commercial dna testing has its limits. A few owners of actual Pedigree dogs have sent in their dog's dna to be told they have a mix of various breeds, not including their actual breed.
> 
> People have also sent in dna samples to more than one lab, to get back completely different results. Lots of info on the 'net, I did a search of 'dna testing dogs forums' to get to see what people were saying.
> 
> ...


My point is, a dog can look like a *breed* and it isn't necessarily that breed. The Lab cross breed in question, came labelled as such from a rescue because it looked *mostly* like a Labrador. The dna test didn't show any Labrador in there, mainly collie with a couple of terriers and a bit of a grey area. Perhaps that grey area did have a bit of Lab in there, but the test showed that the dog was not at all predominantly Labrador as thought. Now you can say these tests aren't conclusive or reliable, but no-one has a clue what is actually in that dog, so are you saying that a visual assessment is 100% in preference of a not reliable dna test? I personally don't think either is 100% reliable, and unless the Dogs Trust report is including figures that can be proven 100% reliable as breeds, I maintain it is still very misleading.



Cockerpoo lover said:


> Actual doing a show that encompasses all types of dogs i.e pedigrees/crosses/bred for show/working and bred for pets would fare much better than just one group and more people would watch.
> 
> Would be a good time to educate people on how to chose the right breeder and highlight the dangers of letting your pet mate with anything to produce puppies to sell.
> 
> ...


You have a much higher opinion of the DT and RSPCA than I do 



Sled dog hotel said:


> I agree Bad breeding needs to be highlighted, but so does the good and how to find a good breeder and what to look for. The number or pet owners I talk too,who just thinks a breeder is someone who has puppies to sell basically. Ive had blank looks if you ask about a pedigree,registration of an affix or kennel names. If you ask who bred the pup, usually its a christian name in milton keynes or where ever.
> I honestly think in a lot of cases its not a matter of being pushed into the hands of BYBs or PFs a lot of puppy buyers I think still dont have a clue, and I dont mean that in a disrespectable way either. How many Newbies have we had on here, at their wits end, who have sick puppies, under age puppies, havent got paperwork they were promised, and if they have got paperwork is it right. How many haive queries on feeding, No puppy packs,diets sheets etc etc.
> 
> I can see why the good breeders are upset, who do put their heart and soul into their dogs and do all the right things, like quite a few good breeders who are on here. Wouldnt it be better though to speak up about it and discuss it with the lady in question while you have the opportunity, and discuss ways you all might be able to make things better and raise awareness.


I speak up about my breed all of the time, I actively help people to find pups from reputeable breeders, who care about the three main aspects of the breed, temperament, health and conformation (ability when they're looking for a working dog). I spend time going through pedigrees, picking the brains of others who maintain extensive databases, and pestering people to find out about possible litters. I'm currently looking for an FCR for someone up in the North East, I've got four people on the case who are very knowledgeable about FCR's. As for bringing the matter up with Ms Harrison, it has been done inummerable times by more well educated folk than me, and it is quite wasted, one reason why I'm not bothering to read her posts any more; I've heard it all before, and it's there on her blog for anyone to see if they care to read it. I'd rather read the Daily Mail tbh.



bearcub said:


> Just wanted to question this. I feel the majority of puppy buyers are simply not going to 'the top' in the first place.
> 
> The average Joe puppy buyer will not have spent hours researching where to buy their chosen breed. They will choose the easiest place, the place where puppies are the cheapest, and the place where the puppies are available to take away, there and then.
> 
> ...


Because it won't sell, we can't make Joe Public feel guilty for buying from puppy farmers, much better to vindicate those who are supposedly reputeable, oh, I forgot, some of them ACTUALLY are reputeable, but that won't sell either, so if we tar them all with the same brush, ah yes, that DOES sell! 



Devil-Dogz said:


> Right all best be off to bed - cant let you lot win, I know your game.....(try and up my number of posts)
> 
> take care..not going to be around all weekend (still got tomorrow actually :lol, so dont be letting this thread move on to much - ohh and wish me luck, am judging for the first time on sunday


Good luck, and don't shave anything :lol:



ozrex said:


> This is a great thread in many ways. I have found it very interesting to see al the different points of view.
> 
> May I ask a question? I'm NOT trying to be provocative I'm just very interested...
> 
> ...


This is the problem with information about our dogs, we know that some breeds suffer from hip dysplasia, Labs are one of them (flat coat retrievers are another  ), pretty obvious really as they will have been bred from similar lines back when breed types for these breeds were developed. Is there a problem within Labs as a whole? Yes, but it's actually quite small, ok it's a HUGE problem if it's your dog that's affected, but out of the many thousands bred each year, it's not a huge proportion of them that have high hip scores, or show clinically affected signs of hip dysplasia. Also, you have to understand that it is impossible to reduce the hip score to 0:0 for all dogs 100% of the time. It's more likely that a mating between two 0:0 scored dogs, will throw pups with a higher hip score. Is that a failure? No, it's not, as long as the score is acceptable.

I do know a lady with a Labrador who is from the third generation of 0:0 hip scored parents, but that's incredibly unusual, and not something I personally would look to replicate above other considerations for the breed. I also know of people with elbow graded dogs of 2 for both sides, showing no clinical signs of being affected by any elbow problems. Similarly, I know of dogs that do show clinical signs of being affected and yet have low hip scores or elbow grades, it isn't cut and dry I'm afraid with these schemes.

As far as bulldogs go, they are not my breed, but I do think this is one of the breeds where the meaning of the breed standard has been lost over time, and the interpetation has led to greater exaggerations. I'd like to see more research go into how they can reverse the trend for these breeds, they have a great heritage and it would be a shame to loose them.



Bijou said:


> you know .....people want things to be black and white but it rarely is in breeding ....PDE had three main areas of focus - one was the degree of inbreeding - one was breeding for extremes and the last was health problems endemic in certain breeds - all on the surface very laudable areas to look at BUT .....these things are interconnected and in trying to solve one 'problem you often simply make the others worse
> 
> for example ....my breed is prone to late onset epilepsy - thanks to dedicated breeders we now have a comprehensive database highlighting lines that could cause this problem so breeders try and avoid these - along with dogs with high hip scores, failed eye tests, poor temperaments or poor construction ( mine is a working breeds and good construction is vital ) ... this means that we have less dogs to choose from in our breeding programmes ..and this in turn leads to *more* inbreeding not less ... because we are discarding some lines the physical appearance of the breed also gradually changes . For example Europe has done most to produce epilepsy free lines ( often using line breeding techniques to produce them ) so breeders in the UK have predominantly used European dogs - these have longer heads and less stop than our old BSD used to have ..the physical appearnce of the breed has changed becasue of the reduced gene pool we now use.
> 
> ...


Spot on, as usual


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

AlisonLyn said:


> On reading back as I explained, it is around 5 members on here out of 1000s that keep chundering about how appaling it is to have crossbreeds because all the breeders are bybs or pfs and it isn't - im only going on what has been put before and so ive been trying to explain that breeders of all types of dogs pedigree and mongrels and crossbreeds have good and bad breeders. Bybs and pfs are not exclusive to crossbreeds and the same people ahve been very rude about some other members dogs, not mine obviously but surely it doesn't have anything to do with anyone else what sort of dog people have or where they got them unless something constructive is going to be done to close down pfs and bybs and more regulations are made to control the whole breeding practices? I doubt anyone dare as=dmit that through not doing their research they now realise that they got their dogs from a puppyfarm because of the abuse they have received just by admitting they have certain crossbreeds. I just think it is sad that assuming we are all mature adults (which some don't seem to be) we are wary what we put in fear of retribution.


*Al*ison*Ly*n for a 'newbie' you seemed to have formed a very strong opinion on these 5 or so members rather quickly ....and very incorrect opinion it is too, no one i can ever remember has said they are 'appalled' at people having crossbreeds infact i bet most of those '5' members you accuse have had crosses at somepoint!

& no one has ever said that bybs and pfs are exclusive to crossbreeders! infact quite the opposite! there are far more bad pedigree breeders than good ones! but at least its relatively easy to find a good one.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

From an ad on freecycle:

_Female choc lab aged 4 has dog lovers certificate free to gud home was originally bought to breed but she is no good at this, beautiful friendly dog to kids and gud with other dogs, gud on lead, dus come back to u when let off lead, is micro-chipped but cud have this transferred to you. She recently gave birth so is still losing blood, should clear up soon. Pup was born dead, she doesnt have means to be anymore than a pet, if she had pups in future wud need a c-section_

Why do I get cross about PDE? Because it targets a minority of poor breeding practices, and blows the whole thing out of proportion to make money. This sort of breeding practise with this poor Lab bitch goes on all the time, rescues are overwhelmed with these poor dogs, and no-one thinks to take up their cause because it doesn't have the sensationalist impact required to sell 

And yes, just in case anyone's wondering, rescue are involved and waiting a response from the owner, I hope they can do something for this poor bitch, she deserves better.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Poor girl ...



> Why do I get cross about PDE? Because it targets a minority of poor breeding practices,


,,,and completely ignored not only puppy farmers and BYB's but also the working world who are JUST as likely to use narrow gene pools and make changes that are detrimental to breeds - hence the rise of the 'Maligator' in my own breed -Malinois bred specifically for Shutzhund and other bite work 'sports' whose breeders have changed the BSD temperament from that of a typical pastoral breed to something that is akin to an unexploded bomb ! - in my opinion it is just as reprehensible to breed dogs that cannot fit into society because of their temperarments as it is to breed dogs with excess skin etc.

...no mention either that the working world is way less likely to do any health testing and far more likely to cull dogs that are not succesful ...why raise a fuss about the Rhodesian Ridgeback breeders culling pups when THOUSANDS of working Greyhounds are killed every year -

the title of the programe was Pedigree Dogs Exposed but in reality she only looked at the show world totally ignoring all the other producers of pedigree dogs

... will this be rectified in PDE 2 I wonder ?-


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> The difference is though I wouldnt limit it to pedigree dogs  - most know I do not agree with *pet breeding *(which is for both cross breeds and pedigrees) - but leaving that area out of the programme would do more damage than good, right?
> - and as I have said I accept there is a demand for soley pet bred dogs, pedigree and crosses - so would also feature them. I would rather highlight the good in that area, hoping then that less dodgy breeders are supported, leaving even more dogs suffering.
> 
> - I hope someone has done so, and all will be revealed - wait they stole my idea


Please can you explain what you mean by this - are you saying breeding should only be for showing?


Cockerpoo lover said:


> Actual doing a show that encompasses all types of dogs i.e pedigrees/crosses/bred for show/working and bred for pets would fare much better than just one group and more people would watch.
> 
> Would be a good time to educate people on how to chose the right breeder and highlight the dangers of letting your pet mate with anything to produce puppies to sell.
> 
> ...


THe RSPCA do make educational films like this if you contact them they will tell you whats available


terencesmum said:


> Eek, correction earlier. The mean of 1,2 and 5 is 2.6666. Sorry, I blame the wine


That to me is just pedantic - couldn't you find something more constructive to post?


Jemima Harrison said:


> And yet I have no doubt that you would not have murmured a word of compalint if PDE had only featured puppy farms, despite the fact that that, too, would only have been looking at part of the story.
> 
> We had one hour of primtime TV. The scandal was, for us, that the very people who were proclaiming to love their dogs the most; the ones claiming to being doing right by their dogs very often were not - sometimes unwittingly, of course, but not always.
> 
> ...


LOL sorry Jemima (sorry if you've already been corrected as I haven't read passed this post yet) you'd not believe it really..


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

AlisonLyn said:


> Please can you explain what you mean by this - are you saying breeding should only be for showing?
> 
> THe RSPCA do make educational films like this if you contact them they will tell you whats available
> 
> ...


Well, unlike some here, I actually care about FACTS and REALITY!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

The puppy farm stuff does sell, but it's very difficult I would imagine, to get inside them to get evidence and film and you are accusing specific individuals. Nevertheless, there has been a number of programmes and reports about puppy farms, but imo the only thing that will stop them is legislation and the government. They are very good at hiding what they do from unsuspecting people who don't think anyone could be mean to a puppy and hiding that they are puppy farms.

Bringing them under the umbrella of consumer law seems a good idea. All pups and dogs to be permanently marked (chipped?) and registered. Your puppy is sick? Your breeder is responsible. They pay for the veterinary care, or take the pup back. You can hardly even move a horse from one field to another without a passport these days, yet dogs have nothing.

PDE was a separate issue. They said 'look at these dogs, they're sick.' and they were. Some experts believe some breeds are sick, because of selective breeding for the show ring. PDE gave those experts and others a platform. I don't know why people are so adamant that they should have looked at something else. It's the only programme that has looked at this issue. Should we ignore puppy farms, because children in Africa are starving? Many people would think so.  

Regards the Chinese Crested, couldn't the KC bring into the breed standard that hair distribution doesn't matter, so long as the coat and skin are healthy? Then people wouldn't need to cheat and shave their dogs. Wouldn't the show breeders have been happier with that adjustment rather than policing whether they shave their dogs or not? 

Sorry, if I'm talking stupid, I don't know anything about these dogs.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

I cant believe this is still going on - well, actually I can, lol!!

I dunno what else I want to add really, hmm, some members on here putting some good stuff forward already and I have posted already too.

Perhaps, in retrospect PDE should have been called Pedigree Show Breeders exposed?? A far more truthful title...............

I tell you what - if I ever win millions on the lottery I will make my own documentary about all the good show breeders out there who work damn hard, studying, researching, speaking to other knowledgable experts like Malcolm Wiliis (sadly departed now), learning the very basics of breeding like the difference between phenotype and genotype and how they influence breeding results.
Doing Breed Seminars to learn how to interpret breed standards and read between the lines and fill in the blanks, as Breed Standards are a simple blueprint, much more detail is involved for those who choose to breed.

Those who learn and come to understand about comformation and movement in dogs and how it is related to 'fit for function'.

Those who work tirelessly in trying to prevent genetic diseases from rearing their ugly heads in individual's breeding programs.

Those breeders who are open and honest about problems they do encounter in the hope that sharing information will go some way to reducing the problem. 

Those breeders that do health test, some of them way above and beyond the 'recommended' tests. 

Those who literally give up their lives to rear litters 24/7 for the 8 weeks they have them, and spend time assessing each buyer to the best of their ability and hoping it all works out.

Those breeders who do not clog up rescue organisations and take back any dog they have bred at any time, regardless of circumstance or age.

I could go on.......................................and on and on and on


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

and the breeder whose adorable Rotties have gone some way to make some-one who was unsure of the breed now go soppy over them


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

Jemima Harrison said:


> We had one hour of primtime TV. The scandal was, for us, that the very people who were proclaiming to love their dogs the most; the ones claiming to being doing right by their dogs very often were not - sometimes unwittingly, of course, but not always.
> Jemima


The above statement is exactly the problem people have been concerned about. A flat statement that "very people who were proclaiming to love their dogs the most........." etc etc. It would surely have been much more honest and balanced to say, * "a tiny minority of the *very people who were proclaiming to love their dogs the most............."
Yet again you are giving the impression that the whole show world are in the wrong.
No-one in their right mind would deny that there were problems in certain breeds (but those problems were no less amongst dogs bred by puppy farmers or backyard breeders than by show breeders - in fact they would have been significantly greater as the PFs and BYBs don't health test at all) but instead of focussing on these issues, PDE gave the impression (aided and abetted by the moronic ex-Chief Vet of the RSPCA) that all show dogs were a "parade of mutants."

Mick


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> *Al*ison*Ly*n for a 'newbie' you seemed to have formed a very strong opinion on these 5 or so members rather quickly ....and very incorrect opinion it is too, no one i can ever remember has said they are 'appalled' at people having crossbreeds infact i bet most of those '5' members you accuse have had crosses at somepoint!
> 
> & no one has ever said that bybs and pfs are exclusive to crossbreeders! infact quite the opposite! there are far more bad pedigree breeders than good ones! but at least its relatively easy to find a good one.


How clever you worked out my nickname but spelt it wrong.. people call me Ali short for Alison but perhaps I should spell it that way. My explanantion for knowing about some people is that I took time to read back on posts randomly before I starting posting, to get a feel for the forum. I have nothing against anyone as I know none of the people on here, I just think we should all have the same aim but then maybe it is your defence mechanism lol being one of those I was referring to:wink:


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

HGV said:


> The full programme that was seen on BBC2 August 2008. I very much doubt it .There's a few minutes missing.A few very nasty minutes that offended so much that it ended up edited .Anyone who taped the first showing please do share ....so people really can see the full version....


Ah yes. The "missing minutes" conspiracy theory, being perpetuated by those on the anti-PDE Facebook site who continue to insist there was something in the film that never was (images of the holocaust).

The original film was 59 minutes long - the longest allowed for a "BBC hour" - because of course a bit of time is needed between programmes to trail other programmes and introduce the next. The full version, for those that haven't seen it, is here:

Pedigree Dogs Exposed

Jemima


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

I can see why, Ceearott,Bijou,Devil Dogs and the other good breeders on here are so fraustrated. I know the problem is not just black and white. Ive helped friends trace back through pedigrees, even though as you know I dont breed and never will do myself. we traced back to the 1920s/1930s so I realise the problem in some breeds, and the involment,dedication and sheer fraustration sometimes you guys must go through.

Do agree the whole bad breeders/breeding issue does need to be looked at and awareness raised from all angles.


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

Ceearott said:


> Perhaps, in retrospect PDE should have been called Pedigree Show Breeders exposed?? A far more truthful title...............


Or even more truthfully still, "A tiny minority of Pedigree Show Breeders exposed??"


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> The charge re using the footage of the Bergamasco is unfounded. We had permission from the Kennel Club to film at Discover Dogs and it covered the use of generic pictures of dogs. The Bergamasco appeared in a montage of dog shots under commentary which explained: "Today's dogs have been shaped by man into almost every possible shape and size… from dogs as small as kittens… to giant great danes…". The Bergamasco, or an earlier version of it, may be 2000 yrs old, the mutation that gave rise to the unusual coat may be an old one, and the breed may be relatively unchanged, but it has indeed, been shaped largely by human selection and man's needs (in this case for a livestock guardian) not by evolution - as have other old landrace breeds like the Saluki. There is no evidence of wild packs of proto-Bergamascos running round Asia spontaneously guarding sheep thousands of years ago.
> 
> Jemima


The bergamasco's coat is most definitely a product of evolution and not, as you say, shaped largely by man's needs. Mother Nature is wonderful when left to her own devices, fitting animals to their environment in specialist ways that are beyond the reach of mere man, and the bergamasco's coat is one example of this. It is a natural response to the environment in which they lived and worked. They were outdoors with the flock all of the time, in hot dry summers and cold winters, and the evolution of the coat is nature's way of protecting them in that environment. It gives them their own air-conditioning - air is trapped between the maps and keeps them cool in summer and warm in winter. It is also protection against natural predators of the flock. It is thickest around the hocks and throat, the two places where wolves would be likely to attack, and it also makes it virtually impossible for snakes to strike through.

Even disregarding the maps, the coat is extremely unusual in the dog world in that it is made up of three different types of hair - a top coat, and undercoat, and a wiry hair that weaves between them and causes the maps in the first place. Most dogs have either a single coat or, if they are outside working dogs, a coat and an undercoat. Three layers of coat is so unsual it cannot be anything other than an evolutionary response to environment. There are other attributes of the bergamasco that are also down to evolution - for example, the hair over their eyes and their eyelashes. They were outside all year round, either in glaring sunshine or is glaring snow, and so they needed hair over their eyes to protect them from this. But they also needed to be able to see the flock, and to see predators in the distance, and so their eyelashes evolved into long, thick lashes - almost two to three inches long - that hold the hair out of their eyes yet allow it to fall in front of the eyes for protection.

Jemima, are you seriously trying to say that, thousands of years ago, man knew enough about genetics to deliberately engineer a coat like this, to somehow create a unique coat made up of three different types of hair? Are you seriously trying to say that these ancient nomads were so clever that they could create a coat that would map up, yet leave an inch or so of unmapped hair at the base of each map so that the skin was perfectly clear? Are you seriously trying to say that ancient man knew enough about genetics to breed for extremely long eyelashes? The very most that could have happened is that this coat formation would have happened naturally, and then someone noticed it, and bred the dogs that it was happening to rather than the dogs that it wasn't happening to. That is not an example of a dog being shaped by human need, that is an example of humans taking advantage of a natural phenomenon.

Now, all the information above would have been freely given to you had you taken time to actually talk to us on the stall. But you didn't do that. Instead, you saw a dog with an unusual coat and mistakenly assumed that it had been shaped that way by man. And having not researched this properly, you then went on to show a clip of the breed as one of the illustrations of how, as the voiceover says, "_Today's dogs have been shaped by man into almost every possible shape and size_" Even if you were referring to the breed's ancient origins, you were wrong, and the program was wrong to infer that. However, you were not, as you try to pretend in your post above, referring to the breed's ancient origins in the film. You were talking about much more recent developments, and about the things that the KC had "allowed" breeders to do to dogs as part of their "eugenics" movement.

And if you can get one very vital thing wrong about one breed because of bad research, for me that immediately throws the rest of your research into doubt. And that is why the "_charge of using the footage of the bergamasco_" (to use your words) is indeed well-founded.

btw - a little bit of help - the correct plural for _bergamasco_ is _bergamaschi_ and not "_bergamascos_" as you put. 

Some links for you to peruse that support all of the above are:

Silver Pastori Bergamascos - Breed Information - History

Copyright is protected so I can't quote from the site here. I'm sure Donna would agree to let me quote ad verbatim, but I wanted to post this before waiting for permission. However, if you follow the link you will find information about the uniqueness of the coat being down to evolution.

Allevamento d'Egitto - cane da pastore bergamasco -

_From the Roman Empire up to now
The origins of the Bergamasco Shepherd Dog date back to very long ago and unavoidably mix with those of many other European shepherd dog races.
he presence of its ancient predecessors is historically documented, over the whole Alpine Arch, by the time of the Roman Empire.

Historians of the time describe a dirty-white (in which it can be recognized the 'white coffee' color, technically defined 'Isabella'), long-haired dog used with great satisfaction by the Cisalpine populations to follow up the flocks and the herds at grass.
The caravans of the barbarians passing through the Alps caused the dispersion of this race, typical of those places, that was progressively replaced or crossed with others till its unjustified disappearance.
Since then it fell into oblivion, till the beginning of the XX century, when some passionate dog-lovers found a few specimens in the Bergamo Valleys._

Bergamasco Sheepdog Breed Information - The Official Site of the BSCA

_Due to its ancient origins and little modification by humans, the Bergamasco is a very healthy breed with no specific illness related to the breed._

Albera's Bergamasco Sheepdog

_Through the centuries to day, this breed virtually remained the same;_

http://www.pastore-bergamasco.org/IBSA_frame.htm
_
The first centers for domestication of sheep and goats appears to be the region extending from the foothills of the Zagros Mountains which straddle the Iraq-Iran border. In these same regions originate a type of dogs with long, bristly coats. It is to say that in these zones was known a wolf with a very thick coat. "Canis lupus laniger". 
From these regions, these dogs emigrated with the population groups that moved from east to west in search of new pastures, settling in mountainous zones along a practically uninterrupted line from the upper planes of Asia over all the mountains of Anatolia, the Caucasus, the Carpathians, the Alps, the French Central Massif to the Pyrenees.

Along this route there is now a variety of breeds now stabilized and recognized, which are almost certainly direct descendants from this common ancestor. From a historical point of view, it is quite logical that a breed group with similarities is to be found along the itineraries followed by these migrant populations.

The characteristics shared by all these dogs are: a robust constitution and thick, rough haired coats with more or less pronounced tendencies to felting on all parts of the body including the head where the hair often forms a curtain in front of the eyes. 
These characteristics have become inbred due to adaptation to the climate and geographical locations of their places of origin and maintained through environmental conditions.
The breeds which are known today for these characteristics are:

the Oftscharka in Russia 
the Komondor and Puli in Hungary 
the Valley Sheepdog in Poland 
the Sheep Poedel in Germany, now very rare but not entirely extinct 
the Bergamasco in the Italian Alps 
the Briard in the French Alps 
the Little Pyrenees Sheepdog in the French Alps 
the Catalonian Sheepdog in the Spanish Pyrenees _


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

In my humble opinion, I think PDE is mainly responsible for the uptake in these so-called designer dog breeds, all the oodle-doodle-woodle-noodle-poos, as people know have the mistaken belief that crossbreeds are healthier and will not suffer from genetic diseases like the pedigrees. Anyone with eve na basic knowledge of genetics knows that is not the case, but you try explaining that to Joe Public who now thinks my dogs are 'mutant freaks'.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

raindog said:


> Or even more truthfully still, "A tiny minority of Pedigree Show Breeders exposed??"


Now dont be pedantic!!


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> In my humble opinion, I think PDE is mainly responsible for the uptake in these so-called designer dog breeds, all the *oodle-doodle-woodle-noodle-poos*, as people know have the mistaken belief that crossbreeds are healthier and will not suffer from genetic diseases like the pedigrees. Anyone with eve na basic knowledge of genetics knows that is not the case, but you try explaining that to Joe Public who now thinks my dogs are 'mutant freaks'.


:lol: love it.

Yes, I agree with you, Ceearot. Genetics seem to have been completely forgotten here.
There is also a link on Jemima's website to the German Kennel Club's statement which they released regarding the take-over of the Bulldog Club and a similar programme on German TV in which they said the makers of that TV show had an aim and a message in mind and completely went against some of the expert advise they received and that many reputable breeders in Germany are outraged by this film. Dejavu anyone?


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

The last one was if I understand it, slating the pedigree breeders who have changed the standards to the suffering of the dogs?

Why does someone do one specifically about bad breeding dogs per se because there are appalling breeders of all types and pedigrees of dogs; the puppyfarms and backyardbreeders need closing down and disclosing their standards on TV would hopefully put people off going there. No-one can say that it is just crossbreed breeders who are not healthtesting although I admit from the little I know they are more likely not to but bybs and pfs are breeding all typoes of dogs. I don't think it fair that the programme is made to specifically slate pedigree breeders and can understand their anger at it. Perhpas it could be called "Exposing bad dog breeding practices" or something similar that shows it isn't having a stab at the pedigree people. I know we don't have pedigrees but I hope I have a bit of common sense


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

AlisonLyn said:


> On reading back as I explained, it is around 5 members on here out of 1000s that keep chundering about how appaling it is to have crossbreeds because all the breeders are bybs or pfs and it isn't - im only going on what has been put before and so ive been trying to explain that breeders of all types of dogs pedigree and mongrels and crossbreeds have good and bad breeders. Bybs and pfs are not exclusive to crossbreeds and the same people ahve been very rude about some other members dogs, not mine obviously but surely it doesn't have anything to do with anyone else what sort of dog people have or where they got them unless something constructive is going to be done to close down pfs and bybs and more regulations are made to control the whole breeding practices?


I don't know if I am one of those on your "hitlist" of anti-crossbreed people, but I have posted on several occasions criticising the deliberate breeding of crossbreeds for no other reason than "fashion" or commercial gain. As I have said before - we have well over 200 different breeds recognised by the KC - why on earth should we need any more? Personally I don't see the point. I have nothing whatever against the dogs themselves - a dog is a dog and deserves as much love and respect as any other dog, but I do have a problem with those who breed them, especially as the likelihood that the breeders of crossbreeds have carried out any health tests, checked the compatibility of bloodlines etc etc will, in effect, be close to zero. 
Working in breed rescue, I have seen several sibe crosses with horrendous health and temperament issues (I have several fresh bites on my hand after trying to take in an unwanted sibe/mal cross last weekend), so my view on crosses involving my own breed is even more negative.
Having said that, most of my anger regarding breeding is aimed at those I come across on a daily basis breeding poor quality Siberian Huskies for money. When we started getting into rescue about 10 years ago, almost every dog that came in had been bred by one of a half dozen well known "bulk breeders" - today probably 90% have been bred by Fred Bloggs down the road who put his bitch to his mate's dog, or who had an "accidental mating" with one of his own dogs. These people don't even know that health testing or KC registration exists and they wouldn't care if they did! Many of these dogs are so badly bred that they barely resemble their breed any more. This poor girl who died of liver failure at 6 months is a purebred sibe, but didn't much look like it: 









These are the people who are creating the appalling rescue crisis in UK dogs today and I would dearly love it if JH would turn her attention to this - the most urgent problem for UK dogs rather than continuing her vendetta against the show world, which numerically is a tiny and pretty insignificant part of UK dogdom.

Mick


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> In my humble opinion, I think PDE is mainly responsible for the uptake in these so-called designer dog breeds, all the oodle-doodle-woodle-noodle-poos, as people know have the mistaken belief that crossbreeds are healthier and will not suffer from genetic diseases like the pedigrees. Anyone with eve na basic knowledge of genetics knows that is not the case, but you try explaining that to Joe Public who now thinks my dogs are 'mutant freaks'.


I can't speak for everyone who has an oodle but I asked on two cockapoo forums why did people chose a cockapoo? and not one said it was because of the PDE programme.

People said in the main:
They wanted a non-low shedding dog because of allergies
They liked their size and looks/personality and suited their lifestyle and family
They liked the combination of the two breeds.

I think that the uptake on certain crosses is just down to getting more popular as people realise what great dogs they are.

Like any dog breed/type some are more popular at times then others.

Not to say that the PDE didn't have an effect but no I don't agree that it is mainly responsible for the uptake IMO.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I can't speak for everyone who has an oodle but I asked on two cockapoo forums why did people chose a cockapoo? and not one said it was because of the PDE programme.
> 
> People said in the main:
> They wanted a non-low shedding dog because of allergies
> ...


I just read somehwere on here today on a post someone put on about an advert stating their crossbreed hasnt got genetic diseases - and I know there is many more like that being advertised out there, I know several people who bought crossbreeds in the blind faith they would be 'healthier than mine' - that statement came bac kto bite them on the A$$ quite badly and they came back to me to seek advice.

We will have to disagree on that point, I do think PDE is responsible in pushing people towards crossbreeds for health reasons.


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

raindog said:


> I don't know if I am one of those on your "*hitlist" *of anti-crossbreed people, but I have posted on several occasions criticising the deliberate breeding of crossbreeds for no other reason than "fashion" or commercial gain. As I have said before - we have well over 200 different breeds recognised by the KC - *why on earth should we need any more? *Personally I don't see the point. I have nothing whatever against the dogs themselves - a dog is a dog and deserves as much love and respect as any other dog, but I do have a problem with those who breed them, especially as the likelihood that the breeders of crossbreeds have carried out any health tests, checked the compatibility of bloodlines etc etc will, in effect, be close to zero.
> Working in breed rescue, I have seen several sibe crosses with horrendous health and temperament issues (I have several fresh bites on my hand after trying to take in an unwanted sibe/mal cross last weekend), so my view on crosses involving my own breed is even more negative.
> Having said that, most of my anger regarding breeding is aimed at those I come across on a daily basis breeding poor quality Siberian Huskies for money. When we started getting into rescue about 10 years ago, almost every dog that came in had been bred by one of a half dozen well known "bulk breeders" - today probably 90% have been bred by Fred Bloggs down the road who put his bitch to his mate's dog, or who had an "accidental mating" with one of his own dogs. These people don't even know that health testing or KC registration exists and they woluldn't care if they did!
> These are the people who are creating the appalling rescue crisis in UK dogs today and I would dearly love it if JH would turn her attention to this - the most urgent problem for UK dogs rather than continuing her vendetta against the show world, which numerically is a tiny and pretty insignificant part of UK dogdom.
> ...


I haven't got such a list as I said i don't actually know anyone; I was just referring to previous stuff and I agree that there are enough pedigrees breeds but I was only pointing out that people want more choice perhaps. I personally like mutts that no-one else wnats to adopt and we have had some odd looking ones but they are our choice and not everyones cup of tea.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> In my humble opinion, I think PDE is mainly responsible for the uptake in these so-called designer dog breeds, all the oodle-doodle-woodle-noodle-poos, as people know have the mistaken belief that crossbreeds are healthier and will not suffer from genetic diseases like the pedigrees. Anyone with eve na basic knowledge of genetics knows that is not the case, but you try explaining that to Joe Public who now thinks my dogs are 'mutant freaks'.


Certain oodles/poos  were being crossed before PDE came along and I for one have not watched the program or am under any delusions about 'hybrid vigour'! 

I am also a member of a forum of owners of my cross and as CPL says I don't know anyone who chose their dog due to it being considered healthier than a pedigree.

P.S I love your dogs, they are fabulous! 



Cockerpoo lover said:


> I can't speak for everyone who has an oodle but I asked on two cockapoo forums why did people chose a cockapoo? and not one said it was because of the PDE programme.
> 
> People said in the main:
> They wanted a non-low shedding dog because of allergies
> ...


Agree with everything above!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> I just read somehwere on here today on a post someone put on about an advert stating their crossbreed hasnt got genetic diseases - and I know there is many more like that being advertised out there, I know several people who bought crossbreeds in the blind faith they would be 'healthier than mine' - that statement came bac kto bite them on the A$$ quite badly and they came back to me to seek advice.
> 
> We will have to disagree on that point, I do think PDE is responsible in pushing people towards crossbreeds for health reasons.


I'm not saying it wouldn't push some people towards them although a lot of people already hold the opinion that crossbreeds are healthier before PDE, just don't agree with you saying it is the main reason for the uptake.

There are good breeders who do do health tests for genetic conditions on crosses- and therefore will advertise this.

But yes I also agree with you that nothing concerning health should be taken as a given and if we can minimise the risks by health testing and careful breeding then all the better.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I have had the same experiences as Cearott, I'm sure there are people out there who haven't a clue about the health status of cross breeds, in the same way they haven't a clue about the health status of pedigrees, but some do spout absolute rubbish about cross breeds being healthier and a reason to choose them against a pedigree dog. I've actually been sat next to someone at an event with my stall, where they were spouting this rubbish all day long, I felt like shaking them


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> I just read somehwere on here today on a post someone put on about an advert stating their crossbreed hasnt got genetic diseases - and I know there is many more like that being advertised out there, I know several people who bought crossbreeds in the blind faith they would be 'healthier than mine' - that statement came bac kto bite them on the A$$ quite badly and they came back to me to seek advice.
> 
> We will have to disagree on that point, I do think PDE is responsible in pushing people towards crossbreeds for health reasons.


Unfortunately, the public in general need educating whether they are buying a crossbreed or a pedigree puppy. There are breeders out there (plenty  ) who dont health check and it is only by promoting ethical breeding that people will turn away from these breeders. We are trying to spread the word but it will take a lot more than myself and CPL to change things!


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

sezra said:


> Certain oodles/poos  were being crossed before PDE came along and I for one have not watched the program or am under any delusions about 'hybrid vigour'!
> 
> *I know they were, am stating an uptake in the popularity of these crosses though. *
> I am also a member of a forum of owners of my cross and as CPL says I don't know anyone who chose their dog due to it being considered healthier than a pedigree.
> ...


*I do to an extent too, but I still stand that PDE changed the way the majority of the public view pedigrees forever - and not in their favour!! Only those people who do proper research before spending their hard-earned cash on a puppy will know the real truth :wink:*


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

sezra said:


> Unfortunately, the public in general need educating whether they are buying a crossbreed or a pedigree puppy. There are breeders out there (plenty  ) who dont health check and it is only by promoting ethical breeding that people will turn away from these breeders. We are trying to spread the word but it will take a lot more than myself and CPL to change things!


Oh, and dont I know it!! I have a secret plan to educate the public in a massive way - just need thousands to do it!!


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I have had the same experiences as Cearott, I'm sure there are people out there who haven't a clue about the health status of cross breeds, in the same way they haven't a clue about the health status of pedigrees, but some do spout absolute rubbish about cross breeds being healthier and a reason to choose them against a pedigree dog. I've actually been sat next to someone at an event with my stall, where they were spouting this rubbish all day long, I felt like shaking them


We must be in the minority then, PMSL!!!!!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> We must be in the minority then, PMSL!!!!!!


Lol, I'm sure we're not, there's a lot of reasons people choose to have a dog, and unfortunately convenience and wow factor seem to be the ones that push people towards unethical breeders. They get a dog that's unusual and a bit different, and the less work they have to do to get it, the better.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

Oh, not crawling :crying:  ....we used to have GSDs and love bigger dogs, very proud and handsome.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

sezra said:


> Oh, not crawling :crying:  ....we used to have GSDs and love bigger dogs, very proud and handsome.


Was being cheeky - my sense of humour dont always work in the written form, lol!!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> Oh, and dont I know it!! I have a secret plan to educate the public in a massive way - just need thousands to do it!!


 Look just take your rottie family out and about with you and show them some prize hunks..... sure they will stand and listen with you and be all ears as too frightened to move 

Sorry what is that I hear....... screaming- mass panic on the high St 

Or like I said before The petforum show. 

Auditons for presenters taking place soon


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Ceearott said:


> I just read somehwere on here today on a post someone put on about an advert stating their crossbreed hasnt got genetic diseases - and I know there is many more like that being advertised out there, I know several people who bought crossbreeds in the blind faith they would be 'healthier than mine' - that statement came bac kto bite them on the A$$ quite badly and they came back to me to seek advice.
> 
> We will have to disagree on that point, I do think PDE is responsible in pushing people towards crossbreeds for health reasons.


Probably the same reason that a lot of people think all the dogs are non shedding too,lack of knowledge, or believing what they read in the Ads. Also it wouldnt occur to them if both breeds have the same hereditary problems then the pups could have too, regardless of them being different breeds. The knowledge and information needs to get out there.

Some people too though will just simply like the looks and personality of the dog
maybe know someone with one and just fall in love with the breed/cross probably like we all did at one time with the type of dogs we all own. So sometimes it doesnt need to be more complicated then that I suppose.

I think though the "unusual" and "different" also plays a part with some peoples choice too. Someone who lived local had a white GSD pup who turned out to have
Pituatory (sp) growth problems, so she remained a minature version. The attraction she got and questions of what is she where do you get one was amazing. So supply and demand must be a really big factor.

As someone said everything is not black and white, and hell of a lot needs to be addressed to raise awareness, if there is one programme then a lot has to be got in so I can see the problem time wise. Surely though there does need awareness raised on several angles as I said before. If the knowledge is out there for the puppy buyers and everyone did stop buying from the "Bad Breeders" what ever shape they may come in, then without demand they would have to stop supplying.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Probably the same reason that a lot of people think all the dogs are non shedding too,lack of knowledge, or believing what they read in the Ads. Also it wouldnt occur to them if both breeds have the same hereditary problems then the pups could have too, regardless of them being different breeds. The knowledge and information needs to get out there.
> 
> Some people too though will just simply like the looks and personality of the dog
> maybe know someone with one and just fall in love with the breed/cross probably like we all did at one time with the type of dogs we all own. So sometimes it doesnt need to be more complicated then that I suppose.
> ...


Well said ''applause''


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Whatever we do, we must keep one objective clear, let's add as many pages as possible to this thread so DD has to trawl through them all after the weekend 

Ok I'll get me coat.........


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I will admit I do like unique and different  and to be honest you can't beat a good old mongrel for that. 

Hence why I am sooo annoyed that cockapoos are getting popular as I don't want a common dog that everyone else has got


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> I haven't got such a list as I said i don't actually know anyone; I was just referring to previous stuff and I agree that there are enough pedigrees breeds but I was only pointing out that people want more choice perhaps. I personally like mutts that no-one else wnats to adopt and we have had some odd looking ones but they are our choice and not everyones cup of tea.


You said you had a list of 5! Make your mind up!

And are you the same Ally who said this on facebook:

Welcome to Facebook
_Ally Lambell: this debate will continue forever because there is a minority (especially on that particular forum) who are pedigree breeders and think they are the bees knees and that all crossbreed dogs are from puppy farmers or backyard breeders. It is ignorance and bigotry and it sickens me that these people have dogs yet insult our dogs and tell us they should have been drowned at birth!!!_


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

So what do you think of the idea that dogs should be identifiable (chipped maybe?) by all breeders, given a passport, like horses are and subject to consumer law. eg: puppy becomes sick with a certain time, breeder is responsible, puppy becomes sick from hereditary disorder within another certain time, breeder is responsible? Puppy ends up in rescue, breeder and registered owner are responsible and pay towards the animals keep until it is rehomed?

The breeders are the ones breeding and selling these animals, maybe they should be forced to become more responsible for them. Regardless of whether the dog is a show dog bred in the purple, a puppy farm dog bred in a wire cage in a shed, or a BYB dog, bred by accident in someone's back garden.

Force breeders to be ethical and take some responsibility for the dogs they breed.  Maybe then they would be more careful about what they breed and who they sell it to and there wouldn't be quite so many dogs.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> *Whatever we do, we must keep one objective clear, let's add as many pages as possible to this thread so DD has to trawl through them all after the weekend*
> 
> Ok I'll get me coat.........


Now theres a thought - we just stick lots of randoms up just ot make it longer, PMSL!!!!!!

I dont need a coat - I'm a geordie, PMSL!!!


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Elles said:


> So what do you think of the idea that dogs should be identifiable (chipped maybe?) by all breeders, given a passport, like horses are and subject to consumer law. eg: puppy becomes sick with a certain time, breeder is responsible, puppy becomes sick from hereditary disorder within another certain time, breeder is responsible? Puppy ends up in rescue, breeder and registered owner are responsible and pay towards the animals keep until it is rehomed?
> 
> The breeders are the ones breeding and selling these animals, maybe they should be forced to become more responsible for them. Regardless of whether the dog is a show dog bred in the purple, a puppy farm dog bred in a wire cage in a shed, or a BYB dog, bred by accident in someone's back garden.
> 
> Force breeders to be ethical and take some responsibility for the dogs they breed.  Maybe then they would be more careful about what they breed and who they sell it to and there wouldn't be quite so many dogs.


This gets discussed to the death aswell, lol! Its all very well in theory but the problem is who sets it up and who polices it?? And how do you stop people slipping through the net?? And how are you going to define 'sick' and where does the line get drawn?? I dont wanna be held responsible for a dog I bred getting HD when the parents ahad good hip scores - hows that my fault?? Breeders cannot control every gene and therein lies the problem.

Sorry - just re-read and thought it might read like I is getting annoyed, lol!! I am not, and take your points, just trying to say it isnt a black and white issue and nor is the solution, lol!


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

And, as this was originally about a member being in a magazine, I thought I'd add I was once in Dogs Monthly -way back in 2009!!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

.. but you wanted the thread to get longer... 

If a dog you bred got HD and the owner couldn't cope, you could take the dog back and pay for it to be quietly pts. with a vet signing off its passport. 

I'm not saying you should give a full refund for every dog, but certainly I do think breeders should give a refund for a pup that dies 2 days after it gets home from parvo. at the moment I don't think there's any law that says they should?

As to who polices it. Owners can be told to only buy dogs with passports, which should have any inoculation history and chip info and vets can check for chips. The various breed societies and the KC can cover pedigrees (a passport for my anglo-arab could be purchased from the Arab Horse Society, a vet had to do his identification, which is different from dogs) and there'd have to be a dog council set up for dogs who don't have a registry. 

It would take a few years for it to take effect and there would have to be some consideration as to what it should include and how it could work, but I don't see why not tbh.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Bijou said:


> you know .....people want things to be black and white but it rarely is in breeding ....PDE had three main areas of focus - one was the degree of inbreeding - one was breeding for extremes and the last was health problems endemic in certain breeds - all on the surface very laudable areas to look at BUT .....these things are interconnected and in trying to solve one 'problem you often simply make the others worse
> 
> for example ....my breed is prone to late onset epilepsy - thanks to dedicated breeders we now have a comprehensive database highlighting lines that could cause this problem so breeders try and avoid these - along with dogs with high hip scores, failed eye tests, poor temperaments or poor construction ( mine is a working breeds and good construction is vital ) ... this means that we have less dogs to choose from in our breeding programmes ..and this in turn leads to *more* inbreeding not less ... because we are discarding some lines the physical appearance of the breed also gradually changes . For example Europe has done most to produce epilepsy free lines ( often using line breeding techniques to produce them ) so breeders in the UK have predominantly used European dogs - these have longer heads and less stop than our old BSD used to have ..the physical appearnce of the breed has changed becasue of the reduced gene pool we now use.
> 
> ...


I have a question - not aimed at your breed as I don't know what you have or any breed in particular just a general question. As you say above one area affects another so can be restricting gene pools further and create more issues on one side by trying to improve another area. For breeds with serious problems and very restricted gene pools is it ethical to continue breeding them at all? Someone has said there are over 200 pedigree breeds - how many in fact should be still bred at all.

I am not saying they shouldn't just wondered everyone views


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Well, if we want to draw a positive from this whole debate it must surely be that people should be knowing more about where their pup has come from. I am certainly a lot more clued up now than I was even when we got Terence. And a lot of it is to do with the excellent advise from some people on this forum.

If we get a pup next time round, it'll be from a reputable breeder. Ceearot, pretty please


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

terencesmum said:


> Well, if we want to draw a positive from this whole debate it must surely be that people should be knowing more about where their pup has come from. I am certainly a lot more clued up now than I was even when we got Terence. And a lot of it is to do with the excellent advise from some people on this forum.
> 
> If we get a pup next time round, it'll be from a reputable breeder. Ceearot, pretty please


Poor old Indie, I take it your plans to kidnap her are on the back burner :crying:


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

terencesmum said:


> Well, if we want to draw a positive from this whole debate it must surely be that people should be knowing more about where their pup has come from. I am certainly a lot more clued up now than I was even when we got Terence. And a lot of it is to do with the excellent advise from some people on this forum.
> 
> If we get a pup next time round, it'll be from a reputable breeder. Ceearot, pretty please


Erm go on then, PMSL!!



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Poor old Indie, I take it your plans to kidnap her are on the back burner :crying:


Naw - kidnap plans still in place i'll bet!!


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Poor old Indie, I take it your plans to kidnap her are on the back burner :crying:


Who said I am stopping at adding one  Indie is still on my kidnap list :001_tt1:. Hehe. Or, if you ever have a litter, I might nick one of the pups. OH is waking up to the fact that I fully intend to add at least one more dog. Lol.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

And I am really sorry guys, but everytime I am looking at the title of this thread the typo is fixing an image in my head -


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

I think the programme was a massive missed oppurtunity, I use shock tactics to try and get people to health test before breeding, for example you should test your dog for FN because an affected dog won't make it past it's second birthday.I was watching it hoping it would shock people into looking for health tests but it didn't .


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> And I am really sorry guys, but everytime I am looking at the title of this thread the typo is fixing an image in my head -


Heh heh - and every time I read the title I think it says "Duds Today" :lol:


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Jemima Harrison said:


> When we were filming, I saw a two-year-old Dogue die at a vets - suspected lymphoma and breed typical. We filmed him, in fact - a story (the salutory tale of what can go wrong when a breed becomes popular for the wrong reasons) that didn't make the final cut.
> 
> The 2004 KC survey found that the median age of death to be 3yrs 10 months (although not that many survey returns). A worry. I see the GB Club website has no health info on it all all - not good for a breed on the KC's watchlist. It would be good to know what proactive steps are being taken to tackle issues.
> 
> ...


----------



## majortom (May 7, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> From an ad on freecycle:
> 
> _Female choc lab aged 4 has dog lovers certificate free to gud home was originally bought to breed but she is no good at this, beautiful friendly dog to kids and gud with other dogs, gud on lead, dus come back to u when let off lead, is micro-chipped but cud have this transferred to you. She recently gave birth so is still losing blood, should clear up soon. Pup was born dead, she doesnt have means to be anymore than a pet, if she had pups in future wud need a c-section_
> 
> ...


and this is the reason we need a programme on backyard,pet breeders,
this is getting to be a common add on the puppyfarmers selling sites,
people are quick enough to knock the pedigree show people ,but these tpye of idiots trying to make a quick buck are getting away with murder,
and its breed rescues picking up the pieces,


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I have a question - not aimed at your breed as I don't know what you have or any breed in particular just a general question. As you say above one area affects another so can be restricting gene pools further and create more issues on one side by trying to improve another area. For breeds with serious problems and very restricted gene pools is it ethical to continue breeding them at all? Someone has said there are over 200 pedigree breeds - how many in fact should be still bred at all.
> 
> I am not saying they shouldn't just wondered everyone views
> Like


and that's the $64000 question ! - because quite simply you cannot have it all - if you want greater genetic diversity then breeds will be lost - no more Australian Shepherds, Shiba inus or Affenpinschers - no more Cairns, Basset Fauves, or Borzois, no more Vizlas, Maremmas or Belgians - no more Tibetan spaniels, Pembroke and Cradiga corgis or Deerhounds - in fact your choice would be reduced to just a handful of breeds .

Personally I think it would be a crying shame to lose so many of our glorious breeds ...but we cannot do the impossible - if you want them then breeders have to work with the gene pool available !


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I can't speak for everyone who has an oodle but I asked on two cockapoo forums why did people chose a cockapoo? and not one said it was because of the PDE programme.
> 
> People said in the main:
> They wanted a non-low shedding dog because of allergies
> ...


Completely agree, i got my doodle in May 2008, not exactly sure when the programme was aired. I got her because i was at that time a self employed owner of a cafe located in a public park. I have had mainly collies and collie crosses all my life. But i needed a dog that i could take to work, (i personally don't believe in leaving a dog at home all day by itself), one that didn't shed little or no hair (food environment), and one that was people friendly (customers coming in and out all day). I did a lot of research and believe i have found the "perfect" dog for me, PDE had no influence over my decision making. I liked the look of the dog, and all the attributes that were described and she has lived up to all of them.
At the end of the day it's about personal choice and purpose and for me that was it.


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

_if you want greater genetic diversity then breeds will be lost - no more Australian Shepherds, Shiba inus or Affenpinschers - no more Cairns, Basset Fauves, or Borzois, no more Vizlas, Maremmas or Belgians - no more Tibetan spaniels, Pembroke and Cradiga corgis or Deerhounds - in fact your choice would be reduced to just a handful of breeds ._

This really is not true, Bijou. It is perfectly possible to have a controlled outcross programme (where needed and there may well be alternatives - such as greater use of assortative mating/inter-variety matings) and to breed back to what you want as I hope you've seen by eg, the example of the German Pinscher on my blog - beautiful, typey dogs winning at shows three generations on.

The alternative is, in my view, is worse - continued gene loss with every generation; an increase in genetic disease and the need for every more DNA tests; smaller litters, reduced fertility, less vigour, more immune-mediated disease. Now some breeds may get lucky and escape this, but the odds are against it.

I understand the FCI is pre-authorising inter-variety matings - no approval required - from 2012. Still waiting for details, but this is one positive step forward - of relevance to your breed.

Jemima


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Look guys, at the end of the day we know that genetic disease is common in dogs. It is a fact that the majority of dogs carry 4 or 5 defective genes. That means every time I sell or buy a dog, carriers become involved. Every time I pick a stud, I must accept he carries genes for 4 or 5 defects. Every time you buy, sell or breed a dog, you are involved with 4 or 5 defective genes and that is why genetic disease is common. If most dogs carried none or only one defective gene, genetic diseases would not be common and could be avoided with ease. I think that Matadors truly do compound the problem. People ought to realise also, that the risk of producing a given defect is just as high with an outcross as with inbreeding. 

People also need to understand about 'phenocopies' - traits that are known to be genetic but can also be produced by something in the enviroment, and thus confusing the issue. 

I could go on and on here, and probably bore some of you out of your minds, even though the subject fascinates me, it is hard going, lol!

I dont think the asnwer lies purely in the KC's hands. I personally feel the Breed Clubs need to be doing much much more.

The first thing Breed Clubs need to do is assess the problems within the breed, and for the most part, most of them ahve donw that. It what ahppens next thats truly important. Breed Clubs must take an active role in educating their members (and in turn, the public) about the problems in their breeds and use their influence and peer pressure whenever possible to point their members in a direction that will remedy the situation. No breed is free of genetic diseases, but many breed clubs and their members lack adequate knowledge about the diseases that plague them. Determining the mode of inheritance for diseases in their breeds must be a priority item from breed clubs. 

I have talked to many many breeders and owners of pedigree dogs over the years and the most common theme is surrounding genetic disease and its supposed rising occurence. Fact is, I dont know really, if genetic diseases really has/is increasing. Fact is, there are no baseline scientific studies available that allow me to look and then say how it was 10 or 20 years ago and there are few scientific studies available that tell me what the status is right now, in all reality.

So is it growing or not?? Or are we simply becoming better at finding and diagnosing disease??


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Jemima Harrison said:


> _if you want greater genetic diversity then breeds will be lost - no more Australian Shepherds, Shiba inus or Affenpinschers - no more Cairns, Basset Fauves, or Borzois, no more Vizlas, Maremmas or Belgians - no more Tibetan spaniels, Pembroke and Cradiga corgis or Deerhounds - in fact your choice would be reduced to just a handful of breeds ._
> 
> This really is not true, Bijou. It is perfectly possible to have a controlled outcross programme (where needed and there may well be alternatives - such as greater use of assortative mating/inter-variety matings) and to breed back to what you want as I hope you've seen by eg, the example of the German Pinscher on my blog - beautiful, typey dogs winning at shows three generations on.
> 
> ...


now, you see, my research leads me to put this largely down to over-vaccination and other enviromental issues - NOT PEDIGREE SHOW BREEDERS!!


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> I have talked to many many breeders and owners of pedigree dogs over the years and the most common theme is surrounding genetic disease and its supposed rising occurence. Fact is, I dont know really, if genetic diseases really has/is increasing. Fact is, there are no baseline scientific studies available that allow me to look and then say how it was 10 or 20 years ago and there are few scientific studies available that tell me what the status is right now, in all reality.
> 
> So is it growing or not?? Or are we simply becoming better at finding and diagnosing disease??


I completely agree with this. We are simply more aware of those defects now and look for them whereas a few decades ago, people probably weren't that bothered about elbow and hip problems (or whatever else you can think of).
And when you come to think of it, 4-5 defective genes out of thousands and thousands is not that bad, really, is it?


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

terencesmum said:


> I completely agree with this. We are simply more aware of those defects now and look for them whereas a few decades ago, people probably weren't that bothered about elbow and hip problems (or whatever else you can think of).
> And when you come to think of it, 4-5 defective genes out of thousands and thousands is not that bad, really, is it?


It sure isnt!:wink:


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2011)

I have to agree with what someone said a few pages back. 

What's more important health or genetic diversity? 

Because sometimes your left with no option but to linebreed in order to get the health you want. I find that I have had the same issue. Fully health tested my bitch, when it came to finding the stud I had to re-think my choices because the stud suggested to me by people in the "know" was not DNA CEA tested and my girl's DNA status is a carrier so she needs to be put to a clear. 

I was left with only a handful of dogs who were DNA clear and 1 of them was not hip scored, the other was to closely related and after looking closely at the lines of the final two I picked the one that was classed as line breeding as its what matched my bitch best. 

So should I have gone with the un-tested male?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> And, as this was originally about a member being in a magazine, I thought I'd add I was once in Dogs Monthly -way back in 2009!!


Well I was hoping to see the article and pictures on here as I own crosses and thought it would be nice to see a positive article for a change and am too much of a tightwad to pay for the magazine


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Well I was hoping to see the article and pictures on here as I own crosses and thought it would be nice to see a positive article for a change and am too much of a tightwad to pay for the magazine


Well you wont see my piccies and article now unless you see the mag at a car boot or summat, PMSL!!!!!


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

majortom said:


> and this is the reason we need a programme on backyard,pet breeders,
> this is getting to be a common add on the puppyfarmers selling sites,
> people are quick enough to knock the pedigree show people ,but these tpye of idiots trying to make a quick buck are getting away with murder,
> and its breed rescues picking up the pieces,


I would like to see a program that talked about breeding in general, demonstrating the pedigree breeders who work so hard to keep their breed healthy and of good temperament and also looked at crossbreeders who are also ethical and care alot about their practices. I would like to see the results of puppy farming showed to the public, the breeding bitches in rescue centres, the unwanted puppies. Whether pedigree or cross, the poor dogs are being exploited.  Lets have a program to shock the public and make them realise the implications of *not* buying from an ethical breeder.

I know there have been issues in the world of showing but I think at the moment the bigger issue out there is puppy farms and unethical breeding practices such as not health testing and over breeding and if a program like PDE can cause so much publicity and apparently change public opinion on pedigree breeders imagine the impact that could have on the puppy buying public if Jemima was to produce one covering these issues!

So, come on Jemima..how about it?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> Please can you explain what you mean by this - are you saying breeding should only be for showing?


I am sick of explaining myself, I have said a number of times my opinions and made it quite clear what I mean, either I talk another language or people are taking what they want from my posts!
- But again for the last time NO I do not feel breeding should only be done for showing.
There are many 'vaild' reason for breeding in my opinion, breeding soley for the pet market (even more so in the current situation) is not a vaild reason...again in MY opinion


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I am sick of explaining myself, I have said a number of times my opinions and made it quite clear what I mean, either I talk another language or people are taking what they want from my posts!
> - But again for the last time NO I do not feel breeding should only be done for showing.
> There are many 'vaild' reason for breeding in my opinion, breeding soley for the pet market (even more so in the current situation) is not a vaild reason...again in MY opinion


How long did it take you to catch up????? PMSL!!!!!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> How long did it take you to catch up????? PMSL!!!!!


I havent yet :lol:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> LOL sorry Jemima (sorry if you've already been corrected as I haven't read passed this post yet) you'd not believe it really..


why wouldnt she believe the breed I own


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Whatever we do, we must keep one objective clear, let's add as many pages as possible to this thread so DD has to trawl through them all after the weekend
> 
> Ok I'll get me coat.........


 I thought better of you - good job I popped in for a wee bit before I got sorted werent it :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> You said you had a list of 5! Make your mind up!
> 
> And are you the same Ally who said this on facebook:
> 
> ...


Drowned at birth, yeah because we all agree with that one  - drown the flipping breeders - all unethical breeders at that 

- and it would be of no great suprise if it was Ally I know a few of us thought it!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

sezra said:


> I would like to see a program that talked about breeding in general, demonstrating the pedigree breeders who work so hard to keep their breed healthy and of good temperament and also looked at crossbreeders who are also ethical and care alot about their practices. I would like to see the results of puppy farming showed to the public, the breeding bitches in rescue centres, the unwanted puppies. Whether pedigree or cross, the poor dogs are being exploited.  Lets have a program to shock the public and make them realise the implications of *not* buying from an ethical breeder.
> 
> I know there have been issues in the world of showing but I think at the moment the bigger issue out there is puppy farms and unethical breeding practices such as not health testing and over breeding and if a program like PDE can cause so much publicity and apparently change public opinion on pedigree breeders imagine the impact that could have on the puppy buying public if Jemima was to produce one covering these issues!
> 
> So, come on Jemima..how about it?


I did ask her last night if she was doing a follow up or looking at other areas of dog breeding but never got an answer. 

But yes think we all agree the above would be great to show how things should be done regardless of whether your dog is a cross or pedigree or going into show home or just pet home.

I think the typical puppyfarms that have been shown before do shock as the scenes are horrific but I also think that the public need to be shown that sometimes these pups are transferred into peoples homes or even people breeding them in the home are also puppyfarmers.

Sometimes people think puppyfarmer = breeding outside in sheds.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

just deleted as made a mistake.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ...my breed is prone to late onset epilepsy... we now have a comprehensive database
> highlighting lines that could cause this problem, so breeders try [to] avoid these [lines] -
> [plus avoid] dogs with high hip scores, failed eye tests, poor temps / poor construction ( mine is a working breeds
> & good construction is vital ) ... this means [fewer] dogs to choose from in our breeding programmes
> ...


does BSD = Belgian Shepherd Dog?

if so, there are 4 coat/color types: 
smooth [BSD-Malinois], wire [BSD-Laekenois], long fawn [BSD-Tervuren], long black [BSD-Groenedal]. 
Europe & the FCI recognize them as types, & interbreeding is perfectly acceptable, as if they were just 
breeding say, a brindle Akita to a pinto Akita, or a solid-black Greyhound to a masked-fawn Greyhound. 
*the AKC breed-clubs have SPLIT the types into BREEDS - which i feel is disastrous, & should be changed 
ASAP so that they stop breeding only BSD-Mal to BSD-Mal, BSD-Laek to BSD-Laek, etc.*

Additionally, the original breed-type included brindle dogs in the Malinois type, which were outcast 
[in the 1920s i think] & many were immediately registered as Dutch Shepherds; there's no reason to avoid 
breeding Dutch Shepherds to Malinois to add depth to the gene-pool, & i see no impediment to breeding 
Dutchies to the other 3 types of BSD, either - aside from color, they are extremely similar, i'd be willing 
to bet that if we removed the stripes from a Dutchie using neutralized hydrogen-peroxide, most people 
[if not all but the owner] would immediately ID the dog as a BSD-Malinois without hesitating.

with 4 types & one extremely-closely related breed, there should not be a paucity of gene-diversity. 
it's merely a matter of political will to ALLOW the types to mix, & to permit the outcast brindle dogs 
back into the breed - any brindle offspring can be registered as Dutch, any fawn/masked as Malinois.

if this is simply inconceivable, & everyone insists on staying in their own gene-puddle for coat & color, 
then it's very possible that some - or even all - of the 4 BSD-types, & even the Dutch, are eventually doomed. 
*but that's NOT because Ur breeds - the Belgian Shepherds of all 4 types, & the Dutch - don't have options. 
it's because pigheaded people with narrow-minded prejudices would not save their 'loved' breeds, while they could.*

if that is the eventual outcome, i hope it happens after i die - not before. I would find watching the BSDs 
& the Dutch Shepherds slowly & agonizingly succumbing to health & structure problems excruciatingly painful. 
but only their breeders & breed-clubs can make the choice to save or to doom them; the rest of us 
are only the audience, watching the play.


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

AlisonLyn said:


> are you saying breeding should only be for showing?


What is showing? It is an attempt by breeders/owners to show that their dogs come close in structure, temperament and look to their breed standard (which is itself a "blueprint" for the "perfect dog" of their particular breed). If that is the case, then all good, ethical, responsible breeders should be trying to breed dogs as close to the breed standard as possible.
In my breed, we cannot test our dogs fully in the work arena as we do not have the long distance trails and the climate to do so. We work them in order to maintain their working attitude, but we simply can't assess their capabilities as sled dogs capable of "pulling a lightly laden sled over long distances in arctic conditions day after day" in the UK. Because of that, the only real way we have of assessing them is in the showring. Why on earth should breeders ( even if they just want to produce pets) not want to produce the best dogs they possibly can - and for KC recognised breeds - the most effective assessment of this is often in the showring.

A brief word on "inbreeding" - close line breeding in itself is not the issue, nor, necessarily is a small gene pool. Siberian Huskies are one of the healthiest breeds around, but every single one of the hundreds of thousands of Siberian Huskies worldwide originated from a handful of entire dogs (usually estimated as 12) imported from Siberia in the early years of the 20th Century. However, to linebreed successfully, the breeder must have an in-depth knowledge of the bloodlines he/she is using so that health issues can be avoided. In-breeding in our breed is much more common amongst the naive/ignorant/stupid "pet" breeders whose "accidental" brother -sister/mother -son/father - daughter matings flood the "pet" market swiftly followed by the rescue scene.

Mick


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

AlisonLyn said:


> On reading back as I explained,_it is around 5 members on here out of 1000s_ that keep chundering about how appaling it is to have crossbreeds because all the breeders are byb's or pfs and it isn't - im only going on what has been put before and so ive been trying to explain that breeders of all types of dogs pedigree and mongrels and crossbreeds have good and bad breeders. Bybs and pfs are not exclusive to crossbreeds and the same people ahve been very rude about some other members dogs, not mine obviously but surely it doesn't have anything to do with anyone else what sort of dog people have or where they got them unless something constructive is going to be done to close down pfs and bybs and more regulations are made to control the whole breeding practices? I doubt anyone dare as=dmit that through not doing their research they now realise that they got their dogs from a puppyfarm because of the abuse they have received just by admitting they have certain crossbreeds. I just think it is sad that assuming we are all mature adults (which some don't seem to be) we are wary what we put in fear of retribution.





Spellweaver said:


> You said you had a list of 5! Make your mind up!
> 
> And are you the same Ally who said this on facebook:
> 
> ...


this is what _Ally's_ buddy said on that same convo ......._its only a few people... and its the same few every time.. the fact none of the other 98000 members' of that forum support their view speaks volumes_ ....wow how coincidental is that Ali......:smilewinkgrin:



AlisonLyn said:


> How clever you worked out my nickname but spelt it wrong.. people call me Ali short for Alison but perhaps I should spell it that way. My explanantion for knowing about some people is that I took time to read back on posts randomly before I starting posting, to get a feel for the forum. I have nothing against anyone as I know none of the people on here, I just think we should all have the same aim but then maybe it is your defence mechanism lol being one of those I was referring to:wink:


oh Ally,Ali,Ally its definately not my defence mechanism you'll never find a post of mine where ive said im appalled at someone having a crossbreed or that all pedigree breeders are responsible:wink: lol


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> This really is not true, Bijou. It is perfectly possible to have a controlled outcross programme (where needed and there may well be alternatives - such as greater use of assortative mating/inter-variety matings) and to breed back to what you want as I hope you've seen by eg, the example of the German Pinscher on my blog - beautiful, typey dogs winning at shows three generations on.
> 
> The alternative is, in my view, is worse - continued gene loss with every generation; an increase in genetic disease and the need for every more DNA tests; smaller litters, reduced fertility, less vigour, more immune-mediated disease. Now some breeds may get lucky and escape this, but the odds are against it.
> 
> I understand the FCI is pre-authorising inter-variety matings - no approval required - from 2012. Still waiting for details, but this is one positive step forward - of relevance to your breed.


yep i've seen your blog on the Pinscher cross and indeed by the third generation the resulting pups were back to type BUT where does the breeder go from there ? - breeding for diversity means they would have to do another outcross resulting in another two generations of untypical dogs before getting back again to breed type - ad infinitum ! - 
Assortative matings are not available for many breeds - where are the assortative or variety dogs for breeds such as Affenpinschers, Tibetan Mastiffs or Schipperkees ?

Here's a quote also from your blog - I think Bruce has just a little expertise in the complexities involved when using outcrosses...and I know who's opinion I value most !



> ..... I had great difficulty achieving what I did with just the one gene to be transferred. It really needed more than one individual to succeed fully. I am therefore quite sceptical about this effort to increase the diversity across the whole genome. I think this needs to be done at a scale only possible at KC level with several crosses perhaps involving several breeds, and then there would be the yet trickier part of keeping the diversity while somehow getting back to breed type. That numbers of people might independently attempt this is frightening; *it could result in no more than a mongrel mix-up.*
> Bruce Cattanach
> STEYNMERE BOXERS - UK. BRUCE CATTANACH - BOXERS, BOBTAIL BOXERS AND GENETICS


and by the way the FCI have ALWAYS allowed intervariety mating for my breed - and given that most of the dogs in the Uk are from FCI stock we already have their genes available to us -


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Bijou said:


> out crossing for genetic diversity


I appreciate there can be problems I really do, but at the same time it does seem to have had success with the Dallies. It seems to have eradicated the rouge gene for the uric Acid, and they seem to look pretty good too.

With DNA identification of the rouge genes for some diseases being found now and testing, could it not be used too in some other breeds with the success the Dallies have had? I know if may not be practical for all diseases and hereditary problems maybe, but surely in some cases.

luadalmatians


----------



## HGV (Sep 13, 2011)

Elles said:


> What were the nasty minutes about?


You need to find the full unedited version where someone taped the original shown on BBC2. You can make your own mind up then .


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> does BSD = Belgian Shepherd Dog?
> 
> if so, there are 4 coat/color types:
> smooth [BSD-Malinois], wire [BSD-Laekenois], long fawn [BSD-Tervuren], long black [BSD-Groenedal].
> ...


I might not understand all the complexities of breeding/genes etc but this post hits home to me more than anything else I have read. If you want to keep blood lines "pure" because anything else is unthinkable, and not look at the alternative options, where needed, then the dogs pay the price currently but ultimately you will lose the breeds you are so desperate to keep.

I remember watching some news thing about a family who had a boy with cystic fibrosis - he was diagnosed young yet they chose to have more children and ended with something like 3 or 4 children (can't remember the exact details) with cystic fibrosis. I do remember thinking how bloody irresponsible and really down right cruel choosing to inflict that on subsequent children. Might be simplistic but I can't see a great deal of difference


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I might not understand all the complexities of breeding/genes etc but this post hits home to me more than anything else I have read. If you want to keep blood lines "pure" because anything else is unthinkable, and not look at the alternative options, where needed, then the dogs pay the price currently but ultimately you will lose the breeds you are so desperate to keep.
> 
> I remember watching some news thing about a family who had a boy with cystic fibrosis - he was diagnosed young yet they chose to have more children and ended with something like 3 or 4 children (can't remember the exact details) with cystic fibrosis. I do remember thinking how bloody irresponsible and really down right cruel choosing to inflict that on subsequent children. Might be simplistic but I can't see a great deal of difference


Whichever way you look at it, it's an experiment, that could well go badly wrong. Dog breeds are not unique genetically, hereditary diseases span breeds, partly because of the way some breed types were developed from similar root stock. So out crossing isn't always the best answer, and won't necessarily reduce risks.

I'm not sure why people think out-crossing is the answer to all the mythical woes our breeds have?


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I will admit I do like unique and different  and to be honest you can't beat a good old mongrel for that.
> 
> Hence why I am sooo annoyed that cockapoos are getting popular as I don't want a common dog that everyone else has got


That is one reason we like the crosses/misfits. Unique and not like these fad dogs going around!


Spellweaver said:


> You said you had a list of 5! Make your mind up!
> 
> And are you the same Ally who said this on facebook:
> 
> ...


OMG no, someone sounds stroppy! Im not on facebook coz i don't want lots of alleged old school friends who i hated looking me up and saying how we loved school.:huh: Mine is spelt differently but after having it pointed out that my name almost spells my nickname I should perhaps change it. Mind you most people call me Alison as I prefer it.


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> why wouldnt she believe the breed I own


Sorry got confused, i thought you were the member with rotties on your pictures doh! Thats why I was being sarcastic.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ...quite simply you cannot have it all - if you want greater genetic diversity, then breeds will be lost -
> no more Australian Shepherds, Shiba inus or Affenpinschers - no more Cairns, Basset Fauves, or Borzois,
> no more Vizlas, Maremmas or Belgians - no more Tibetan spaniels, Pembroke and Cradiga corgis or Deerhounds -
> in fact your choice would be reduced to just a handful of breeds.
> ...


this is ABSOLUTELY not true. :nono: shame on U, Bijou, for scaremongering.

here is a game to see how breeding for gene-diversity works: 
Zoo Matchmaker 
i only played 5 iterations of it, & doubled the gene-diversity in the litters / individuals that i bred. Try it - 
entire SPECIES have been brought back to healthy diversity from ONE animal, especially waterfowl. 
yes, it requires co-operation & forethought, but it's by no means impossible to conserve diversity AND keep 
or even improve heritable-health & structure.

my first suggestion
a *set limit* to the number of times any Crufts /Westminster/ FCI winner could be bred, 
*particularly for studs* who can sire hundreds of litters vs a bitch's 5 or 6 in a whole lifetime; 
that alone would force breeders to diversify their choice of studs - perhaps choosing a dog who had 
a working-certificate rather than a show-certificate, or a retired show-champ who had been lightly bred, 
or a cousin or sibling of the Desired-One. THEY MIGHT EVEN choose a dog who had never been shown, 
but satisfied their criteria, & passed all the health-tests for heritable issues - & was OVER 2-YO & asymptomatic 
for those which cannot be tested for [yet - & some, possibly, will never be testable issues].

choosing studs who please *the breeder* & compensate for any flaw in the bitch is more important 
than the same major show-winner bred to every Mabel, Gladys & Marion in heat that year, 
in the Desired-One's breed. *avoiding matador-breeding* alone would largely conserve gene-diversity.

more attention to structure & health, & less to show-ribbons, would also make a significant improvement.

my second suggestion
- no progeny of dogs who are not examined by an agreed expert should be registered, no matter whether 
both sire & dam are themselves born of registered dogs; this avoids obvious structural defects, dogs who do 
not meet the breed-standard in some crucial way, etc.

- offering a premium to breeders WHO BREED FOR DIVERSITY instead of pure-vanilla is another option. 
recognizing breeders who put temp & health ahead of a crushed-foreface or screw-tail or vertical rear, 
or breeders who are more passionate about perfect structure than perfect markings, would also help 
to reduce the current antipathy among breeders themselves toward breeders who buck the trend, & breed 
dogs who may have a locket but are beautifully made, or whose Irish-collar is discontinuous but their EYES 
are perfect & their NOSE has excellent pigment & they have a FOREFACE not a fish-skull [speaking of Collies, 
specifically Rough Collies] *and choosing dogs of their Rough Collies who don't appear to be upholstered 
with Rya Rugs of natural wool in deep-pile sable or black-tri... * breeding for more moderation & less 
ridiculous excess should be applauded, not penalized. More coat, more wrinkles, more facial-folds, 
shallower eye-sockets, less jaw-depth /more crowded, cockeyed teeth ARE NOT "better", IMO.

regional differences or Country of Origin or international matings
_____________________________________________________________

- dogs from the same breed, but different regions, often differ in type or ancestry; simply using AI 
to breed dogs in different regions or countries can greatly enhance gene-diversity, & health-tests mean 
that we need not take the owner's / breeder's word for their dog's individual health or kennel-line's health.

- i really dislike putty-nosed Goldens; IMO 'self-colored' Goldens of light red /strawberry blonde with putty-noses 
resemble washed-out long-haired Vizslas with too-much coat & excess feather - they're the ugliest of the lot. 
 They appear self-colored, altho i don't know what their pigment genes may be; i only know i don't like 
the look of them, & would S/N every one i met,  if i had the option. 
the USA is either lucky or cursed with a pretty good diversity of type among working, show & pet Goldens; 
from New England thru the prairie-states, to southern California, there's a general trend of smaller & redder 
with black-leather to medium & wheat-blonde in the middle, to ginormous with cream coats in SoCal. 
working / hunting Goldens tend to be small to medium & often reddish to strawberry-blonde. 
there's no reason not to get some judicious mixing, & every reason to accept the diversity regionally, 
& reward it nationally & internationally: *Why must every major show-winner be light blonde 
to cream, with the bigger blunt head of a Brit-type Flab-Lab with feathers glued to their ears?* 
all else being equal, i think that health & structure should count more than a currently-popular type 
that is 'acceptable currency' worldwide in the fancy, which punishes diversity of type & chooses bland 
popularity & the current fashion, over solid structure and excellence in temp or working traits.

if ridiculously-limiting RULES within the Kennel Club / AKC / UKC / CKC / FCI make this 
difficult or impossible, then change the _#[email protected]&*@!_ rules; we are talking about the future 
of our breeds, & of purebred dogs in general. Petty regulations can't be allowed to destroy the breeds 
which our many-times removed forebears shaped so lovingly. That would IMO be criminal. 
____________________________________________

a modern-day example: How to Do It Right, Then WRONG
the *Jack Russell Terrier Club of America* kept their breed remarkably healthy & free of most heritable issues 
for decades on end - HOW? 
- they only registered a dog at 12-MO, after the dog was radiographed, & every dog was examined by someone 
to ensure that s/he met the breed-standard: a hands-on exam by an experienced breeder, or a judge, 
who signed-off on the individual dog as meeting breed standard: size, structure, temp, coat, fit, etc. 
most JRTs were owned by horse-owners who kept them as ratters & pets, as much as for horse-companions 
& guardians of their tack, gear & trailers at shows; they were not popular among the general-public - 
this greatly-limited the number of JRTs given-up by novice owners who were unprepared for their activity, 
intensity, dog-aggro, general reactivity, & predatory impulses. Breed-club rescue was sufficient to re-home 
most of the dogs who became homeless in any given year; JRTs rarely came into shelters or non-breed rescues.
- *LITTERS were never registered until a group of money-hungry breeders broke away & solicited the AKC 
for recognition, at which point the studbook was blackmailed from JRTCA: the club was told that if they did 
not cooperate, they'd have NO SAY in the breed-standard for the AKC show-ring.* Co-operation availed them 
little - within 12-mos or so, the breed-name was changed, litters were registered wholesale, 
& structure, fitness & temps have all suffered a rapid decline as a result. Shelters & rescues have seen 
a huge increase in the number of JRTs/PJRTs & their mixes, surrendered by pet-owners [not stable-keepers]. :nonod: 
it's been a sad but predictable storyline.

my 3rd suggestion
a mandatory working-assessment [not a working-certificate, but an estimate of fitness for the breed's function] 
before any dog could be bred, would also help improve the quality of breeding stock; that would mean 
dogs who have not been shown in the breed-ring would have 2 assessments, one that they satisfy the standard 
for their breed, & the second that they potentially could [hunt, herd, guard, tow a fishnet buoy, other]. 
anyone who uses such dogs could apply to do assessments; criteria would focus on correct structure, 
muscular fitness, the chest of a terrier must be small-enuf to fit into a burrow, & so on.

in sum: 
it is perfectly possible to have BOTH health & conserve or even increase gene-diversity; it takes political will 
& a sea-change in attitudes and goals to go there, from where we are today: currently it's often minimal testing, 
superficial judging in the ring, more flash & fashion vs substance & structure, & a narrow focus on visual appeal. 
we'd have to change those attitudes, & make it worthwhile for breeders to breed for both diversity & health.


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

_I was left with only a handful of dogs who were DNA clear and 1 of them was not hip scored, the other was to closely related and after looking closely at the lines of the final two I picked the one that was classed as line breeding as its what matched my bitch best.

So should I have gone with the un-tested male?_

I think the occasional close-ish breeding is OK. But in this instance I would have asked the stud dog owner to DNA test the male - and offer to split the cost if the cost was an issue.

Jemima


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> ...we know that genetic disease is common in dogs. It is a fact that the majority of dogs
> carry 4 or 5 defective genes.


in the USA according to an AVMA-estimate, every dog [purebred or crossbred or random-bred] has an average 
of 5 deleterious genes [per Padgett, Amazon.com: Control of Canine Genetic Diseases (Howell reference books) (0021898050045): George A. Padgett: Books ] 
the trick is not DOUBLING-UP those flaws.

we cannot discard carriers - & we need to know carrier-status, if at all possible.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2011)

Jemima Harrison said:


> _I was left with only a handful of dogs who were DNA clear and 1 of them was not hip scored, the other was to closely related and after looking closely at the lines of the final two I picked the one that was classed as line breeding as its what matched my bitch best.
> 
> So should I have gone with the un-tested male?_
> 
> ...


It was offered and my offer was ignored. Matings had been done between the stud and other bitches of similar relation to my girl and since the day I wanted to breed my girl intended to outcross completely however the genetic status of my girl left me with limited stud dogs I am however happy with the stud I have picked and I think the mating which has never been done before with a girl similar to my girls linage should produce some interesting puppies and hopefully all in good health.

I think health should top genetic diversity as its okay to outcross but if its risking a litters health in the long term I think its worth linebreeding if that's your only option.

Just to note though, I dont agree with inbreeding.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

AlisonLyn said:


> Sorry got confused, i thought you were the member with rotties on your pictures doh! Thats why I was being sarcastic.


So why would you be sarcastic if it were me like??


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Jemima said


Jemima Harrison said:


> When we were filming, I saw a two-year-old Dogue die at a vets -
> suspected lymphoma and breed typical. We filmed him, in fact - a story (the salutory tale of what can go wrong
> when a breed becomes popular for the wrong reasons) that didn't make the final cut.
> 
> ...


SnoringBear replied - 


Snoringbear said:


> I've seen the health survey before and the respondents are pitifully low, perhaps because
> it predates their surges in popularity? The incidence of early death before the age of two is worrying, as there
> seemed to be a huge spike at two which bottoms out before old age. I haven't looked at it for a few years
> and can't seem to google it, but from what I remember, cancer seemed to be the primary cause of death.
> ...


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

HGV said:


> You need to find the full unedited version where someone taped the original shown on BBC2. You can make your own mind up then .


There are no missing minutes! The version I posted earlier in this thread is the exact same version that aired in August 2008.

As I recall, the anti-FB site did manage to find someone who still had it on their Sky Box recorder. I suspect they discovered the truth from that but for some mad reason it suits them to continue to insist that every copy of the film out there - even ones recorded from the original transmission - has been tampered with.

The international version was shorter, if that's any help, as we are contracted to deliver a 50 minute version of flms for overseas markets.

Jemima


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

4 posts from HGV, 2 of them advising people to watch PDE. Must be a fan.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> I think health should top genetic diversity as its okay to outcross but if its risking a litters health in the long term I think its worth linebreeding if that's your only option.
> 
> Just to note though, I dont agree with inbreeding.


For a layman, could you clarify at what stage/relation its classesdas line breeding and when it becomes inbreeding? & is that the same for all breeders or can anyone make their own interpretation


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Elles said:


> 4 posts from HGV, 2 of them advising people to watch PDE. Must be a fan.


Only the alledged missing bit though it would seem


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> For a layman, could you clarify at what stage/relation its classesdas line breeding and when it becomes inbreeding? & is that the same for all breeders or can anyone make their own interpretation


It's quite simple really, line breeding means you have common ancestors within the past five generations. Inbreeding (for most breeders I know) involves the mating of close relatives, ie one generation difference (eg father x daugher) or the same generation (eg litter siblings or full sister/brother)


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> For a layman, could you clarify at what stage/relation its classesdas line breeding and when it becomes inbreeding? & is that the same for all breeders or can anyone make their own interpretation


Its open to interpretation but I believe Grandfather - Granddaughter - Grandma - Grandson matings should be banned like mother-son ect is.

The relation is; 
Great Granddads son from another bitch. So it still introduces half a new line (the bitches line).

I think each person has their own interpretation of what defines inbreeding and what defines line breeding.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

What I don't understand is when picking dogs to breed after you have done the health tests assume it comes down to what you feel resembles the standard? So if you have a dog that is too short/too tall, tail isn't right etc they would not be selected, yes? Just talking about appearance side here. But if any this selection process actually worked surely you would have a crufts winner every time.

We probably all know good looking people who have lets say an unattractive child or err ugly parents with a pretty child, or siblings where some are better looking/brighter etc. Won't comment on looks but I am 5' 7" and ex is 6' 7" so law of average you would suspect my son would be pretty huge - he is a fairly standard 6' ish (but obviously extremely good looking ). 

All am trying to say is if lots of dogs are excluded from breeding programmes because the don't match the look side of breed standards, is it necessary?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> [
> This really is not true, Bijou. It is perfectly possible to have a controlled outcross programme (where needed and there may well be alternatives - such as greater use of assortative mating/inter-variety matings) and to breed back to what you want as I hope you've seen by eg, the example of the German Pinscher on my blog - beautiful, typey dogs winning at shows three generations on.
> 
> The alternative is, in my view, is worse - continued gene loss with every generation; an increase in genetic disease and the need for every more DNA tests; smaller litters, reduced fertility, less vigour, more immune-mediated disease. Now some breeds may get lucky and escape this, but the odds are against it.
> ...


And your alternative is not really true either Jemima. Again, you only have to look at the bergamasco to prove this. In the early/middle of the 20th century, the breed began to die out - a lower demand for wool meant less sheep, less shepherds and less dogs - and the breed very nearly became extinct. And then an Italian geneticist, Dr Maria Andreoli, took dogs from the few original breed lines and began a restoration program under her Del'Albera affix, and it is largely down to her work that the breed is still around today. She was working from a very small gene pool, and if you look at the breeding co-efficients of the Del'Albera line, they are high - much higher than you would see even in the breeds you vilify. And yet the bergamasco is one of the healthiest dogs in the world, with no known health conditions.

So it is perfectly possible to work with a small gene pool and not only avoid illness, but promote health as well - provided, of course, you know what you are doing. And who are the people in the dog world who most know what they are doing about breeding? That's right - show breeders.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> What I don't understand is when picking dogs to breed after you have done the health tests assume it comes down to what you feel resembles the standard? So if you have a dog that is too short/too tall, tail isn't right etc they would not be selected, yes? Just talking about appearance side here. But if any this selection process actually worked surely you would have a crufts winner every time.
> 
> We probably all know good looking people who have lets say an unattractive child or err ugly parents with a pretty child, or siblings where some are better looking/brighter etc. Won't comment on looks but I am 5' 7" and ex is 6' 7" so law of average you would suspect my son would be pretty huge - he is a fairly standard 6' ish (but obviously extremely good looking ).
> 
> All am trying to say is if lots of dogs are excluded from breeding programmes because the don't match the look side of breed standards, is it necessary?


As is known on here my bitch is not "of standard" as she is on the tall side.

However many breeders I know and am friends with have bitches that have 1 or 2 faults and breed them and have gotten show pups from them. My main goal is to have a healthy litter (I dont care if its onyl 1 puppy as all I want from the litter is 1 puppy) and if I get a show pup then that would be amazing! But its not the end of the world if I dont. I plan to do agility with any pup I keep back anyway.

Many breeders within my breed have bitches that are not perfect. Aiden's mum was not shown and was a little big and had erect ears however two of the 5 pups are shown (aiden being one fo them) 1 of the others is show quality but not shown the remaining two are oversized.

But in the same breath Alaska's parents were both shown and her dads a champion and her mums got a JW however out of the litter only 1 is shown. The same mating a year before resulted in a champion.

So mating good show dogs doesnt always result in a whole show litter. Or at least in my breed it doesnt. But if your breeding from a dog with a fault (like Alaska) you need to be careful, I have some fantastic mentors within the breed luckily.

Breeding should be with the aim of good health, any thing extra is a bonus.

I would be so happy to get show pup but either way I will be keeping one of Alaska's puppies.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> What I don't understand is when picking dogs to breed after you have done the health tests assume it comes down to what you feel resembles the standard? So if you have a dog that is too short/too tall, tail isn't right etc they would not be selected, yes? Just talking about appearance side here. But if any this selection process actually worked surely you would have a crufts winner every time.
> 
> We probably all know good looking people who have lets say an unattractive child or err ugly parents with a pretty child, or siblings where some are better looking/brighter etc. Won't comment on looks but I am 5' 7" and ex is 6' 7" so law of average you would suspect my son would be pretty huge - he is a fairly standard 6' ish (but obviously extremely good looking ).
> 
> All am trying to say is if lots of dogs are excluded from breeding programmes because the don't match the look side of breed standards, is it necessary?


Ok, no to your first bit, all dogs have their faults, there are very few dogs I can look at within my breed and think they are 100% perfect. Both of my girls, as much as I love them, have conformation faults, all dogs do to some extent, and that's what's judged in the show ring, along side temperament.

So for example, Tau has a nice conformation of her stifle joint and back end, she has a nice head and neck set, her leg length is good, she could do with a bit more of a muscular chest, less jowels and less back length, tail set could be better. So, take that into consideration, with her temperament, with the temperament of the stud dog, and with the health test results, and you may be getting somewhere.

So when you get a programme that lambasts all pedigree breeders, and you get people who take all of those considerations (remembering I've already gone through the bother of deciding not to breed from one bitch) you then see why a few are pee'd off eternally at being tarred with the same brush. It's the same as the way cross breed owners get pee'd off at being tarred as being gullible for jumping on the fashionable breed bandwagon, lots of you I'm certain put a lot more thought into what particular dog you want, and seem pretty annoyed when people lump you in with those who just buy a cross breed without really knowing what or why?

If a programme were made that highlighted the myth of hybrid vigour and how all cross breeders were terrible, didn't make use of health tests, fooled people into buying cross breeds etc, would you be angry with the producers of such a programme?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> It is perfectly possible to have a controlled outcross program (where needed,
> & there may well be alternatives - such as greater use of assortative mating/ inter-variety matings) & to breed back
> to [re-create] what you want, as I hope you've seen by e-g, the example of the German Pinscher on my blog -
> beautiful, typey dogs, winning at shows three generations on.
> ...


agreed - 
Inbreeding depression is a massive threat to all purebred dogs, & any one person can do little 
to prevent or reverse it, but individuals CAN slow it. [of course, odds are they will be roundly condemned 
by their peers within the breed, but sometimes we must do what is right - not what is popular].



Ceearott said:


> ...my research leads me to... largely [ascribe this] to over-vaccination & other environmental issues -
> NOT PEDIGREE SHOW BREEDERS!


*inbreeding depression * is a specific suite of slow but cumulatively-catastrophic affects, which No One 
Breeder can mitigate; entire breeds are affected, or regional swathes of breeds, especially in urban areas 
with matador-breeding, or in rural areas with minimal recruitment from studs or dams or lines outside the area.

here is a search with loads of references for info: 
Google

*inbreeding depression* is NOT due to over-vaccination, exposure to '-cides' [fungi-, herbi-, pesticide, ___ ], 
or any other environmental insult; it is due to loss of diversity, & can be assessed via CoI statistics 
for an individual, or breed-wide by estimating the number of EFFECTIVE breeding individuals in the popn 
[as opposed to the number of living individuals, some of whom can be as closely-related as siblings 
in some breeds with foundation-bottlenecks or popn-crashes, like WW1, WW2 or loss of breed-function].

Defn: "Effective breeding-population" - Equations


> _ *Genetic Drift*: Parameter (N)  * 'Effective breeding population* size' -
> 
> When N is small, only a small number of alleles (2N) comprise the gene pool passed from one generation
> to the next. Given these circumstances, allele proportions may be affected by chance (random) sampling errors.
> ...


a general overview of genetics & fitness - in 3 parts: 
The Ins & Outs of Breeding, by Jerold S. Bell, DVM - Part 1 - Alaskan Malamute Health

The Ins & Outs of Breeding, by Jerold S. Bell, DVM - Part 2 - Alaskan Malamute Health

The Ins & Outs of Breeding, by Jerold S. Bell, DVM - Part 3 - Alaskan Malamute Health



> from Part III -
> 
> _ Problems with a lack of genetic diversity arise at the gene locus level.
> There is no specific level or percentage of inbreeding that causes impaired health or vigor. _


IOW there's no set-number of CoI for a breed where we can say, _this breed is severely compromised - 
while this one is OK for now, but needs more inter-variety matings to maintain its gene-diversity._

*the best estimates of inbreeding depression are FUNCTIONAL phenomena:* how many bitches fail to conceive? 
how many pups per litter? Average lifespan? How many dogs have auto-immune problems, & how young do those 
auto-immune disorders manifest? How many dogs have inflammatory diseases - cardiovascular, arthritis, 
lupus, skin & coat & ear & paw problems, atopy, etc?

fertility [single matings that produce pregnancies, & pups per litter] is the best general signifier for overall 
breed health, re gene-diversity. If re-breeding is a common issue, if resorption is a hot topic, if stillbirths 
or pups dying before 21-DO or failing to thrive are topics on breeders' forums, if singletons are increasing, 
if litter-size is declining, THE BREED IS IN TROUBLE & intervention must be rapid to be effective.

here is a lecture from the Univ of Brit-Columbia, Canada - _Inbreeding & Quantitative Genetics_
Inbreeding and Quantitative Genetics

it will jump to heading #11, "Consistency of inbreeding depression" - just scroll upward for the beginning.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Inbreeding depression of an immune system is entirely different to what JH said in her post, which is what I replied on, and what I stand by. I firmly believe over-vaccination affects immune systems long-term and can actually alter DNA - scientific studies are going on at present on this very subject. :wink:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *Ceearott*
> 
> _I've talked to many many breeders & owners of pedigree dogs over the years & the most common theme
> is re genetic disease & its supposed [increase]. ...I don't know... if genetic diseases really has/is increasing.
> ...


 - many of the auto-immune or inflammatory diseases were previously non-existent.

- loss of fertility in a breed is definitely obvious & assessable; the number of pups per registered litter is easy 
to find & compare over decades of pedigree records, within any breed. 


terencesmum said:


> I completely agree... We are simply more aware of those defects now & look for them
> whereas a few decades ago, people probably weren't that bothered about elbow & hip problems (or whatever else
> you can think of).
> And when you... think of it, 4 - 5 defective genes... of thousands & thousands is not that bad, really, is it?


 - an average of 5 deleterious genes per dog is true of any USA-dog, purebred or cross-bred or random-bred, 
owned by a show-breeder or a pet-owner or wandering the Navajo reservation as a feral dog.

- the number of genes that are deleterious is not the significant concern; it's the loss of entire segments 
of alternative alleles, due to all the collective breeding decisions: matador studs, fashion for types, 
popular coat-colors or patterns, the simple number of dogs in the breed in a given country/region, 
whether a given breed still has a function & how many people use them as working dogs or compete 
with them in an alternative sport [e-g, agility for herding breeds: BCs, Shelties, Aussies, ACDs, etc], 
and many other variables.

it is not the genes in ONE dog - it's the collective number of possible alternatives 
for any one allele in one position, that we can find in the entire breed-population. 
It's a total population figure for genes, & each allele has only one possible location 
on a given strand - *How many options are there per location?*, is the question to answer. 
that's the worry: How many choices could we slot into a specific locus?


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> ]- many of the auto-immune or inflammatory diseases were previously non-existent. [/B]
> 
> Yes, but this is due to many other factors coming in to play, as I keep saying! Its down to nutrition and vaccinations - you may disagree, I dont, so dont think by shoving stuff under my nose on here you will get me to change my mind coz I wont, lol!!
> 
> ...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

raindog said:


> A brief word on "inbreeding" - close line breeding in itself is not the issue,
> nor, necessarily, is a small gene pool.


i am sorry to seem contentious, but this is a misleading statement, RainDog. 

line-breeding is merely a less-intense version of inbreeding; asking any one breeder to define their version 
results in _'anything but parent to child, grandparent to grandchild, or sibling to sibling is OK by me',_ 
to _'i do CoI analysis for every mating & won't mate any dogs with a CoI that's over ____ %.' _

some breeders mate half-siblings, some have one sire appear 3 times in each of the dam's & sire's pedigree 
over the 5 generations, some mate uncle to niece or granduncle to grandniece, but only CoI tells relatedness.

the only absolute measure of consanguinity is Coefficient of In-breeding; looking at a 5-generation pedigree 
doesn't mean diddly in a breed with SEVEN founders like the Shar-Pei, where quintuple sires in the early years 
make modern-day dogs LOOK unrelated, when in truth there may be a near-sibling consanguinity.

from Equations 


> _ *Inbreeding*: Parameter (F)  * Inbreeding coefficient*.
> 
> Breeding among relatives causes some individuals who would... have been heterozygotes to be homozygous
> because the two alleles in their genotype are 'identical by descent'. The inbreeding coefficient, F,
> ...


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> What I don't understand is when picking dogs to breed after you have done the health tests assume it comes down to what you feel resembles the standard? So if you have a dog that is too short/too tall, tail isn't right etc they would not be selected, yes? Just talking about appearance side here.


There is no such thing as perfect dog - so will always have to use dogs that have faults - you as the breeder, have to determin how big of a problem the fault is. You select a male, that works on the females weak points vis versa in the hope the litter is an improvement on the parents.

- same as when judging, each dog will have a fault - when placing you as the judge have to select what in your opinion is less of a fault, than another.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> *emphasis added - *
> 
> [auto-immune or inflammatory diseases, which were previously non-existent, are] due to many other factors
> ... as I keep saying! [*I ascribe them] to nutrition and vaccinations*...


as i also pointed out: fertility & neonatal survival are the single best alarms for in-breeding depression. 
a breed-wide survey is one means to assay the state of affairs, with every litter registered being sent a link 
or a form in the mail, if need be an on-line form sent to the vet-of-record, to record the # of pups at birth, 
any stillbirths, & neonatal deaths in the litter.

i do not think that U would insist that loss of fertility is all NUTRITION & VACCINES? Loss of fertility includes
in females: 
re-breeding to get a bitch bred, shrinking litters, more singletons, more stillbirths, more resorption; 
in litters: 
more neonatal deaths from DOB to 21-DO; more failure-to-thrive; more runts [average wt at birth];
in males: 
fewer sperm per ejaculate, more defective sperm, poor sperm motility, more cryptorchids, etc.

also, the registration records of any breed are a gold-mine for data - 


leashedForLife said:


> - loss of fertility in a breed is definitely obvious & assessable; the number of pups per registered litter is easy
> to find & compare over decades of pedigree records, within any breed.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *Elles*
> 
> _ What were the nasty minutes about? _





HGV said:


> You need to find the full unedited version where someone taped the original shown on BBC2.
> You can make your own mind up then .


 oh, for pity's sweet sake! :cursing: *answer the bloody question, & quit impersonating Isadora Duncan 
dancing around a volcanic vent, wouldja?! * :incazzato: I very-strongly suspect there IS NO 'missing' anything, 
it sounds like another delusional conspiracy theory, but in any case, U should either stipulate 
the topic of the supposedly "missing" segment, or stop whinging on about it, IMO. :thumbdown:


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Oh Leashed, you're making my head spin... :wink:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Its open to interpretation... [snip]
> 
> I think each person has their own interpretation of what defines *inbreeding* & what defines *line-breeding*.


which is why CoI is the only measuring-stick that can be used, especially as a 5 or 6-gen pedigree says diddly 
about earlier consanguinity, bottlenecks, *founder-effect*, & so on.

Founder Effect Summary | BookRags.com


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sorry to butt in yet again, but for anyone wondering, the chocolate Labrador who was advertised on freecycle, is now in rescue, and starting her new life as Lilly. She needs to see the vet as she is still bleeding, huge thanks to all those pesky pedigree Lab owners who got involved to help this girl :thumbup1:

She's with North West Labrador Rescue if anyone's interested in following her story, I'm sure they will post soon enough, she looks absolutely adorable


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> oh, for pity's sweet sake! :cursing: *answer the bloody question, & quit impersonating Isadora Duncan
> dancing around a volcanic vent, wouldja?! * :incazzato: I very-strongly suspect there IS NO 'missing' anything,
> it sounds like another delusional conspiracy theory, but in any case, U should either stipulate
> the topic of the supposedly "missing" segment, or stop whinging on about it, IMO. :thumbdown:


Right, just had a scan through the video that JH put up on here yesterday and the one I watched on youtube the other day.

The 'missing' segment is the bit about eugenics. No big deal really although I still can't see the relevance between dog breeding and the eugenics movement. And including images of the third reich was a bit sensationalist really.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry to butt in yet again, but for anyone wondering, the chocolate Labrador who was advertised on freecycle, is now in rescue, and starting her new life as Lilly. She needs to see the vet as she is still bleeding, huge thanks to all those pesky pedigree Lab owners who got involved to help this girl :thumbup1:
> 
> She's with North West Labrador Rescue if anyone's interested in following her story, I'm sure they will post soon enough, she looks absolutely adorable


That's excellent news. Thanks for letting us know SL


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> Inbreeding depression of an immune system is entirely different to what JH said in her post...


inbreeding depression is in part diagnosed by the increasing-number of auto-immune disorders in the population, 
like asthma, arthritis & other inflammatory diseases, as well as poor immune-function: extreme susceptibility 
to what are normally-rare illnesses that should affect immune-compromised individuals, will begin to affect 
what are supposedly-normal, healthy individuals who are past neonate age, & under middle-age - IOW, they are 
young, appear normal, *should be healthy* but develop unusual illnesses that should not affect their cohort.

that's what Jemima described here - 


Jemima Harrison said:


> ...continued gene loss with every generation; an increase in genetic disease & the need
> for [ever-]more DNA tests; smaller litters, reduced fertility, less vigour, more immune-mediated disease.


practically speaking, this is the recipe for, & the result of, inbreeding-depression.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

bearcub said:


> The 'missing' segment is the bit about eugenics. ...I still can't see the relevance between dog breeding
> and the eugenics movement.


Sir Francis Galton

summary - 


> _ The science of eugenics was invented by Sir Francis Galton... The term... was coined by Galton in 1883,
> though he had been doing research & writing in the field for some time before then. [He] did research in several scientific fields including geography, meteorology & anthropology.
> Galton was the cousin of Charles Darwin & the son of a wealthy, influential family. In 1869 Galton wrote a book
> called Heredity Genius in which he followed the lives of several accomplished men from what he considered
> ...


can U see the relevance? :001_smile: culling dogs whose traits we do not want via S/N is 'negative' eugenics; 
awarding a Champion title or a CC certificate, or breeding a champion or CC dog, or breeding only dogs whose traits 
we like, is 'positive' eugenics.

Eugenics Popularization

Eugenical Sterilization - sterilization of humans: 
the state of Virginia in the USA was still doing ovariohysterectomies on women who were considered 
'undesirables' into the mid-1970s; this began before 1930, & included women of color, poor women, 
'poor morals' [pregnant out of wedlock, prostitutes, unmarried but hymen broken, drinking/smoking, 
anything other than modest dress, etc], foreign-born immigrants, unemployed, retarded, or simply 
anybody the doctor or the county-authorities thought was ugly, stoopid, uncooperative or rebellious in any way.

many of the men who were sterilized were convicts - but not all, of course, were guilty, nor did they all 
have any definitive 'bad traits' to be avoided; criminality is not a heritable trait, but poverty is, & poverty 
is also a prime cause of poor education - which of course, results in more poverty in their children.
EXCERPT - 


> _ The sterilization of 'defectives' continued into the mid-1970s. The total number of people sterilized in the USA
> is above 60,000. Most of these were innocent people whose only crime was not being able to stand up for themselves.
> [SNIP]
> The American eugenics movement served as [the] model [on] which the Nazi party based its 'racial hygiene' program. _


there was a considerable correspondence between Hitler & various eugenics-lecturers in the USA. 
they sent him books & pamphlets, letters, news-articles, & so on; he praised their work & words.

1995 book - 
Evolution: Darwin: In the Name of Darwin 
EXCERPT - 


> _ Eugenics was rooted in the social Darwinism of the late 19th century, a period in which notions of fitness,
> competition, and biological rationalizations of inequality were popular. _


Dalton was a Briton, & founded an extremely-influential Society which helped shape British government, 
societal attitudes, & Colonial policies for decades after his death. 
Francis Galton and the Eugenics Society

it still has strong global-influence via the World Bank, various social-policies, economic theories, etc.

EXCERPT - 


> Dalton wrote *(emphasis added) - *
> 
> _ If a twentieth part of the cost & pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the human race
> *that is spent on the improvement of the breed of horses & cattle*, what a galaxy of genius might we not create!
> ...


EXCERPT - 


> Dalton also wrote *(emphasis added) - *
> 
> _No one, I think, can doubt, from the facts and analogies I have brought forward, that, if talented men were mated
> with talented women, of the same mental and physical characters as themselves, generation after generation,
> ...


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

Good post, Leashedforlife. (The one about inbreeding depression.)

It always mildly amuses me when people try the nutrtion/vaccination argument - anything rather than accept that the way we've been breeding dogs is not in their best interests long-term, despite the fact that the what we're witnessing now in many breeds (a high incidence of genetic disease/lessening in vigour) is entirely predicted by the science. 

We live in an age when us humans are living much longer thanks to vaccination, better nutrition and better medical knowledge. But while fewer dogs die as puppies today thanks to vaccination, but there is - sadly - little evidence that dogs live longer today than they did. Indeed, there's some evidence to the contrary.

Jemima


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Jemima Harrison said:


> Good post, Leashedforlife.
> 
> It always *mildly amuses me when people try the nutrtion/vaccination *argument - anything rather than accept that the way we've been breeding dogs is not in their best interests long-term, despite the fact that the what we're witnessing now in many breeds (a high incidence of genetic disease/lessening in vigour) is entirely predicted by the science.
> 
> ...


Actually, I have scientific evidence that two pups I bred died as a direct result of a reaction to the pravo virus jab. I myself, am damaged, to the point that I could register myself disabled is=f I so wished but I choose not to, as a direct adverse reaction of a childhood vaccine for measles so think on when making comments like that!! I have researched this subject probably far more indepth than you ever will and have pages and pages and pages of info on the subject - pros and cons and NO_ONE will ever convince me different that vaccines are the error of the millenium!!

Doht judge me until you've walked in my shoes and experienced my life!! Midley amuses you indeed - what an insult I consider that!!

And I really had better bow out now for fear of exploding something really naughty on this thread!!:cursing::cursing:


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

In that sense I get the relevance LFL but I think under the circumstances of the documentary, there was no differentiating between positive and negative eugenics, and following the explanation with shots of nazi germany put it into a context that meant to most, selective breeding = bad. Which we all know of course, is not the case. Even in humans.


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> And your alternative is not really true either Jemima. Again, you only have to look at the bergamasco to prove this. In the early/middle of the 20th century, the breed began to die out - a lower demand for wool meant less sheep, less shepherds and less dogs - and the breed very nearly became extinct. And then an Italian geneticist, Dr Maria Andreoli, took dogs from the few original breed lines and began a restoration program under her Del'Albera affix, and it is largely down to her work that the breed is still around today. She was working from a very small gene pool, and if you look at the breeding co-efficients of the Del'Albera line, they are high - much higher than you would see even in the breeds you vilify. And yet the bergamasco is one of the healthiest dogs in the world, with no known health conditions.
> 
> So it is perfectly possible to work with a small gene pool and not only avoid illness, but promote health as well - provided, of course, you know what you are doing. And who are the people in the dog world who most know what they are doing about breeding? That's right - show breeders.


It is possible, Spellweaver. There are, indeed, examples of very small inbred populations that appear to be healthy. But they are the exception. I am delighted the Bergamasco is one of the healthiest dogs in the world, with no known health conditions. It may be that the breed really is purged of deleterious recessives. In which case, keep doing what you're doing - but I'd advise keeping an eye on fertility/fecundity/litter sizes etc, and truly encourage everyone to report any health problems that may emerge.

Is there a UK club website? I couldn't find one.

Jemima


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Ceearott said:


> Inbreeding depression of an immune system is entirely different to what JH said in her post, which is what I replied on, and what I stand by. I firmly believe over-vaccination affects immune systems long-term and can actually alter DNA - scientific studies are going on at present on this very subject. :wink:





leashedForLife said:


> as i also pointed out: fertility & neonatal survival are the single best alarms for in-breeding depression.
> a breed-wide survey is one means to assay the state of affairs, with every litter registered being sent a link
> or a form in the mail, if need be an on-line form sent to the vet-of-record, to record the # of pups at birth,
> any stillbirths, & neonatal deaths in the litter.
> ...


Im with both of you on this one!! As you may or not know Nanuq who was a rescue pup from a litter along with 3 adults, 2 male/1 female. Shes a sibe/Mal mix. I say Mix because shes not a straight Mal x sibe cross. Nan started with Seizures just before christmas, then a grand Mal after in the new year. Did the epilepsy route, but I also got her Thyroid tested, knowing the Auto Immune Thyroiditis, is genetic and can make an appearance before 3 yrs. She was Just 2yrs 4th Jan. Turned out she has got the hereditary version, not only this, so does 2 out the 3 brothers, One of the brothers also had Liver Shunt, The other with it had crystals in the Urine. One so far has escaped as far as I know, and the 5th pup died presumeably at/soon after birth.

Nan had baby jabs, luckily 1st booster, I had her titre tested instead which was OK. I was urged after diagnosis of the thyroditis to give her 2nd due booster as titres were there but 2 had dropped and query insufficient, and when I checked with a specialist, I was told I would be putting her at risk of further auto immune diseases. From what I gathered from the specialist and the link I will put up should verify it. The animal/human can be genetically pre disposed that part of the problem is genetic, Vaccinations, environmental factors etc, will play a part in genetically pre-disposed individuals, and using the auto immune thyroiditis as an example it is passed on genetically.

Introduction to Autoimmune Diseases
The term "autoimmunity" literally means immunity against self and is caused by
an immune-mediated reaction to self-antigens (i.e. failure of self-tolerance).
Susceptibility to autoimmune disease has a genetic basis in humans and animals.
Numerous viruses, bacteria, chemicals, toxins, and drugs have been implicated
as the triggering environmental agents in susceptible individuals. This
mechanism operates by a process of molecular mimicry and/or non-specific
inflammation. The resultant autoimmune diseases reflect the sum of the genetic
and environmental factors involved. Autoimmunity is most often mediated by Tcells
or their dysfunction. As stated in a recent review, "perhaps the biggest
challenge in the future will be the search for the environmental events that
trigger self-reactivity" (Sinha, Lopez and McDevitt; Science, 248: 1380, 1990).
Table 1 lists factors commonly associated with autoimmune diseases.

Genetic Screening for Thyroid Disease
Complete baseline thyroid panels and thyroid antibody tests can be used for
genetic screening of apparently healthy animals to evaluate their fitness for
breeding. Any dog having circulating antithyroid autoantibodies can eventually
develop clinical symptoms of thyroid disease or be susceptible to other
autoimmune diseases because their immune system is impaired. Therefore,
thyroid prescreening can he very important for selecting potential breeding
stock.

Ive provided the link for the whole article in detail:-
http://www.canine-epilepsy.com/docs/Immune System & Disease Resistance.pdf

Thyroditis as mentioned though is just one of the auto immune diseases.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> Actually, I have scientific evidence that two pups I bred died as a direct result of a reaction to the pravo virus jab. I myself, am damaged, to the point that I could register myself disabled is=f I so wished but I choose not to, as a direct adverse reaction of a childhood vaccine for measles so think on when making comments like that!! I have researched this subject probably far more indepth than you ever will and have pages and pages and pages of info on the subject - pros and cons and NO_ONE will ever convince me different that vaccines are the error of the millenium!!
> 
> Doht judge me until you've walked in my shoes and experienced my life!! Midley amuses you indeed - what an insult I consider that!!
> 
> And I really had better bow out now for fear of exploding something really naughty on this thread!!:cursing::cursing:


There's always the *ignore* 

Funnily enough, was speaking to an FCR breeder today, and well, let's leave it at that!


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Jemima Harrison said:


> Good post, Leashedforlife. (The one about inbreeding depression.)
> 
> It always mildly amuses me when people try the nutrtion/vaccination argument - anything rather than accept that the way we've been breeding dogs is not in their best interests long-term, despite the fact that the what we're witnessing now in many breeds (a high incidence of genetic disease/lessening in vigour) is entirely predicted by the science.
> 
> ...


And at least the first two of the ones I've highlighted there (probably not the last one) are not the case for dogs. The every day dog fed on the every day foods has appalling nutrition, even some of the excellent breeders I've come across still feed an inadequate diet and why? Because of the power the major dog food companies have over the vets, and the shameless way they vets are promoting 'science' based nutrition diets. The introduction of this 'convenience' food has surely had a negative impact on the lifespan of dogs since the 70's.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I agree with Ceearott on the vaccination/diet issue. I too have had problems with vaccination and my old anglo-arab reacted badly to a vaccine when he was about 5 years old and hasn't had any since. It's on his vet records and I can get a vet's letter to exclude him from vaccination requirements if I did want to show him.

Diet is something I battle with daily for horses I have in to rehabilitate. Insulin resistance, low grade laminitis and various problems are related to toxins used when fertilising pasture, high sugar content diets, low magnesium/calcium ratios. Changes when the horses have been wormed with chemical wormers, or been vaccinated are often evident in 'event lines' on compromised feet. Of course this is just a quick explanation and not in any detail, but the horses I deal with have not been inbred, line-bred, or bred to look pretty. 

It's a separate issue, but still very relevant to dogs' (and other animals including us) welfare, that shouldn't be dismissed as mildly amusing. :nono:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> It is possible, Spellweaver. There are, indeed, examples of very small inbred populations that appear to be healthy. But they are the exception. I am delighted the Bergamasco is one of the healthiest dogs in the world, with no known health conditions. It may be that the breed really is purged of deleterious recessives. In which case, keep doing what you're doing - but I'd advise keeping an eye on fertility/fecundity/litter sizes etc, and truly encourage everyone to report any health problems that may emerge.
> 
> Is there a UK club website? I couldn't find one.
> 
> Jemima


It certainly is possible - and what is possible in one breed is possible in every breed, which is why it is irresponsible to portray inbreeding as always being wrong. And thank you for the advice, but I am confident that any health problems that may emerge in any bergamasco in this country would be reported immediately - there are so few bergamaschi in this country that everyone knows everyone else, and we are all very passionate about our chosen breed. I am sure that in the unlikely event of anything untoward occuring healthwise, the Breed Club Health Co-Ordinator would be contacted immediately, and he in turn would report it to the KC. As for litter sizes, at present the amount from Del'Albera lines is usually between five and ten.

Sadly there is no UK club website, which is why I had to refer you to foreign club sites and the International Bergamasco Sheepdog Association site in my other post. What did you think about the information I posted for you, btw? Can you now see how you were so wrong about this breed, and why it should not have been included in your footage when you were speaking about how dogs have been altered by man?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> agreed -
> Inbreeding depression is a massive threat to all purebred dogs, & any one person can do little
> to prevent or reverse it, but individuals CAN slow it. [of course, odds are they will be roundly condemned
> by their peers within the breed, but sometimes we must do what is right - not what is popular].
> ...


But unless someone, eg the kc, asks for & keeps such data how will things progress. Everyone I know who has been through this their main I don't know gripe, sadness, is that there is no where to report it. If you get a pup which suffers/has some awful illness there is no where to go, no one to report it to so that you can help. You just feel really helpless, I don't know how many litter mates of my dog had their life cut short or if they were bred from


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, no to your first bit, all dogs have their faults, there are very few dogs I can look at within my breed and think they are 100% perfect. Both of my girls, as much as I love them, have conformation faults, all dogs do to some extent, and that's what's judged in the show ring, along side temperament.
> 
> So for example, Tau has a nice conformation of her stifle joint and back end, she has a nice head and neck set, her leg length is good, she could do with a bit more of a muscular chest, less jowels and less back length, tail set could be better. So, take that into consideration, with her temperament, with the temperament of the stud dog, and with the health test results, and you may be getting somewhere.
> 
> ...


Just so this doesn't get lost, so, owners of cross breeds, your opinions please 

I'll start, I owned a Lab x collie, she was of unknown origin, that was her *accepted* parentage. Her breeders were probably byb breeders who didn't know any better, bitch had pups, Chloe could possibly even have had pups. She was the most unhealthy, awfully made dog with the most absolute awful temperament I've owned, and yet she had a retirement with me, that saved her from certain death. Am I sorry she was the way she was, no, she had no concept of that. Am I sorry that the way she was bred carries on today, bl**dy hell yes


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

Ceearott said:


> Actually, I have scientific evidence that two pups I bred died as a direct result of a reaction to the pravo virus jab. I myself, am damaged, to the point that I could register myself disabled is=f I so wished but I choose not to, as a direct adverse reaction of a childhood vaccine for measles so think on when making comments like that!! I have researched this subject probably far more indepth than you ever will and have pages and pages and pages of info on the subject - pros and cons and NO_ONE will ever convince me different that vaccines are the error of the millenium!!
> 
> Doht judge me until you've walked in my shoes and experienced my life!! Midley amuses you indeed - what an insult I consider that!!
> 
> And I really had better bow out now for fear of exploding something really naughty on this thread!!:cursing::cursing:


I'm genuinely sorry to hear that your health has been compromised by an adverse reaction to a measles vaccine. And I say that as someone, too, who is currently suffering due to the side effects of medical treatment.

I did not say that vaccine reactions never happen. I accept that they do - although having researched this myself reasonably thoroughly I'm with the scientific view that adverse reactions happen more rarely than some people believe and I firmly hold that, overall, the advent of vaccination was a godsend for both us and our dogs. I don't know how old you are, but if not old enough to have experienced the horrors of epidemics of parvo/distempter pre-vaccine, I strongly recommend tryng to find an older vet who lived through it- although I can understand that your experience has coloured your view.

The point I am making is that the issues we see in some purebred dogs are explained by the science (relating to inbreeding/lack of genetic diversity) and have been very well-documented in other species. It is of course possible that nutrition/vaccination play a role too, but at the moment there is not enough solid evidence for me, at least (and science in general) to throw the existing perfectly plausible explanation out of the window.

Jemima


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just so this doesn't get lost, so, owners of cross breeds, your opinions please
> 
> I'll start, I owned a Lab x collie, she was of unknown origin, that was her *accepted* parentage. Her breeders were probably byb breeders who didn't know any better, bitch had pups, Chloe could possibly even have had pups. She was the most unhealthy, awfully made dog with the most absolute awful temperament I've owned, and yet she had a retirement with me, that saved her from certain death. Am I sorry she was the way she was, no, she had no concept of that. Am I sorry that the way she was bred carries on today, bl**dy hell yes


I agree 100% and I am the other side of the coin, pedigree/show lines/health tested/ethical breeder BUT too inbred. Would I change him - yes, I wouldn't want him to be ill & die very very young


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> But unless someone, eg the kc, asks for & keeps such data how will things progress. Everyone I know who has been through this their main I don't know gripe, sadness, is that there is no where to report it. If you get a pup which suffers/has some awful illness there is no where to go, no one to report it to so that you can help. You just feel really helpless, I don't know how many litter mates of my dog had their life cut short or if they were bred from


This is a key issue. There has been very little proper data surveillance (just one per cent of what there could be, reported one recent paper in the Veterinary Journal).

There is, however, a new data surveillance scheme rolling out now in the UK - called VEctAR. More info about it *here*

It is the brainchild of Prof Paul McGreevy (Brit now at the University of Sydney).

Jemima


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I agree 100% and I am the other side of the coin, pedigree/show lines/health tested/ethical breeder BUT too inbred. Would I change him - yes, I wouldn't want him to be ill & die very very young


Without wanting to be rude, would you mind me asking which breed, sounds as though you've had an awful experience 

I only ask as this thread has highlighted a few with a shorter lifespan, and your experience sounds like one that may hopefully guide others to a *better* experience when looking for a dog.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> It is of course possible that nutrition/vaccination play a role too, but at the moment there is not enough solid evidence for me, at least (and science in general) to throw the existing perfectly plausible explanation out of the window.


Absolutely not and I'm sure some people use vaccination and diet as an excuse, alongside other excuses such as a full moon when their pups were born, or being born with no legs makes them better lapdogs. 

Other contributory factors to health do still need further research though and I would be unhappy too at someone who blamed vaccine or diet for their ills when they know it's unjustified, as that simply muddies the water, for those to whom it is an issue. It's not something a respected campaigner for animal or human welfare should be dismissing as amusing and entirely unfounded imo.

I am skeptical of research papers and veterinary figures on the subject as I was quite shocked when my own vet told others that he'd never seen an adverse reaction to vaccine, when he'd treated my own horse for it. I have seen other anecdotal evidence of the same. If vets should be reporting adverse reactions, who to and do they anyway?

I am old enough to remember and have seen dogs with distemper. It makes vaccination a difficult choice to make and yes it is a godsend, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved on.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Jemima Harrison said:


> This is a key issue. There has been very little proper data surveillance (just one per cent of what there could be, reported one recent paper in the Veterinary Journal).
> 
> There is, however, a new data surveillance scheme rolling out now in the UK - called VEctAR. More info about it *here*
> 
> ...


I really cant honestly say whether it makes me incredibly angry or just terribly sad I just know so many people who have really poorly dogs and there is no where to report it, not for compensation or whatever just to help to improve things, nowhere to say please do not breed these particular dogs again or even to find out if mine/theirs was just a one off, one of those things or if some/all of the litter mates are similarly effected.

I have learned so much more since but 6 years ago I expected so much more I really thought buying a good pedigree KC registered with all sort of champions meant something. It may do now but I am sorry to say it really did not then


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I really cant honestly say whether it makes me incredibly angry or just terribly sad I just know so many people who have really poorly dogs and there is no where to report it, not for compensation or whatever just to help to improve things, nowhere to say please do not breed these particular dogs again or even to find out if mine/theirs was just a one off, one of those things or if some/all of the litter mates are similarly effected.
> 
> I have learned so much more since but 6 years ago I expected so much more I really thought buying a good pedigree KC registered with all sort of champions meant something. It may do now but I am sorry to say it really did not then


Wow, you must know more than me then, I know quite a few breeders and owners of pedigrees, and I don't know one of them that feels they have a gripe against a breeder


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Without wanting to be rude, would you mind me asking which breed, sounds as though you've had an awful experience
> 
> I only ask as this thread has highlighted a few with a shorter lifespan, and your experience sounds like one that may hopefully guide others to a *better* experience when looking for a dog.


No I don't mind. Tibetan Terrier, few health issues usually average lifespan around 16 years normally.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> No I don't mind. Tibetan Terrier, few health issues usually average lifespan around 16 years normally.


Bl**dy hell, sounds like you've been very unlucky then, I'm really sorry


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Wow, you must know more than me then, I know quite a few breeders and owners of pedigrees, and I don't know one of them that feels they have a gripe against a breeder


But where do I say I have a gripe against a breeder I don't, I could have been very very unlucky and have the only one who was ill/died young, but I have no way of knowing or finding out.

Yes hopefully people keep in touch with breeder & they pass info on, but out of my previous dog and current dog I am one of the few who have kept in touch with the breeder. - I have a gripe against a system there is nothing in place to report any illness/death. Or even to check up if you are buying a pup to see history as opposed to solely test results

And no my view is not formed by PDE - I actually never watched it until today


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Openly, openly honest, and gee, I can almost imagine the ears perked up (even with the ignore button) but yes, there are people within my breed I wouldn't give two cents worth. They have influence, so much so, that a health test has been included as a recommendation for ABS members, even though that health test is a bit of a none starter for most Lab owners. 

Let's just say, can you trust the advice of someone about health tests, who is willing to accept a 2:1 elbow graded bitch to a stud dog known to have elbow problems. If I had been turned away by this person at the start of thinking about breeding, I'd have an awful lot more respect for them.. I wasn't, and I don't. So yes, for those from the anti show, anti pedigree side, or who don't believe the hype, neither do I. For what it's worth, I believe in my dogs, I believe in research, and finding out about a breed, instead of accepting someone's second hand opinion, and I believe in having the integrity to make decisions, otherwise I wouldn't be where I am today. However, I add the proviso, there are those who show their dogs who are bl**dy passionate, and rightly so, there are those who work their dogs who are passionate, and rightly so, there is no one source of information for dogs, but lots of them. Most people can't be bothered though and a tabloid style magazine suits better, such as Dogs Today for example


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> But where do I say I have a gripe against a breeder I don't, I could have been very very unlucky and have the only one who was ill/died young, but I have no way of knowing or finding out.
> 
> Yes hopefully people keep in touch with breeder & they pass info on, but out of my previous dog and current dog I am one of the few who have kept in touch with the breeder. - I have a gripe against a system there is nothing in place to report any illness/death. Or even to check up if you are buying a pup to see history as opposed to solely test results
> 
> And no my view is not formed by PDE - I actually never watched it until today


The very angry and sad kind of points towards a gripe?? Or a one off rant against *someone*


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

_"I have a gripe against a system there is nothing in place to report any illness/death."_

I rememer Carol Fowler (Home - cavaliercampaign) expressing the same shock to me when I first met her. She couldn't believe there wasn't an official reporting system. And, of course, there still isn't.

Although there are some glimmers of hope. Have a look at the *Dachshund Breed Council's health website*. Very impressive in the way that it encourages the reporting of problems.

Your Tibetan - may I ask what the problem was?

Jemima


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Openly, openly honest, and gee, I can almost imagine the ears perked up (even with the ignore button) but yes, there are people within my breed I wouldn't give two cents worth. They have influence, so much so, that a health test has been included as a recommendation for ABS members, even though that health test is a bit of a none starter for most Lab owners.
> 
> Let's just say, can you trust the advice of someone about health tests, who is willing to accept a 2:1 elbow graded bitch to a stud dog known to have elbow problems. If I had been turned away by this person at the start of thinking about breeding, I'd have an awful lot more respect for them.. I wasn't, and I don't. So yes, for those from the anti show, anti pedigree side, or who don't believe the hype, neither do I. For what it's worth, I believe in my dogs, I believe in research, and finding out about a breed, instead of accepting someone's second hand opinion, and I believe in having the integrity to make decisions, otherwise I wouldn't be where I am today. However, I add the proviso, there are those who show their dogs who are bl**dy passionate, and rightly so, there are those who work their dogs who are passionate, and rightly so, there is no one source of information for dogs, but lots of them. Most people can't be bothered though and a tabloid style magazine suits better, such as Dogs Today for example


But how do ordinary people know, where do they check - for my sins I work in financial servivces the industry as a whole has a pretty dire reputation & if you know nothing about pensions/investments/insurance/mortgages how do you find out who you can trust, who is decent or "ethical". Where I work we do a damn good job and look after people, I drill into staff treat all clients how you would hope your family would be treated/looked after. Our governing body is the FSA, but you can be registered whether you are A1 or Z list. You can go on the FSA website and check out a company but it does not tell you how many complaints have been made against a company just they are registered - it means zilch. Same with the KC really - a register is just that, nothing more nothing less


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> _ She couldn't believe there wasn't an official reporting system. And, of course, there still isn't.
> Jemima_


_

This is not true Jemima.

Can I just point out to everyone who thinks they cannot find anyone to whom they can report the ill health of a pedigree dog, that under KC rules each breed club should have an appointed breed health co-ordinator. The job of the Health Co-ordinator is to monitor health within the breed and report to the KC._


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> In my humble opinion, I think PDE is mainly responsible for the uptake in these so-called designer dog breeds, all the oodle-doodle-woodle-noodle-poos, as people know have the mistaken belief that crossbreeds are healthier and will not suffer from genetic diseases like the pedigrees. Anyone with eve na basic knowledge of genetics knows that is not the case, but you try explaining that to Joe Public who now thinks my dogs are 'mutant freaks'.


I have another 10 pages to read through but have to respond to this. Cockerpoos have been bred since the 50's, and labradoodles since the 70's. How can a 2008 programme have had any influence??

I've met loads of doodle owners and the reasons given for choosing a doodle is usually look and temperament, probably the reason people choose any breed (depending on what look and temperament you favour).


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Jemima Harrison said:


> _"I have a gripe against a system there is nothing in place to report any illness/death."_
> 
> I rememer Carol Fowler (Home - cavaliercampaign) expressing the same shock to me when I first met her. She couldn't believe there wasn't an official reporting system. And, of course, there still isn't.
> 
> ...


Diagnosed with poly immune idio something arthritis at 2 years old, died just before his 6th birthday with liver cancer


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, no to your first bit, all dogs have their faults, there are very few dogs I can look at within my breed and think they are 100% perfect. Both of my girls, as much as I love them, have conformation faults, all dogs do to some extent, and that's what's judged in the show ring, along side temperament.
> 
> So for example, Tau has a nice conformation of her stifle joint and back end, she has a nice head and neck set, her leg length is good, she could do with a bit more of a muscular chest, less jowels and less back length, tail set could be better. So, take that into consideration, with her temperament, with the temperament of the stud dog, and with the health test results, and you may be getting somewhere.
> 
> ...


*
*

Wouldn't need a programme for that SL we get all that on here


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> But how do ordinary people know, where do they check - for my sins I work in financial servivces the industry as a whole has a pretty dire reputation & if you know nothing about pensions/investments/insurance/mortgages how do you find out who you can trust, who is decent or "ethical". Where I work we do a damn good job and look after people, I drill into staff treat all clients how you would hope your family would be treated/looked after. Our governing body is the FSA, but you can be registered whether you are A1 or Z list. You can go on the FSA website and check out a company but it does not tell you how many complaints have been made against a company just they are registered - it means zilch. Same with the KC really - a register is just that, nothing more nothing less


Get in touch with someone involved, who knows a bit about it, and who is willing to help. So in this instance ME (with the help of a phone a friend alternative). It ain't rocket science, the contact of innumerable good breeders are out there.

I've been looking at a new pup recently, a breed I've been interested in for a while, so, after asking about ancestry, working, and everything else, eventually, I was left with the two things that are usually the first thing to ask on any puppy buyers list? Any guesses as to what they are?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Erm. How much is he? When can I see/pick him up?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> This is not true Jemima.
> 
> Can I just point out to everyone who thinks they cannot find anyone to whom they can report the ill health of a pedigree dog, that under KC rules each breed club should have an appointed breed health co-ordinator. The job of the Health Co-ordinator is to monitor health within the breed and report to the KC.


I didn't know that so I asked the KC & was told there is no reporting or recording mechanism. For the record I did not want to record or report to lay blame on any one just to say look my dog is terribly ill and he is only 2 if your dog is related check things out before you breed


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Get in touch with someone involved, who knows a bit about it, and who is willing to help. So in this instance ME (with the help of a phone a friend alternative). It ain't rocket science, the contact of innumerable good breeders are out there.
> 
> I've been looking at a new pup recently, a breed I've been interested in for a while, so, after asking about ancestry, working, and everything else, eventually, I was left with the two things that are usually the first thing to ask on any puppy buyers list? Any guesses as to what they are?


"how much" 

and

er, can't think of the other...

what breed?


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Heh heh - and every time I read the title I think it says "Duds Today" :lol:


I tried to edit it as soon as I posted. You can't apparently


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> Erm. How much is he? When can I see/pick him up?


Close, colour and price basically, sad really. If you've done your research about a breed, you should know what colour (which I did) and what sort of price to expect to pay (which I do).

Almost all of the enquiries I get for Labrador pups, are for chocolate, and how much?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

freddies_mum said:


> I tried to edit it as soon as I posted. You can't apparently


heheh, I've done it before, and the chuffin mods have left it because it's funny, those chuffin mods, too much time on their hands if you ask me 

And as a PS, thank you for an informative debate, but more so, well done for your magazine debut


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I wanted, and bought, a tri-colour collie. *slithers away to find a rock*

Mind you it took 2 years to find a tri-colour that met all my criteria.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Close, colour and price basically, sad really. If you've done your research about a breed, you should know what colour (which I did) and what sort of price to expect to pay (which I do).
> 
> *Almost all of the enquiries I get for Labrador pups, are for chocolate, and how much? *


Yeah that's pretty bleak. Our neighbour got a Springer a few months ago, came round to show her off and one of the first things she said to us was

"she was 250 quid! bargain!"

No need to tell you that this pup has not been socialised, not been house trained, fed bakers, nips the kids etc etc


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> I wanted, and bought, a tri-colour collie. *slithers away to find a rock*
> 
> Mind you it took 2 years to find a tri-colour that met all my criteria.


Can I ask what criteria, just to try and expand a little on my experience...


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2011)

I think everyone on here knows about Scorchers health issues and hence why I am against breeding cross or pedigree with out health tests.

Scorcher was cross bred to create the perfect farm/working dog. Inturn she has spent 11 years now suffering.:cursing:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I didn't know that so I asked the KC & was told there is no reporting or recording mechanism. For the record I did not want to record or report to lay blame on any one just to say look my dog is terribly ill and he is only 2 if your dog is related check things out before you breed


Really? That's surprising. It's also surprising you could not find the information online. Putting Tibetan Terrier Health in the search engine on the KC site brings this up - which talks about the different health tests they require and then mentions the Breed Health Co-ordinator.

Breed Information Centre from the Kennel Club


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Close, colour and price basically, sad really. If you've done your research about a breed, you should know what colour (which I did) and what sort of price to expect to pay (which I do).
> 
> Almost all of the enquiries I get for Labrador pups, are for chocolate, and how much?


I presume black is the least popular?

I hardly ever see black labs out and about they are either choc or yellow.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I think everyone on here knows about Scorchers health issues and hence why I am against breeding cross or pedigree with out health tests.
> 
> Scorcher was cross bred to create the perfect farm/working dog. Inturn she has spent 11 years now suffering.:cursing:


If her parents had been health tested would the aim of creating the perfect farm/working been achieved do you reckon? ( as much as you would know what they were aiming for)


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Know this sounds a tad silly, but sometimes I wish Chocolate Labs were simply called Brown Labs. I swear some of the people we have met have bought them simply because the name is cute


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> If her parents had been health tested would the aim of creating the perfect farm/working been achieved do you reckon? ( as much as you would know what they were aiming for)


Possibly. But their idea of the perfect dog was Scorcher even though they kept her in an outside shed and allowed her to mate with her brother. Then when she got to old and to sick to do her job they threw her out.

Her temperament is bomb proof apart from her fear of men. (to the point were she wet herself).

Do I think the perfect dog is worth suffering that she has gone through? No.

Do I think if her parents were health tested would things have been different? No. She may have been healthy but the breeders were not the type of owner who should have a pet rat let alone dogs. She would have still been thrown out when she served no use to them.

My girl has had enough suffering to last any dog in the world 10 times over. I am left with a dog who mentally thinks she's a puppy but physically cant cope.

Its a hard thing for me and her to deal with daily and all because of a selfish act from some prick.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

bearcub said:


> Know this sounds a tad silly, but sometimes I wish Chocolate Labs were simply called Brown Labs. I swear some of the people we have met have bought them simply because the name is cute


I think you are right - I used to know someone who bought a golden retriever because of the word "golden"


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Really? That's surprising. It's also surprising you could not find the information online. Putting Tibetan Terrier Health in the search engine on the KC site brings this up - which talks about the different health tests they require and then mentions the Breed Health Co-ordinator.
> 
> Breed Information Centre from the Kennel Club


His parents had the standard health tests thanks, eyes & hips etc were clear.

What I was to saying is there is no where to go to say he had an auto immune disease at 2 years old so that anyone with one of his siblings or other relations, in case thinking of breeding should think carefully/do more checks or that he died before he was 6 of liver cancer. He had no functioning liver left -I bought him for my sons 18th, if you can watch your 23 year old son breaking his heart as his dog died or see your 80 year old Dad pining away because his best buddy is dead and not feel something is not right then you are a better person than me.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Possibly. But their idea of the perfect dog was Scorcher even though they kept her in an outside shed and allowed her to mate with her brother. Then when she got to old and to sick to do her job they threw her out.
> 
> Her temperament is bomb proof apart from her fear of men. (to the point were she wet herself).
> 
> ...


No she hasn't had the best start in life bless her, and I know she suffers so. :-( I love Scorcher her face is one of the sweetest :001_tt1:


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> No she hasn't had the best start in life bless her, and I know she suffers so. :-( I love Scorcher her face is one of the sweetest :001_tt1:


Thank you, Scorcher approves.:lol:









She's my baby and it hurts me so much to see her suffer. But it hurts to think about ending her life before her minds ready.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Sure. It's long though. 

Puppy criteria: Tri-colour. Female. Under 12 weeks old. Must be socialised, at least with other people and children and comfortable in the home. Friendly, active and healthy in appearance. 

Parent criteria: No recent in-breeding. ISDS registered. Preferably actual working dogs, not just breeders. Over 4 years old. Eyes clear as a minimum. Friendly, confident, happy, healthy looking.

Breeder criteria. Breeds few litters. Socialises litters in the home. No outside sheds (I google earthed it as well as had a good look round, having arrived early on purpose.) Must ask me difficult questions and be suspicious of me. Want to know what I'm going to do, where the puppy will live and whether I know anything about active working line collies. Must first vaccinate, worm, vet check and give me a puppy pack, current food and information. Must insist puppy is returned if there's a problem, as a matter of principle, not because I thought I'd want to take the pup back, but a test of their integrity. 

They need not necessarily have the pups eye tested, as I can get that done myself if buying before 12 weeks old, the parents are both clear and over 4. 

Elles' sire is an 8 year old (might be 9 now) working farm collie, reg ISDS, Elles is from the last litter he'll sire, or I'd get a sibling later.  Mum an ISDS/KC 4 year old, who was super waggy and friendly, a grinning collie. Both different types of collie. Dad the more stocky, very hairy, larger type, mum the slimmer, finer coated, but still hairy, smaller type.

I was terrified of in-breeding and determined that my pup's parents would not be babies themselves, kept out back in the dark in a shed, or born on a puppy farm.

We actually paid a deposit for a puppy that we'd seen, about 6 months into looking, but when we got home I had niggling worries about it, so phoned and cancelled and told them to keep the deposit.

Now, I would also look for a pup that was already microchipped and I would look for more health testing even if the dogs had already proved their health through age, as a matter of principle and hidden possibilities.

PF's fault! It'll take me 10 years to find the next one.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> Actually, I have scientific evidence that two pups I bred died as a direct result of a reaction to the pravo virus jab


& as a breeder you did your up most to get ot the bottom of the issue! 

- I know several breeders that have lost puppies because of vacc'ing - most no longer vacc. & instead use other options.

The lastest was a 12 week old akita, poor thing so young  results showed the wee thing suffered, and died as a result of the second puppy vacc.

I have heard of quite a number of dogs losing their lives because of vacc's - and as responsible breeders that have taken the time to find out what caused the unexpected death, they all have the evidence.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Thank you, Scorcher approves.:lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


awww it's her eyes that do it.

Yes I know times are difficult for you with her health at the moment and my heart goes out to you it really does xx


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> & as a breeder you did your up most to get ot the bottom of the issue!
> 
> - I know several breeders that have lost puppies because of vacc'ing - most no longer vacc. *& instead use other options.
> *
> ...


Very worrying as you just don't know what to for the best at times 

What are the other options they use?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> His parents had the standard health tests thanks, eyes & hips etc were clear.
> 
> What I was to saying is there is no where to go to say he had an auto immune disease at 2 years old so that anyone with one of his siblings or other relations, in case thinking of breeding should think carefully/do more checks or that he died before he was 6 of liver cancer.


I'll say it again - that is exaclty what the Breed Health Co-ordinator is for.



DoodlesRule said:


> I bought him for my sons 18th, if you can watch your 23 year old son breaking his heart as his dog died or see your 80 year old Dad pining away because his best buddy is dead and not feel something is not right then you are a better person than me.


It is a sad story indeed - but I strongly object to the inference that I could watch something like this and not be upset by it. I don't know why you feel you have to attack in this way when all I have done is tried to help you by letting you know that, contrary to Jemima's erroneous information, there IS a reporting mechanism for such things. How very nasty of you.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Very worrying as you just don't know what to for the best at times
> 
> What are the other options they use?


I know a breeder that uses nosodes - Nosodes: alternative to vaccines

(I personally cant comment on them as have done limited research - that research was only done due to my CC lad being brought in from someone who uses them, he however received his full puppy course when with me, his breeder was aware that this was my intention however!)

- all my dogs, and mums are still fully vaccinated - although after the first booster we do not do it yearly (thats another subject though, on over vacc'ing)


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I know a breeder that uses nosodes - Nosodes: alternative to vaccines
> 
> (I personally cant comment on them as have done limited research - that research was only done due to my CC lad being brought in from someone who uses them, he however received his full puppy course when with me, his breeder was aware that this was my intention however!)
> 
> - all my dogs, and mums are still fully vaccinated - although after the first booster we do not do it yearly (thats another subject though, on over vacc'ing)


Yes last year Monty had a partial booster and they both will have partials in Oct ( full vacs every 3 yrs)

But hey like you said let's not digress even more !!

Thanks for info though


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Why/how did I choose my crossbreed - posted before of issue I had experienced, thought unlucky so checked out many many breeders for a Tibetan Terrier again and could not find one that did not have a lot of in/line breeding with the same lines appearing repeatedly & decided would have no dog at all rather than risk going through the same again. 

My son came across the golden retreiver cross,I looked into them & was doubtful - thought too big amongst other things - but went to see them for his sake. They quizzed me as to what I knew what I wanted & why, what home circumstances were etc only really wanted to sell to anyone living very close so easier to check on them. They hand reared the smallest and were keeping her, too much love & effort to part with her. Why did they have one in the first place - because they had 3 Bernese who died very young so were not going to have another dog again. A friend suggested a golden retreiver cross - yes doodle but the name is neither here nor there in either of our decisions.

Parents were both health tested, pups reared at home, socialised, crate trained already, partially house trained, used to being brushed, vacinated, puppy pack etc etc. I have a fabulous dog with the sweetest nature who has not given me any problems or a seconds regret from day one.

Call them a BYB if you like but I am happy & so is my dog


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Doodlesrule I'm surprised you only have one as most I know have got more or want more


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

The same lines appear because its the lines, a breeder has based their breeding programme on doesnt mean the dogs are closely related!
- what you need to do is understand a pedigree, instead of looking at the names the pedigree contains. (and I am not trying to insult your intelligence here either - has taken me a long time to get to grips with reading pedigrees, and understanding them - its now become something I am greatly interested in!  .. I blame my mum for this ..)


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> The same lines appear because its the lines, a breeder has based their breeding programme on doesnt mean the dogs are closely related!
> - what you need to do is understand a pedigree, instead of looking at the names the pedigree contains. (and I am not trying to insult your intelligence here either - has taken me a long time to get to grips with reading pedigrees, and understanding them - its now become something I am greatly interested in!  .. I blame my mum for this ..)


I found that out when I was helping a friend research pedigrees and we went back way beyond the 5th generation. Even though all the names or for a good proportion of it all look different and you may think its OK, its when you start going back further, You realise different names but a lot more in common then you first think. Even Imports which you would think bring in complete diversity, on checking back came from the same British lines originally.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I'll say it again - that is exaclty what the Breed Health Co-ordinator is for.
> 
> It is a sad story indeed - but I strongly object to the inference that I could watch something like this and not be upset by it. I don't know why you feel you have to attack in this way when all I have done is tried to help you by letting you know that, contrary to Jemima's erroneous information, there IS a reporting mechanism for such things. How very nasty of you.


For goodness sake I am not having a go at you I am just telling my experience - I have had no information from Jemima erroneous or otherwise. I have already said I did not even watch PDE until today via the link on a previous post. At the time my dog died I asked the KC for advice and went by what they said - they were not interested basically and told me they do not keep information of illnesses/death because felt it would serve no purpose and if breeders were forced to divulge/record this in a way that was open to the public many may no longer register.

At best you are extremely cold hearted to twist things around to try and make out its some sort of dig at you, at worst then how very nasty/self obsessed of you to think everything is about you. The inference from your post by mentioning health tests was that I had purchased an unhealth tested dog. I did not.

I have no opinion on showing - its not an area I am involved in or research so am neither for nor against, it does not really interest me either way, each to their own. I am not against pedigrees, I had one. Therefore I was merely providing an explanation, nothing more nothing less


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> I found that out when I was helping a friend research pedigrees and we went back way beyond the 5th generation. Even though all the names or for a good proportion of it all look different and you may think its OK, its when you start going back further, You realise different names but a lot more in common then you first think. Even Imports which you would think bring in complete diversity, on checking back came from the same British lines originally.


Yes this is why I never understand why a breeder will stop at the avarge 5th generation when doing a pedigree match - plus its interesting to see whats right in the back behind the dogs, I like to look back as far as possible (hence I love our breed database - just a b*mmer when a dogs missing from a pedigree because it hasnt been added to the site!).

If you look back far enough on any CC you will find that all of our morden CCs come from two foundation lines.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> The same lines appear because its the lines, a breeder has based their breeding programme on doesnt mean the dogs are closely related!
> - what you need to do is understand a pedigree, instead of looking at the names the pedigree contains. (and I am not trying to insult your intelligence here either - has taken me a long time to get to grips with reading pedigrees, and understanding them - its now become something I am greatly interested in!  .. I blame my mum for this ..)


nope not insulted at all and freely admit at the time I did not understand them - studied after he died and yes there was closely related breeding - it may be classed as line breeding but close for me to be very uncomfortable and class as in breeding.

I pulled out of having another Tibetan when I thought I had at last found a "good" breeder - grandfather/grandaughter was to me inbreeding and not ethical. (No offence intended for anyone who feels ok with this, I just didnn't)


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> nope not insulted at all and freely admit at the time I did not understand them - studied after he died and yes there was closely related breeding - it may be classed as line breeding but close for me to be very uncomfortable and class as in breeding.
> 
> I pulled out of having another Tibetan when I thought I had at last found a "good" breeder - grandfather/grandaughter was to me inbreeding and not ethical. (No offence intended for anyone who feels ok with this, I just didnn't)


I understand, thats your choice. I wouldnt advise anyone to go ahead and buy from/support a breeder if they didnt agree with them on the whole, if I or others agree with their practices or not. - we all have our own views, and all have different opinions on matings - no one can be knocked for that.

I am for one glad of the new rules put forward by the KC for allowing such closings to take place - although there are many people this wont affect, there are some around that have done, and would still be doing close matings if accepted. I dont agree with such close matings from your typical breeder - however I also feel that at some point it is often needed, when introducing a new breed over with a small gene pool or something similar (but these matings should only EVER be done by them MOST expereinced, and passionate!) but thats just me..

as for grand parent, to grandchild matings - I will admit I really dont have an issue with this, as long as everything is taking into consideration, its being done by someone that is both educated on the overall breed and most importantly the lines being used. - Its a mating that can be of great success for developing a type within a line, but not only does it bring out the good it also brings out the bad - hence it being so important to be aware of the bad points, even more so than the good.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Doodlesrule I'm surprised you only have one as most I know have got more or want more


I would have a house full! My Dad has Dougie 3 days a week when my son's shifts clash with my work, even though he is in his 80's he's fit as a fiddle and walks for miles every day (country bumpkin) but I don't think it would be fair on Dad to have another dog as Dougie is a great big dopey lump  Only reason I don't have more!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I understand, thats your choice. I wouldnt advise anyone to go ahead and buy from/support a breeder if they didnt agree with them on the whole, if I or others agree with their practices or not. - we all have our own views, and all have different opinions on matings - no one can be knocked for that.
> 
> I am for one glad of the new rules put forward by the KC for allowing such closings to take place - although there are many people this wont affect, there are some around that have done, and would still be doing close matings if accepted. I dont agree with such close matings from your typical breeder - however I also feel that at some point it is often needed, when introducing a new breed over with a small gene pool or something similar (but these matings should only EVER be done by them MOST expereinced, and passionate!) but thats just me..
> 
> as for grand parent, to grandchild matings - I will admit I really dont have an issue with this, as long as everything is taking into consideration, its being done by someone that is both educated on the overall breed and most importantly the lines being used. - Its a mating that can be of great success for developing a type within a line, but not only does it bring out the good it also brings out the bad - hence it being so important to be aware of the bad points, even more so than the good.


Thank you - I realise you have more knowledge of breeding than I do so you may feel comfortable with some things I do not, but I have at times challenged some of your posts (only if I feel strongly not just for the sake of it) so credit where its due, I do appreciate the fact you have not slated me on this point and seem to understand my reservations, and just answered reasonably.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Thank you - I realise you have more knowledge of breeding than I do so you may feel comfortable with some things I do not, but I have at times challenged some of your posts (only if I feel strongly not just for the sake of it) so credit where its due, I do appreciate the fact you have not slated me on this point and seem to understand my reservations, and just answered reasonably.


Thats a key point the general public/them not 'clued' up on breeding will and do take things wrong, and as such wont support a breeder because in their eyes the breeder is doing some wrong - but each to their own..

Its only been the last few years I myself has accepted breeding, and showing.
I was one of these narrow minded folk that thought anyone breeding was a disgrace, and as for showing...well.. never thought I would handle myself, and be involved in breeding. But through interest, and the want I educated myself, aswell as learnt from mum and am aware that although their are issues, their is also some great work. - I feel that we all know there is bad going on, and I will always try my best in anyway I can to not support it and highlight the issues to the uneducated - but best of all I can promise myself I will never be like the dishonest folk, who often dont put their dogs first.

I dont ever intend to offend or insult folk, although yes I do become frustrated.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Yes this is why I never understand why a breeder will stop at the avarge 5th generation when doing a pedigree match - plus its interesting to see whats right in the back behind the dogs, I like to look back as far as possible (hence I love our breed database - just a b*mmer when a dogs missing from a pedigree because it hasnt been added to the site!).
> 
> If you look back far enough on any CC you will find that all of our morden CCs come from two foundation lines.


Hopefully with more and more breed databases, things will get easier to go back further and check out the exact relationships beyond the 5th Generation. Without doing that its easy to look and think you have got a lot of diversity, only to find out its not as you may have first thought. As I said even with an Import, I was atonished when you went back further that it came from British lines in the first place, so wasnt an entirely "new" unrelated dog.

I would imagine though it would be the same for a lot of breeds as regards to
all the existing dogs coming from the same sort of ancestry or pretty close.
I remember when researching with my friend. Several times I actually said talk about all roads leading to Rome. I know the idea has been bandied about to do outcross which I understand (if this is correct) Is same breed of course just unrelated, and I can see how that would work to bring in new blood to a line so to speak, but without going back further then the 5th generation, could you be sure that the new blood was that different anyway.

In some breeds specially ones that have gone on to the endangered list (cant think what its actually called) If they were all from a couple of lines originally anyway, and there are very few being bred or numbers have dropped considerably then what happens to them. if there is any bad genetic diseases in those breds, then surely you wouldnt have any option really to do what they did with the LUA Dalmatians, have to cross with another breed and then back true again, or maybe even do it a few times inbetween, the back true.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> For goodness sake I am not having a go at you I am just telling my experience - I have had no information from Jemima erroneous or otherwise.


Do you even read posts on here before attacking people? Of course you have had erroneous information from Jemima - everyone has - I am talking about the post below:



Jemima Harrison said:


> _"I have a gripe against a system there is nothing in place to report any illness/death."_
> 
> I rememer Carol Fowler (Home - cavaliercampaign) expressing the same shock to me when I first met her. She couldn't believe there wasn't an official reporting system. And, of course, there still isn't.
> Jemima


I posted the correct information for you - *trying to help you * - *hello, trying to help you, do you get that bit *- because you thought there was no-one to whom you could report ill-health and a reason for lines not to be bred from again, when in fact there is. I notice that in your rush to attack me you have not yet acknowledged this.

And as for your not attacking me,typing this about someone



DoodlesRule said:


> if you can watch your 23 year old son breaking his heart as his dog died or see your 80 year old Dad pining away because his best buddy is dead and not feel something is not right then you are a better person than me.


is a deliberate attack, and all your protestations to the contrary cannot alter that. And as if that were not enough, you do it yet again:



DoodlesRule said:


> At best you are extremely cold hearted to twist things around to try and make out its some sort of dig at you, at worst then how very nasty/self obsessed of you to think everything is about you.


It's very hard not to think something is directed against you when you have been deliberately attacked in this way! So don't try to twist things around and shift the onus on me. You may have conveniently omitted the fact that I sympathised with you about what had happened to your dog and how unhappy your son was, but the post is there in black and white for everyone to see and you are fooling no-one when you accuse me of being hard-hearted. Anyone who knows anything about me at all knows that I care passionately about both animals and people.

As for why you try to attack me in this way, the only reason I can think of is this huge chip on your shoulder:



DoodlesRule said:


> I have no opinion on showing - its not an area I am involved in or research so am neither for nor against, it does not really interest me either way, each to their own. I am not against pedigrees, I had one. Therefore I was merely providing an explanation, nothing more nothing less


I have not spoken to you about showing, or pedigrees, and yet you bring them somehow into every conversation you have with me, irrespective of their relevance to the topic we're discussing. Why?


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> This is not true Jemima.
> 
> Can I just point out to everyone who thinks they cannot find anyone to whom they can report the ill health of a pedigree dog, that under KC rules each breed club should have an appointed breed health co-ordinator. The job of the Health Co-ordinator is to monitor health within the breed and report to the KC.


Since PDE, I have had hundreds of calls from owners who feel they have been dismissed by breeders/breed club or KC when they have tried to report problems. Some complaints are not justified - dogs are living things, not fridges, and sometimes things go wrong despite everyone's best efforts. But many are justified and they follow a predictable pattern. First, the owner goes back to the breeder to say, eg, that their 9-month old dog needs a double-hip replacement. Breeder accuses owner of over-exercising the dog. Owner discovers that other pups in the litter also have hip probs. Later, owner discovers that breeder, who is breed club member, has repeated the mating - dam and sire have been hip-scored but sire has a very high score.. Owner contacts the breed club to express concern. Breed club is frosty. If owner tries to push it, they get labeled as hysterical pet owner. Owner contacts KC. KC says, sorry, nothing they can do - unless it is an ABS breeder and a specific rule has been broken.

Now, I accept that there are some breed clubs who are good on this - but WAY too many are not and it desperately needs to improve. Health info on many breed club websites is extremely patchy and very few make it easy to report health problems.

Then what happens to that info once reported? Too often it just drops into a black hole. Typically, there is no feedback to the owner to say it is being acted on and nothing published anywhere.

Have a look at the Karlton Index - an attempt to measure objectively how well breeds are tackling health.

Jemima


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Bl**dy heck I have learnt a lot reading this stuff about genetics etc but I've also realised that a dog forum is appropriate for certain topics as some posters who are so passionate about this topic (which we shouldn't knock I now realise) are like a dog with a bone. The trouble is it seems to be going round in circles because who can say who is right and who is wrong? The good side is that people like me get educated on things; I am bowing out on this now because I no longer feel intelligent enough to give my opinion and am swaying to the other side.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> Have a look at the Karlton Index - an attempt to measure objectively how well breeds are tackling health.
> 
> Jemima


Yes, I've been following the progress of the Karlton Index with great interest. From the few breed clubs surveyed so far it looks as if this may prove to be a useful tool for breed clubs to use to improve their service to the public - and hence improve the overall health of dogs. However, I guess, as with everything else, the findings are only going to be as good as the research and I'm reserving my judgement until I find out how good the research has been into the two breeds I own. That will give me a benchmark to assess how good the rest of the research has been, and hence how useful a tool it will be.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I do feel that ALL breeders should have a responsibility to only breed from healthy stock that have had all the relevant health tests and by that I mean all and am not aiming it entirely at byb's & pf's although I do understand what awful breeders most of these are.

What I find incredible is that a breeder of certain dogs I know  and I won't say which was so very highly respected for all she did for the breed and practically introduced them to the UK in the 1960's - she is still held in high regard today by very many respected breeders. However looking at a litter from 2003 of which a friend had a pup, I find of three pups scored the results were 17 - 36 and 43  massively high the last two with a BMS of 13 for the breed, not only that but only the sire was tested, who by the way wasn't hers 

I find it rather unsettling that breeders were so concerned about PDE when if you bother to look through the BRS and chase up health tests you can find that not all respectable breeders do things correctly and in the dogs best interests. I obviously don't know about other breeds than the one I am referring to but I wish there wasn't this double standard thing that I see with some who breed for showing and a total hypocritical approach towards byb's & pf's while condoning it with fellow showers/breeders.

There were also some temperament issues in some of these lines but they looked good so apparently that was okay  my friends dog had a terrible aggression problem from a pup and the poor girl died of cancer at the age of just under four, as did one of her siblings. Surely that is reason enough not to breed from those dogs again and surely just because the dogs looked good that isn't enough to continue to breed - is it?


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

I urge people who think I am talking out my a$$ when it comes to vaccines to click on this link and read this womans article - she is someone I have highly admired for sometime.

HOW VACCINES IMPACT THE IMMUNE SYSTEM by Dr. Patricia Jordan, DVM

http://www.thedogplace.org/VACCINES/Vaccinosis-1_Bloomer&Thomason.asp

http://www.thedogplace.org/VACCINES/Vaccinosis-2_Bloomer&Thomason.asp

http://www.thedogplace.org/DOGCARE/Disease/Articles.asp


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> I urge people who think I am talking out my a$$ when it comes to vaccines to click on this link and read this womans article - she is someone I have highly admired for sometime.
> 
> HOW VACCINES IMPACT THE IMMUNE SYSTEM by Dr. Patricia Jordan, DVM
> 
> ...


hmy:God. Thats it our dogs are not having their jabs anymore. They don't go in kennels anyway but we thought vaccinations were essential for the dogs! Thanks for the links


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Ceearott said:


> I urge people who think I am talking out my a$$ when it comes to vaccines to click on this link and read this womans article - she is someone I have highly admired for sometime.
> 
> HOW VACCINES IMPACT THE IMMUNE SYSTEM by Dr. Patricia Jordan, DVM
> 
> ...


I fully agree your preaching to the converted as far as Im concerned, there is a problem with over vaccination, and adverse effects, and some could/are causing problems from this alone in Immune Mediated diseases. But from what I have also learnt from Nanuq having a hereditary/genertic auto immune problem it means that dogs with this are pre disposed and it is things like vaccines or over vaccination that are triggers, but it is actually sitting there if you like in the first place waiting to be triggered or to develope.

Thats what I meant by Im with both of you on this one when I quoted you and leashed and gave the link in a earlier post. Leashed was talking about genetic auto immune/ pre-disposed and you were talking about adverse effects/problems/illnesses caused by vaccinations, chemicals and environmental.(or at least I think you were, I could well have missunderstood and got it wrong) I could see where you were both coming from. As always and with anything there is usually never a clear black and white, there is always a grey area, and often an overlap of the two. Different angles/sides to every story.
Trouble is and Im talking generally her not aimed at anyone and I fully admit Ive done it myself on occassion the problems always occur mostly when One person thinks what they say is gospel and wont listen to any other points of view. As I say this is a general comment not aimed and anyone, and Ive admitted Ive dug my heels in in my life convinced I was right and I was only partially. Or at times got the complete end of the stick.
This is what I was also trying to say before, there are great breeders in the show world, There are great breed clubs with members who do there utmost.
That do all they could and should. But there are really bad ones too, and ones that seem ok and give it large when your buying a pup and can show you all the successess etc etc. but you get a problem, try it then, try speaking to other specialists in the breed to get help, and then let slip where you got the pup, then Bang down come the shutters because that persons "prominent and respected".Even though they were helpful up to then. The previous time incidently you rang the breeder, with the problem, the answer was your not being tough enough smack him on the nose and put him in his crate. Try ringing the breeder again for help, and asking if there is someone they can reccomend whos specialised with the breed and can help with the problem. They say they will have a think and call you back, and your still sitting there over 4 and a half years later for that call.

I have got the upmost respect for a good breeder whos love care and health of the dogs is important. I an see why such a breeder gets upset and feels that bad is reflected on them, unless they get coverage and acknowledgement too for their achievement and the things they do right.

Ooops sorry gone on a bit of a soap box rant.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> *emphasis added - *
> 
> I don't agree with such close matings from your typical breeder - however I also feel that *at some point,
> [close matings are] often needed, when introducing a new breed... with a small gene pool or something
> similar* (but these matings should only EVER be done by [those] MOST experienced...) but that's just me.


 - *founding a new-breed* is precisely when we want maximum diversity - as it cannot be added later 
easily, it simply tends to shrink. The founders of the California Spangle cat-breed used *6 breeds* rather than 
just 6 individuals, to maximize their starting-bank of genes to choose from - avoiding the "founder effect", 
the classic early-bottleneck of minimal gene-alternatives, is very important to future health.

- any new-breed that ALREADY-has a 'small gene-pool' [as above] should avoid any close matings whatever - 
if that means outbreeding to a new individual in one of the founding-breeds that has many or most of the traits 
that are desired, then that's what must be done. U cannot afford to sacrifice the breed's future-health & bankrupt 
the gene-account of a breed, early on; diversity does not 'grow' over time, it is established at the start or not at all.


Devil-Dogz said:


> *emphasis added - *
> 
> as for *grandparent to grandchild* matings - I will admit I really dont have an issue with this,
> as long as everything is taken into consideration, its being done by someone that is... educated on
> ...


 - a grandparent contributes 50% of the genes to the parent, & 25% of the genes to the grandchild. 
REPEATING that 1-gene-in-4 as HALF of the genes in a litter born to a grandchild is extremely-close 
breeding & high consanguinity.

- if grandparent to grandchild is 'not close', WHAT IS? 
does only parent to child or sibling to sibling count as 'close breeding'?!

- if the grandsire in such a breeding has one deleterious trait that is a recessive, meaning he'll *never be 
affected*, there's a *1 in 4* chance that the granddaughter is also a carrier - in which case, fully 
*50% of their progeny in a grandsire to granddaughter mating are AFFECTED - 
& the other 50% are carriers. U had better hope to Heaven that anything & everything that might be 
carried in Ur breed, can be tested for - because otherwise U are flying blind.*

- creating affected offspring & undiagnosed carriers is a genetic disaster; depending upon age of onset, 
the affected animals may already have progeny before they have symptoms, & carriers may be bred repeatedly 
[if they are Un-tested, if there IS NO test, or if nobody's realized the siblings are affected yet] - & spread the gene 
widely as a carried recessive, which may be a simple recessive, a partial-expression, or any of the other 
more-complex expressions of recessives that are anything but simple.

- *EPIgenetic expressions of genes* depend upon 'experience' to be expressed; an epigenetic consequence of one 
recessive might be a cancer which only appears in a carrier if that individual is exposed to a chemical insult, 
or if they are seriously-stressed, or if they are poorly nourished for a time; something as simple as losing weight 
[being put on a weight-loss diet] could trigger a very-serious, unsuspected illness as an epigenetic effect. 
an epigenetic problem can be extremely difficult to diagnose; some individuals have it but never trigger it, 
others trigger it but it may be very hard to connect the illness to the hidden gene.


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

There is no point telling breeders to health test and driving people away from the breed at the same time. Tell people what good breeders are testing for then they can see the difference and can decide for themselves .


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

If I were to ever buy a pedigree dog in the future I would buy a few copies of the BRS for that breed and research the kennel names and tests done for myself as you can't always go by what people, even experienced people, will tell you about a "good" breeder.

They may have been in the breed for over twenty years, they may show but they don't always health test as I found when such a breeder approached me to use Flynn at stud because he had her lines in him and she wanted to bring them to the forefront. The fact that he was barely one year old, had no health tests were of no concern to her, thankfully they were to me and I declined, just as well as he turned out to have a hip score of 55 (BMS 13) and later two hip replacements.

I also agree with ceearot regarding vaccinations since Flynn developed head tremors after a booster two years ago, he hasn't had and boosters since and will not in the future along with the other dogs.
The man director of Dogmatic lost a top show winning Dobe some years ago as a direct result of him having a booster, she now advises along with Catherine on this site. Canine Health Concern - Putting your dogs health first


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It's the same as the way cross breed owners get pee'd off at being tarred as being gullible for jumping on the fashionable breed bandwagon, lots of you I'm certain put a lot more thought into what particular dog you want, and seem pretty annoyed when people lump you in with those who just buy a cross breed without really knowing what or why?
> 
> If a programme were made that highlighted the myth of hybrid vigour and how all cross breeders were terrible, didn't make use of health tests, fooled people into buying cross breeds etc, would you be angry with the producers of such a programme?


Absolutely of course i would, hearing it said like that does put a different perspective on it. If everyone could explain why they feel the way they do in this way i'm sure there'd be a lot less confrontation between folk.:smile5:


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Is someone thinking of Galtons Law of Ancestral Inheritance re the close matings?? Because that was dicredited many years ago, lol!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

there was an error in the QUOTE function; this was my post:


leashedForLife said:


> - *founding a new-breed* is precisely when we want maximum diversity - as it cannot be added later
> easily, it simply tends to shrink. The founders of the California Spangle cat-breed used *6 breeds* rather than
> just 6 individuals, to maximize their starting-bank of genes to choose from - avoiding the "founder effect",
> the classic early-bottleneck of minimal gene-alternatives, is very important to future health.
> ...





Ceearott said:


> Are you talking Galtons Law of Ancestral Inheritance?? This has now been discredited!


no - it's plain, ordinary Mendelian genetics.

a NEW breed does not get any NEW genes - they have the genes provided by their foundation stock. 
over time, selection-pressure prunes various alternate alleles - breeding practices such as matador sires 
will prune entire lines or branches very quickly, indeed. In-breeding or line-breeding [the less-intense version 
of in-breeding] also reduces the number of alleles available for any one locus.

think of it as a card-game: every individual has just 26 cards, it takes 2 to make a full-deck. 
U can start with one deck [just 2 individuals], & lose single cards with careful reshuffling. 
or U can start with multiple decks, & lose a few cards here or there, or a whole suite in one deck: 
maybe all the Hearts in the Bicycle-deck are gone, but there are still however many suites of Hearts 
to fill that gap. The more alternates U have as reserves, the better.



Ceearott said:


> And quite incidently - are you able to actually write a post yourself
> or do you refer to others quotes and links all the time?


how snarky of U, CeeARott - :huh: what have i done to earn this?

i'm sure U'll be thrilled to know that i wrote all that copy myself. :001_smile: aren't U proud of me? 
there is no *link* in that post, & there are no *quotes* from other persons - it's all mine.

BTW i refer to others & their books, links, videos, etc, *because* they have knowledge i lack - 
like DVM Padgett, a geneticist, & DVM Overall, a vet-behaviorist, both board-certified in their specialties - 
or they provide something i cannot: a full-length book on a problem-behavior, a video of the application, etc.

i don't own a video-camera - & even if i did, there are brilliant teaching-videos that i'd refer to, anyway, 
like Leslie McDevitt demonstrating how to teach a highly-reactive dog to relax on cue, using her terrierrrist, 
Snap - IMO it's a fantastic example of wonderful training & also proves that even 'difficult' dogs or breeds can 
be taught self-control without aversives or punishment: there's no scolding, interruption, collar-jerks, etc.

what's wrong with providing the knowledge that my colleagues have to offer, or that of acknowledged experts? 
i'm extremely appreciative of such gold-mines as Overall's website, with more than a dozen detailed, 
step-by-step protocols for everything from separation-anxiety to aggression. I think it's very generous of her.

none of us re-invent the wheel or the combustion-engine to use a car, or ride a bus - why should we re-create 
something that may not even be as good as what's already been done? I DON'T OWN a terrier - i've worked 
with many, but they weren't my dogs. Leslie's video is an eye-opener for folks whose terrier [they claim  ] 
is 'impossible to control' or 'untrainable' or 'crazy' - they're nothing of the sort. 
they're typical-Terrierrrrists: short attention-spans, hyperaware, vocal, predatory, reactive, & UNTRAINED. 
that doesn't make them "untrainable", these dogs are ignorant & behave as their instincts prompt them.

i love showing the frustrated owner of a JRT or Scotty that their dog *can learn self-control.* it's not a fantasy, 
it's not impossible, it's not even that hard - it takes persistence & some minor skills, but anybody can do this if they 
can walk & chew gum at the same time... or if they cannot walk, but otherwise have hand-eye co-ordination. 
i've helped disabled handlers train their dogs; there are adaptive techniques & tools to help. ANYBODY can do this, 
who can understand some simple rules & exercise decent timing; kids as young as 7-YO can train with rewards.

i think crediting my fellow-trainers, promoting a well-written book, or sending a novice to a good website 
for safe, humane instructions, is A Good Thing. :yesnod:

i'm sorry U don't feel that way, CeeARott. But differences of opinion are to be expected.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> there was an error in the QUOTE function; this was my post:
> 
> no - it's plain, ordinary Mendelian genetics.
> 
> ...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> George Padgett is someone I admire tremendously too, have spoken to the man at length...
> and I have his book -Control Of Canine Genetic Diseases.


there we can definitely agree! :yesnod: i've never met the man, but have an abiding respect for him; 
he is willing to speak plainly on difficult subjects, & offers his knowledge in seminars & lectures, as well 
as his book, which i bought years ago & i think it is marvelous. I've often referred to it, or sent dog-owners 
with queries to the library in their home-area to consult it.

i think the tables in the back are well-nigh indispensable. :thumbup: great stuff!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, no to your first bit, all dogs have their faults, there are very few dogs I can look at within my breed and think they are 100% perfect. Both of my girls, as much as I love them, have conformation faults, all dogs do to some extent, and that's what's judged in the show ring, along side temperament.
> 
> So for example, Tau has a nice conformation of her stifle joint and back end, she has a nice head and neck set, her leg length is good, she could do with a bit more of a muscular chest, less jowels and less back length, tail set could be better. So, take that into consideration, with her temperament, with the temperament of the stud dog, and with the health test results, and you may be getting somewhere.
> 
> ...


100% honest - no not really I would just think how stupid thats not true of me or the people I know


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> If a programme were made that highlighted the myth of hybrid vigour and how all cross breeders were terrible, didn't make use of health tests, fooled people into buying cross breeds etc, would you be angry with the producers of such a programme?


Not asking me I know, but I'm bored. 

If I had a cross breed, no, because I have a superiority complex and would know they couldn't possibly be talking about me.  

Elles is purebred and I didn't think PDE was anything relating to me or anything I'd do and I still like Golden Retrievers, I'd just do the best I could to get a healthy one and accept it might not be, if I did buy one, same as any dog. 

The programme would be pretty much on the button anyway. Many breeders of cross breeds don't health test and do fool people into thinking their cross bred pup is healthier, none shedding, or better in some way than other dogs, when firstly it probably isn't and secondly they wouldn't know if it was anyway.

These programmes do tar all buyers with the same brush you know? We are all idiots who will buy a sick puppy from the back of a van in a car park. hmy:


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Do you even read posts on here before attacking people? Of course you have had erroneous information from Jemima - everyone has - I am talking about the post below:
> 
> I posted the correct information for you - *trying to help you * - *hello, trying to help you, do you get that bit *- because you thought there was no-one to whom you could report ill-health and a reason for lines not to be bred from again, when in fact there is. I notice that in your rush to attack me you have not yet acknowledged this.
> 
> ...


Go back & read your posts I was replying to - will explain all to you.

I do not recall having any previous "conversations" with you about anything


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I will first say that nothing anybody has written, in this thread or previous discussions has changed my view that show line dogs are bred first and foremost for looks, be it a ridge, shape of head, shape of tail whatever. Yes temperament and health play a part but looks are the main point. There are people willing to go out on a limb to try to improve health while keeping to the standards but, for some breeds this is difficult and they face opposition from those who view changes to something as fundamental as shape/size head as breaking the breed. Health tests are an important instrument in correcting some defects but not the be all and end all if the standard is simply wrong. This was my feeling prior to seeing PDE and after, although it has never stopped me from looking at a particular pedigree myself. This breed is being looked at for hip dysplasia, osteochondrosis, thyriod problems and livershunt (portosystemic shunt (PSS)). So there are acknowledged health problems to look at and breeders are getting on top of the problems. I know there are good breeders and good pedigree breeds. On the flip side as I've probably mentioned before I've banned my wife from getting a Bulldog puppy as I view them as having fundamental design flaws. It's one of the reasons we looked at old english bulldogs.

PDE hit the right buttons for the majority of viewers as the pedigree label is seen as elitist. People enjoy the "high and mighty" being taken down a step or two. You can call it sensationalism if you want but it did make an impact and did have some positive results within the breeding clubs. That is something very few will deny. In my mind, the issue of things like health testing, even crossbreeds etc could potentially be introduced and have more of an impact now, riding on the popularity of the starting point. I wouldn't say all crossbreeds would fit but certainly feel the "designer crossbreeds" could easily be introduced as being bred from two pedigrees. It comes down to the point of if nothing is wrong with all pedigrees and progress is being made PDE2 could go off to other things. If not it will stay more on the faults of the minority of breeds which have major faults. Is this wrong when we need a core baseline we can direct buyers to ? Surely it's better if we can say if you want a healthy dog you are better off going to an accredited pedigree breeder. Not go to an accredited breeder but not for breed X,Y,Z.

The issue of BYB is not something easily solved. To do so you first need to understand the process the majority of people go through when getting a puppy. I feel the majority simply say.. I want a puppy and look through the classified. The choice of breed could be simply they saw Barrack Obama getting a Portuguese Water Dog or they saw an Akita when walking. I do not feel most people research the breeds they are after properly in terms of how well they fit within their lifestyle. How do you make an impact when you are fighting against this sort of nievity?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I will first say that nothing anybody has written, in this thread or previous discussions has changed my view that show line dogs are bred first and foremost for looks


,

..not just "show line dogs" but all pedigree animals are bred to retain their unique physical appearance - I keep poultry as well as my BSD, my Orpingtons, Silkies and Sussex hens all do the same job ( i.e provide eggs ) but they are all different in appearance - thats what makes them separate breeds - after all if we are just breeding for function there would be no need for different breeds of spaniel, retriever, herding or lap dogs - it's the difference in their appearance that distinguishes the Borzoi from the Deerhound - the Kerry Blue from the Airdale and the Maltese from the Bichon of COURSE breeders place such importance on the way their breed looks !

Health and temperament are important but if that's the only criteria breeders use you would never have separate breeds - after all, left to her own devices, mother nature produces mongrels - it's man who by selecting for *looks* as well as function, health and temperament has created and now maintains the huge variety of individual breeds we now have .


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> The [hypothetical] programme [on crossbred dogs & their breeders] would be pretty much on the button anyway.
> Many breeders of cross breeds don't health-test & do fool people into thinking their crossbred pup is healthier, non-shedding,
> or better in some way than other dogs, when firstly it probably isn't & secondly they wouldn't know if it was anyway.


this is unfortunately true - 
there are endless ads touting the innate health of their cross-bred pups from untested parents, bragging about things 
that are impossible to know ["good with children", "would make wonderful assistance-dogs"... REALLY?! - 
where the H*** is that crystal ball when i need it, :lol:]

cross-bred pups with one non-shed parent aren't *known* to be non-shedding till they lose their puppy-coat 
at 6 to 7-MO, by which time their buyers either love the pup, or loathe them - but it's impossible to say at 7 or 8-WO 
which pups will shed, & which won't. Perhaps they'll have a test soon for distinguishing shed & nonshed via DNA, 
but that isn't here yet.

i also _*hate it*_ when breeders insist that all their pups 'adore children'. 
the child who pokes a finger in the dog's eyeball & is immediately snapped at, IMO deserves all that & more - 
assuming the child is over 5-YO & falls in the normal range for intelligence & emotional empathy. Kids in general 
are noisy & chaotic; kids in specific can be kind & affectionate, affectionate & intrusive, or mean & teasing - 
it's up to the ADULTS in any given situation to keep the children & the dogs [or other animals] safe *from each other.*


Elles said:


> These programmes do tar all buyers with the same brush you know? We're all idiots, who'll buy a sick puppy
> from the back of a van in a car park. hmy:


i hate to say this, but that's a safer assumption than to expect that most puppy-buyers will research breeds, 
know when pups should leave dam & litter, have a plan for safely confining the pup during housetraining, & etc. 

the lowest common-denominator is the Clueless Impulsive Dingbat which i really wish 
was an endangered-species, but it seems that they will be with us always - like fleas & other pests. :huh: 
we can only keep educating - & hope that everyone spreads the message that living beings need care & forethought, 
& impulse is the worst-possible reason to acquire a pet of any species.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I have to agree with Goblin, as a lay person as far as certain breeds go I can look at some and think they are just not right! There is a dachshund down the road from me who's belly nearly touches the ground and yet when I google dachshunds from the past I see an entirely different looking dog - now who on this Earth thought that this dog needed altering to such a degree? 

If I google many breeds, none more so than the Bulldog, I see totally different looking dogs and it is man that has altered them in such a detrimental way.

I can see perfectly well how people look at breeds of dogs and deem them unhealthy and I don't believe PDE is responsible for that, I believe it is breeding to cruel standards and that PDE are simply the scapegoats! Many people thought some pedigree dogs were unhealthy before that programme, all the programme did was put shame on certain breed standards.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Goblin said:


> The issue of BYBs is not something easily solved. To do so you first need to understand the process
> [that] the majority of people go through when getting a puppy. I feel the majority simply say... I want a puppy, & look through the classifieds. The choice of breed could be simply
> they saw Barrack Obama [get] a Portuguese Water Dog, or they saw an Akita when walking.
> 
> ...


good question - & sadly, it's a very complex issue.

the biggest problem is the sheer size of the market - getting the word out to EVERY prospective puppy-buyer 
is obviously almost-impossible, but we can only do our best; PSAs [public service announcements] seem to be 
a fairly-good outreach method, via TV-commercial, social-network sites, public appearances [Bark in the Park, 
shelter adopt-a-thons, fundraisers, etc], or any other opportunity to reach a general audience.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Horses have been bred by people for years. They have breed societies and stud books and pedigrees etc. They don't seem to be plagued with genetic disorders and a BYB doesn't have to worry too much about health tests as there aren't many and most are specific to particular breeds and lines. 

Oh yes, horses are generally bred primarily for function. People want to ride them.

Certain lines of arabian horses have been bred to have exaggerated features, they look like sea-horses and have difficulty breathing. Certain quarter horses were bred to have very small feet and huge muscles and introduced a genetic disorder HYPP to the breed from a 'matador' stallion. Some horses are bred for spots, like the Knabstrupper and Apaloosa, plagued with eye problems that make them blind. A particular pattern and colour of coloured horses, carries a gene for 'lethal white' the foals born dead. These lines of horses were bred for showing in hand (halter classes) in the US, not for riding, but for how they looked, or for the colour of their coats. Ring any bells?

I wouldn't even like to start on some of the horrific practices in horse-keeping for showing, or mention that some thoroughbred racehorses have been so much bred for speed, their legs are so thin they snap.

Oh yes, people are very ethical and thinking only of the animal when showing and breeding animals for ribbons and trophies. 

Those of you here that are ethical and do give a damn, could quite easily be in the minority tbh. 

Still can't see why the CC dogs can't have some hair though, instead of having it shaved or epilated off them. What difference does it make? They need to be bald to reduce wind resistance?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Horses have been bred by people for years. They have breed societies and stud books and pedigrees etc. They don't seem to be plagued with genetic disorders and a BYB doesn't have to worry too much about health tests as there aren't many and most are specific to particular breeds and lines.


sadly this is not true - here are just some genetic conditions that affect horse breeds - I've only used a small section( those related to coat colour ) but there are of course many many others related to other features -note that breeders should be testing for these conditions if there is atest available in just the same way that dog breeders should

* ALL* animals have genetic disorders

*
Genetic Disorders Related to Coat Color*

*LWO/OLWS:Lethal White Overo/Overo Lethal White Syndrome*
Affected breeds: 
- Any breeds/individuals with frame overo gene in their population. Examples: Paint, Quarter Horse, Thoroughbred (very rare), Morgan (very rare), Miniature Horse, Tennessee Walking Horse, possibly Appaloosas. *(Detailed list of breeds with, or possibly with, frame by CMhorses on post #7. Click here -> Breeder's Guide to Equine Genetic Disorders )*

Available Tests: 
- YES Direct test

*CSNB- Congenital Stationary Night Blindness (LP caused version)*
Affected breeds: 
- Appaloosa, Noriker, British Spotted Pony, Miniature horse, Spanish Mustang, Knabstrupper, Pony of the Americas, Karabair, Altai, any other breeds or individuals with homozygous LP.

Available Tests: 
- A test for LP is still in development.

*ASD-Anterior Segment Dysgenesis*

Affected breeds:
- Rocky Mountain Horse, Kentucky Saddler, Miniature Horse any other breeds or individuals that have the color Silver.

Available Tests: 
- There are no direct gene tests for ASD, but a test for the Silver gene is available. A veterinary eye exam can identify, but not rule out, the presence of ASD (silent carriers will not show up).

*
Common Stock Horse Genetic Disorders*

Affected breeds:
HYPP is most commonly seen in stock horses (quarter horses, paints & appaloosas) and derivative breeds/individuals

*HERDA/HC- Regional Dermal Asthenia / Hyperelastosis Cutis*- .

Affected breeds
It has been recorded in quarter horses, paints and appaloosas. HERDA can also affect related breeds/crosses.

Available Tests: 
-YES Direct test.

*GBED- Glycogen Branching Enzyme Deficiency*

Affected breeds:
- GBED has been recorded in both Quarter Horses and Paint Horses. Likely exists in derivative breeds as well.

Available Tests: 
-YES Direct test.

*ERU - Equine Recurrent Uveitis "Moon Blindness"*

Affected breeds: 
- Appaloosa, Thoroughbred, Standardbred and other breeds/crosses.

Available Tests: 
- None at this time.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> Horses have been bred by people for years. They have breed societies and stud books and pedigrees etc. They don't seem to be plagued with genetic disorders and a BYB doesn't have to worry too much about health tests as there aren't many and most are specific to particular breeds and lines.
> 
> Oh yes, horses are generally bred primarily for function. People want to ride them.
> 
> ...


I can't comment on why they were bred to be bald, or if it was just happenstance? My understanding is they were used by chinese sailors, so perhaps the lack of fur is better for them not remaining wet all the time, haven't a clue??

Anyway, just wanted to say, I think you've misunderstood, they come in two varieties, hairless and powderpuff, and it's these last *type* that people are shaving to have them classed as the hairless incorrectly. If it's easily proven (as DD has put) that they're powderpuffs by dentition, then surely it's a simple case of judges properly checking dentition for each dog in the ring? Maybe that just needed tightening up, but it does seem pathetic that people are willing to shave their dog to have it appear as something it isn't, they really are the ones that don't need to have anything to do with dogs!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Goblin said:


> I will first say that nothing anybody has written, in this thread or previous discussions has changed my view that show line dogs are bred first and foremost for looks, be it a ridge, shape of head, shape of tail whatever. Yes temperament and health play a part but looks are the main point. There are people willing to go out on a limb to try to improve health while keeping to the standards but, for some breeds this is difficult and they face opposition from those who view changes to something as fundamental as shape/size head as breaking the breed. Health tests are an important instrument in correcting some defects but not the be all and end all if the standard is simply wrong. This was my feeling prior to seeing PDE and after, although it has never stopped me from looking at a particular pedigree myself. This breed is being looked at for hip dysplasia, osteochondrosis, thyriod problems and livershunt (portosystemic shunt (PSS)). So there are acknowledged health problems to look at and breeders are getting on top of the problems. I know there are good breeders and good pedigree breeds. On the flip side as I've probably mentioned before I've banned my wife from getting a Bulldog puppy as I view them as having fundamental design flaws. It's one of the reasons we looked at old english bulldogs.
> 
> PDE hit the right buttons for the majority of viewers as the pedigree label is seen as elitist. People enjoy the "high and mighty" being taken down a step or two. You can call it sensationalism if you want but it did make an impact and did have some positive results within the breeding clubs. That is something very few will deny. In my mind, the issue of things like health testing, even crossbreeds etc could potentially be introduced and have more of an impact now, riding on the popularity of the starting point. I wouldn't say all crossbreeds would fit but certainly feel the "designer crossbreeds" could easily be introduced as being bred from two pedigrees. It comes down to the point of if nothing is wrong with all pedigrees and progress is being made PDE2 could go off to other things. If not it will stay more on the faults of the minority of breeds which have major faults. Is this wrong when we need a core baseline we can direct buyers to ? Surely it's better if we can say if you want a healthy dog you are better off going to an accredited pedigree breeder. Not go to an accredited breeder but not for breed X,Y,Z.
> 
> The issue of BYB is not something easily solved. To do so you first need to understand the process the majority of people go through when getting a puppy. I feel the majority simply say.. I want a puppy and look through the classified. The choice of breed could be simply they saw Barrack Obama getting a Portuguese Water Dog or they saw an Akita when walking. I do not feel most people research the breeds they are after properly in terms of how well they fit within their lifestyle. How do you make an impact when you are fighting against this sort of nievity?


Posting and dashing because I'm off shortly to pick up my puppy (did I mention I was getting a new puppy  ), anyway, the problem is, the people who knew there were problems, who understood where things were going wrong, were trying to work hard to undo the damage done by a few. Along comes a sensationalist programme that exposes show breeders for what they are, and lumps them all together, and Joe Public, without being rude, will believe everything you stick under your noses for the most part. So now we're all breeding mutant dogs, no matter what you try and tell people, they still believe that only KC pedigree dogs (not limited to show) are riddled with genetic diseases, there's proof of that on this thread, there is a perception that dogs with no health tests of an unknown origin are healthier than a pedigree breed.

So no, I still can't agree with the programme, it's aim wasn't to educate people at all, it was just to shock them. If educating Joe Public had been the aim, surely it would have been better to include the good breeders, and information on how to buy a pup. It blatantly didn't do that, and the shortsightedness of those compiling the programme is just unbelievable. It drove puppy buyers away from good breeders and did exactly what the programme makers would lead you to believe they didn't want to do, encourage people to buy from bad breeders, so it failed, big time in my books. I'm still having to explain that pedigree breeds are pretty much healthy to most people who saw the PDE programme and don't know the first thing about dogs, so it's still failing!!

Right, I'm off to pop our dinner in the slow cooker, and pick up my PUPPY


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> ALL animals have genetic disorders


Yes...

You've just posted all of the genetic disorders I mentioned in my post, plus a couple more that I've never heard of, because the breed of horse is rare, let alone the disease and the breed is mostly raised and kept in America.

I did say there were a few genetic disorders found in coloured (brown or black and white patches, or spotty (appaloosas, Knabstruppers etc) horses and in lines in the Quarter Horse that was brought about by a matador sire, Impressive (HYPP), breeding for the show ring in America.

The vast majority of horses do not suffer hereditary disease bred into them for that perfect colour or look and are functional and ridden. As soon as they are bred for looks, they start to have problems. All of the diseases you mention are rare, affect specific breeds, or lines of breeds and were bred into horses that were bred for their looks.

You post a long list, yet I have 3 horses at the moment and none of them could suffer any of them. The majority of horses could suffer none of them.

The yard I am at breed Knabstruppers and have a 'few spot' stallion that is guaranteed to throw horses with spots. He is not a good example of a horse, but because he is guaranteed to make babies that have spotty coloured coats, he's being bred from. If he was just a 'normal' horse with a solid coat he would have been gelded.

My post was off the top of my head, the diseases are quite rare, so I couldn't quite remember all of the specifics.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I thought the programme was meant to shock the public into putting pressure on the Kennel Club and breeders to stop them breeding suffering dogs for their looks and the show-ring and change their breeding practices? By that I mean the ones who are breeding suffering dogs, not the ones who aren't.

I didn't think it was aimed at educating the puppy buyer tbh. Though JH can probably confirm or deny it herself.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> the problem is, the people who knew there were problems, who understood where things were going wrong, were trying to work hard to undo the damage done by a few.


To Joe Public the question isn't, were people doing something about it. It's why was it allowed to get into the state in the first place and why was it still in the same state for so long. The general feeling is still.. looks more important than anything else within certain breeding clubs. I'm not undermining the efforts of people to introduce needed change but there is/was lack of acceptance of changes being needed to the fundamental standard for a minority of breeds. Unfortunately, yes there are unsung heroes and as progress is made the breeder clubs/KC need to inform the public more, hell they need to really shout out about it. However that fact does not change the fact that core "standards" were allowed to encourage people to go too far and the culture of acceptance in some circles was simply wrong. People can sideline this, they can get upset by being named only by association but that's the problem with a "brand". You are judged by the worst not the best.

Something else to consider as it was brought up in another thread. How many people protested against docking for certain show dogs (not working lines) as their dogs wouldn't be an X breed any longer if ears/tail did not look like Y? It's the same process of accepting what is viewed as "normal" simply because it's within the culture.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> To Joe Public the question isn't, were people doing something about it. It's why was it allowed to get into the state in the first place and why was it still in the same state for so long.


It was in the state it was because the attitude towards pets and breeding was vastly different 20, 30, 40 years ago. The whole point, however, is that it might have got into a state because of past practices, but as SleepingLion said above, the KC and breeding clubs have been working to put things right for years - things have not been in the stasis that you (and the program) imply. This implication is one of the reasons why people are so angry about the program.

And as for the program accelerating change - well, there are certain areas where things take time, and breeding out defects is one of them. Doing something quickly as a knee-jerk reaction to sensationalist media propaganda has never benefitted the world of dogs - just look at the mess that that sort of "instant fix" reaction about dangerous dogs led to - ie legislation that was unfair and unworkable - and that too was as a direct result of Joe Public being misinformed by the sensationalist media and baying for blood. Just because Joe Public believes something, it doesn't make it true. Hell, Joe Public believes all staffies, rotties, dobes, akitas etc etc are inherently vicious and dangerous animals.



Goblin said:


> The general feeling is still.. looks more important than anything else within certain breeding clubs. I'm not undermining the efforts of people to introduce needed change but there is/was lack of acceptance of changes being needed to the fundamental standard for a minority of breeds.


This feeling is one of the more unfortunate after-effects of the program. The truth is actually different - but Joe Public only know and react to what they are told and, as I said above, look how wrong they were when they bayed for blood over the dangerous dogs act. Joe Public believed the sensationalist media hype about that and got what they wanted with the dangerous dogs act, despite experts in the field trying to tell them differently. And then lo and behold, when they did get it they realised how wrong the sensationalist media was and how right the experts were. And Joe Public is just as wrong about looks being more important than anything else in the show world as they are in believing all staffies are vicious.



Goblin said:


> Unfortunately, yes there are unsung heroes and as progress is made the breeder clubs/KC need to inform the public more, hell they need to really shout out about it.


Now this I agree with 100%. The KC need to pay a professional publicist to get the message across to Joe Public about all that they have been doing, are doing, and will be doing. Expecting anyone to find out about it by some sort of osmosis is never going to convince anybody. People tend to listen to those who shout loudest - and at the moment it is the anti-everything-about-the-KC-breed-clubs-dog-showing faction who are shouting loudest and who are being heard by Joe Public.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> And as for the program accelerating change - well, there are certain areas where things take time, and breeding out defects is one of them. Doing something quickly as a knee-jerk reaction to sensationalist media propaganda has never benefitted the world of dogs - just look at the mess that that sort of "instant fix" reaction about dangerous dogs led to - ie legislation that was unfair and unworkable - and that too was as a direct result of Joe Public being misinformed by the sensationalist media and baying for blood. Just because Joe Public believes something, it doesn't make it true. Hell, Joe Public believes all staffies, rotties, dobes, akitas etc etc are inherently vicious and dangerous animals.


Another sidestep. Changes were shown to happen after the program as joe public opinion turned. Breed watch, vets at crufts etc all directed at forcing change where needed within the breed clubs as people simply do not trust them to do the right thing. Not a knee jerk reaction from people not connected but reactions and considered moves within the pedigree circle forcing some people to to admit to the problems, not just internally but also externally and get it sorted.



> This feeling is one of the more unfortunate after-effects of the program.


To put it more politely than I feel when I read this.. rubbish. Any outsider looking at the breed standards and the general health of the minority of breeds were seeing this BEFORE they viewed the program. Who is responsible for enforcing breed clubs to put health first and foremost ? My understanding is it's self regulated in a democratic system.. There's reasons most systems in democracy have independent review systems with enforcement/penalization methods in place.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Another sidestep. Changes were shown to happen after the program as joe public opinion turned. Breed watch, vets at crufts etc all directed at forcing change where needed within the breed clubs as people simply do not trust them to do the right thing. Not a knee jerk reaction from people not connected but reactions and considered moves within the pedigree circle forcing some people to to admit to the problems, not just internally but also externally and get it sorted.


Sorry - I fail to see a sidestep here. Just an observation that anything forced to be rushed through by sensationalist media has, in the past, been a bad thing. It might have seemed good at the time, but in retrospect was bad - and you cannot deny that the dangerous dogs act is a prime example of this. Now, this latest round of media senastionalism has foced some knee-jerk reaction by the KC that, according to you, is better than the measured pace of progress that was already taking place. Neither you nor I can predict the outcome, just as the supporters of the DDA couldn't tell the outcome at the time. However, just as it did with the DDA, time will tell.



Goblin said:


> To put it more politely than I feel when I read this.. rubbish. Any outsider looking at the breed standards and the general health of the minority of breeds were seeing this BEFORE they viewed the program.


I will also do you the honour of being more polite than the expletive I uttered when I read this. What a load of tosh. Whilst anyone _within_ the dog world knew and understood breed standards, anyone outside the dog world had never even heard of them before the program, let alone thought that they were concentrated on looks rather than anything else.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> I will first say that nothing anybody has written, in this thread or previous discussions has changed my view that show line dogs are bred first and foremost for looks, be it a ridge, shape of head, shape of tail whatever. Yes temperament and health play a part but looks are the main point.


There is not a 'main' point as such, there is a lot more to a dog than its look, let that be a pet owned dog, or dog that is entered into and bred for the ring.
- There is a lot to consider when breeding for a show dog, and although looks are important health and temperament are JUST as important - so in fact you could say for a decent/ethical breeder there are three main points, conformation, health and temperament none more important than the other as they come as one!


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> There is not a 'main' point as such, there is a lot more to a dog than its look, let that be a pet owned dog, or dog that is entered into and bred for the ring.
> - There is a lot to consider when breeding for a show dog, and although looks are important health and temperament are JUST as important - so in fact you could say for a decent/ethical breeder there are three main points, conformation, health and temperament none more important than the other as they come as one!


Well said - perhaps some people posting on here would care to look at another thread I have started regarding breed standards............


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> Well said - perhaps some people posting on here would care to look at another thread I have started regarding breed standards............


I certainly think that anyone who thinks that show dogs are bed primarily for looks, or that breed standards are concerned only with appearance, should visit your thread. They might actually learn something


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

So despite all the evidence that some dogs and breeds are bred to extremes of dysfunctional conformation, with high risks of genetic disorders, mainly for the show-ring, some people still think that the breed standard as is, is sufficient, no-one outside the dog world has heard of breed standard anyway and all show dogs are bred for form and function, with the dog's health as important as its looks. 

Spellweaver, do you not look at many of the brachycephalic breeds, loose skin breeds and breeds like the GSD and wonder what the hell we've done? I do, but what do I know, I'm not in the dog world, so my opinion counts for nothing.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Elles said:


> So despite all the evidence that some dogs and breeds are bred to extremes of dysfunctional conformation, with high risks of genetic disorders, mainly for the show-ring, some people still think that the breed standard as is, is sufficient, no-one outside the dog world has heard of breed standard anyway and all show dogs are bred for form and function, with the dog's health as important as its looks.
> 
> Spellweaver, do you not look at many of the brachycephalic breeds, loose skin breeds and breeds like the GSD and wonder what the hell we've done? I do, but what do I know, I'm not in the dog world, so my opinion counts for nothing.


Yes, there are extremes and no-one denies this, but they are in a minority, something people easily forget, or just dont seem able to take on board at all. I dontl ike what these breeds have either, but, breeders are trying to change things, but change doesnt happen overnight - just for instance, within my own breed, since the docking ban we now leave tails on, obviously, and we are getting all manner of tail set and tail carriage, it will take 10 years minimum to standardise tails.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

People will always blame the standard, the fact is it is a GUILD LINE - nothing more, nothing less - The breeder takes from it what they want - The problem isnt with the standards, its with breeders aiming to exaggerate features.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

It just seems that some of the posters here who show dogs are defending all breeds and all show breeders and insisting they should be left alone to get on with it. 

I remember when GSDs were lovely strong dogs, it doesn't seem that long ago to me and there are still plenty of workers who are, yet in the show ring they are soooo sad, wobbling along, supposedly the best examples of their breed. 

Surely you guys know that's what we mean? As an outsider I would rather see pretty looking cross-breeds, given some kind of general test, going in the show ring, than these poor abominations of dogs. Although you love your own particular pure-breds I would really hope that you would feel that way too.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Breed standard thread is http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/191673-breed-standards.html in case that's useful:



> anything forced to be rushed through by sensationalist media has, in the past, been a bad thing.


So who is behind the changes made so far ? It's people within the pedigree circles, not people such as politicians who do not have a clue what they are doing and just need to get those votes. It still took some sensationalist media to get them moving quickly. It's nothing like the DDA. If it was you would have banned breeds rather than breed watch.



> There is a lot to consider when breeding for a show dog, and although looks are important health and temperament are JUST as important


How can you tell judge internal/longtime health as a judge at a show e.g the potential for syringmyelia unless actually happening at the time. If that were the case you wouldn't get the excessive folds in skin and other traits develop which are probably detrimental, certainly not advantageous to health. The proof is in the pudding as they say which you see, especially when you look at differences between working dog lines and show lines, or what the dogs looked like a few decades ago. Temperament and health certainly play a part and both are to be commended but a show is at a snapshot point of time. Why is it that the GSD working line is generally healthier than the show line, although the show line does have a better temperament. Why doesn't the show line have the same health record but better temperament?

I can understand why it happens, a fold here, increasing by a millimeter per generation becomes the accepted look without people really realizing what is going on. It's the norm and becomes accepted, even looked for. Then you can easily get the comment "It's not an X if it doesn't have the fold".


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elles said:


> It just seems that some of the posters here who show dogs are defending all breeds and all show breeders and insisting they should be left alone to get on with it.


That isnt the case at all - I have said otherwise, hundreds of times - including on this thread!
- The point is you can not in most cases blame the breed standard, however you can blame the breeders for exaggerating features printed....


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> That isnt the case at all - I have said otherwise, hundreds of times - including on this thread!
> - The point is you can not in most cases blame the breed standard, however you can blame the breeders for exaggerating features printed....


Some of the problem could be said to lie with relaitve newcomers to the show world who see a particular 'type' of dog winning top honours over and over and think if that good, more must be better and start breeding accordingly, without learning the knowledge they should have before going down the breeding route - now note I said SOME, not ALL!!!

And indeed - a lack of knowledage as to how to interpret a breed standard!!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Goblin -I havent said, nor suggested that a judge can tell the dogs health simply when going over it in the ring, although anyone can see what 'appears' to be a healthy dog. - If the judge who is hands on cant tell a dogs full health (which we have established they cant) - why do people who sit ring side, attend shows ect' then come back here and claim they saw aload of unhealthy dogs (its been said)..Hmm that dont make much sense does it!
anyways, I merely said that for a breeder there is not one main area to work in, there are atleast three a decent breeder will consider, when mating.

and as for show and working lines differing, I agree there has been a change in some breeds - doesnt mean their suffering, just means show breeders have/are making the most of the breeds finest features (that not including them, that go over board on exaggerating them!)


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

One of the problems with Breed standards is

Interpretation

Whilst as you say they are a guide- the problems arise when people interpret things differently......... same as judges what one prefers another might not.

What I presume happens is that the preference in the ring that year could have an impact on what some breeders breed for thinking this is the way to go, then the next time something else and so forth..

So peoples preferences based on interpretation either by what a judge wants or the BS surely must have an effect on shaping the blue print of dogs being bred??

So with interpretation comes fluidity of the breed standards so when the BS for breed X was first formulated wasn't it done with the aim of careful research and study as the best "ideal" for the dog?

So should they not be more adhered to so they remove as much of interpretation as they can and thus not create any loopholes for people to make tweaks here and there which all mount up an can change the breed from how it was originally.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> One of the problems with Breed standards is
> 
> Interpretation
> 
> ...


Erm - go read the breed standard thread - some of this will be explained and I will be adding more info tomorrow


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> The problem isnt with the standards, its with breeders aiming to exaggerate features.


Partly agree with this. The problem is still with the breed standards in that they ALLOW these features to be exaggerated. This is being tightened. Looking at the french bulldog breed standard with 


> Sturdy, compact , solid, small dog with good bone, short, smooth coat. No point exaggerated, balance essential. Dogs showing respiratory distress highly undesirable.


 may be done just for the benefit of joe public but leaves no discussion or flexibility within the breed club itself.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> So despite all the evidence that some dogs and breeds are bred to extremes of dysfunctional conformation, with high risks of genetic disorders, mainly for the show-ring some people still think that the breed standard as is, is sufficient, no-one outside the dog world has heard of breed standard anyway and all show dogs are bred for form and function, with the dog's health as important as its looks.


If you mean me - and I think you do with the remark about no-one outside the dog world hearing of the breed standard - then have the decency to speak directly to me, rather than bleat on about "some people".

First of all, I did not say that no-one outside the dog world has heard of the breed standard - I said they hadn't before PDE. Get your facts right before you get angry with me.

Secondly, the sentence I have outlined in red - I actually thought you were learning something from your comments on Cearott's thread about breed standards - and yet you come on this thread and spout a load of rubbish about the breed standard being responsible for exaggerations, and the health of show dogs not being as important than their looks. As the owner of show dogs, I find that extremely insulting. The health of my dogs is paramount - and conformation is part of health. If the conformation is not right you are not going to get e healthy dog.

I challenge you to find for me one breed standard - just one - which says, promotes, or even intimates that any exaggeration whatsoever is desirable. For every one that you find I will donate £1.00 to the AHT - and scan the receipt and post it on here. And when you can't find one you can come back and apologise.



Elles said:


> Spellweaver, do you not look at many of the brachycephalic breeds, loose skin breeds and breeds like the GSD and wonder what the hell we've done? I do, but what do I know, I'm not in the dog world, so my opinion counts for nothing.


Of course I do - and you will find no-where on this forum where I have said any of this is ok. There are a minority of breeders in a minority of breeds who have bred for exaggerations, and this is completely wrong - you will not find me agreeing with any exaggeration anywhere. Unlike you, however, I believe that breeders are (and have been for a while now) trying to alter this. All I have said on this forum and elsewhere is that breeders and the KC were working on reducing what had been done to these breeds form 30, 40, 50 years ago, and were doing so before PDE. Now you may not believe that - it is your perogative to believe the moon is made out of green cheese if that is what floats your boat - but how you translate that into my thinking it is ok is beyond me. :cursing: Perhaps you would care to elucidate?

And as for your "but I'm not from the dog world so I don't know anything" ............ 



Elles said:


> I remember when GSDs were lovely strong dogs, it doesn't seem that long ago to me and there are still plenty of workers who are, yet in the show ring they are soooo sad, wobbling along, supposedly the best examples of their breed.


And you have seen how many at shows exactly? I have seen loads - most of them without any of the exaggerations you speak about above. Perhaps you would care to explain where you have received this in depth knowledge of GSDs being shown?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Perhaps you would care to explain where you have received this in depth knowledge of GSDs being shown?


Easily found example CRUFTS 2010 GSD BEST OF BREED TV COMMENTS - YouTube about 1:20 in.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Easily found example CRUFTS 2010 GSD BEST OF BREED TV COMMENTS - YouTube about 1:20 in.


This just proves my point - no knowledge from going to shows week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out - no knowledge from seeing what is actually out there - just one clip and you think this proves that every GSD being shown is the same.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> ...change doesn't happen overnight... for instance, within my own breed, since the docking ban
> we now leave tails on, obviously, & we're getting all manner of tailset & tail carriage, it will take 10 years minimum
> to standardise tails.


i rather doubt this is true - A neighbor of mine in Va Beach brought her [lovely!] male Standard Poodle 
with her when she emigrated from Norway, & he had a full-length tail. I was excited to see that, & asked her 
where he'd come from, expecting to hear that he was a Euro-import or from an early-adopter USA-breeder -

she'd bred him herself, & she said that it didn't take more than a few years to standardize tailset & length, 
etc - she'd been breeding both before & after the docking-ban. :001_smiile:

i'd like to see ALL breeds ban cosmetic surgery, & ears, tails, etc, be left as they are born. 
we are not *breeding crop-eared dogs to make crop-eared puppies - * Lamarckian genetics is a myth, 
no-one inherits acquired characteristics. I think that unless the animal needs the surgery for health or comfort, 
there shouldn't be any - snipping off bits to reshape the look of a dog should be anathema. :nonod:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Airedales are a breed which has problems not with breeding so much, but some with whelping - However, 
their biggest problems seem to be maternal instinct: many bitches won't lie-down to let the pups nurse enuf, 
they will repeatedly rise while the pups are still hungrily suckling, & try to walk off, despite the pups' cries. 
*this is also heritable & can be changed - * maternal behavior is extremely important to neonate survival.

i think Airedale breeders should pay attention, & choose bitches who have intact maternal impulses & good 
mothering behavior: who will clean, tend, breastfeed & nurture their pups not minimally, but willingly. 
a pretty head, foursquare stance, & good coat don't mean diddly if half the pups die of neglect in their first 
21-days, with chronically-empty stomachs & poor weight gain. :nonod:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

i also think that ANY breed which cannot free-whelp should be immediately redesigned, & that breeds which cannot 
mount & mate without assistance [often the same breeds :yikes: ] should also be immediately altered.

yes, i know that's NOT an 'instant' process; i also know that it didn't take us 5 or 10-years to Get WHERE We Are. 
:thumbdown: if we were obviously capable of creating breeds whose males cannot mount a bitch without help, 
or whose bitches cannot support the males without help, WE ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE of making those breeds 
into the more-normal phenotype that we warped them away from, & create free-breeding & free-whelping breeds.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> This just proves my point - no knowledge from going to shows week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out - no knowledge from seeing what is actually out there - just one clip and you think this proves that every GSD being shown is the same.


If you want to take that line fine. What you see is best of breed 2010 with KC spokesperson I think and geneticist discussing progress made and how things need to still change. To quote "what we have to do is recognize the problem and get it recognized by the clubs". Going to shows week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out to my eyes at least, simply makes people not be able to recognize the problems as they are accepted as being the norm.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> i'd like to see ALL breeds ban cosmetic surgery, & ears, tails, etc, be left as they are born.
> we are not *breeding crop-eared dogs to make crop-eared puppies - * Lamarckian genetics is a myth,
> no-one inherits acquired characteristics. I think that unless the animal needs the surgery for health or comfort,
> there shouldn't be any - snipping off bits to reshape the look of a dog should be anathema. :nonod:


It is banned in the UK apart from some working dogs where it is accepted that the risk of tail damage is high. It's also banned in Germany but not in places like Hungary.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> If you want to take that line fine. What you see is best of breed 2010 with KC spokesperson I think and geneticist discussing progress made and how things need to still change. To quote "what we have to do is recognize the problem and get it recognized by the clubs". Going to shows week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out to my eyes at least, simply makes people not be able to recognize the problems as they are accepted as being the norm.


Still doesn't alter the fact that most of the GSDs being shown do not have a problem. Just as with everything else that has been discussed on here, the problem is with the minority, not the majority.

The arguments btween the KC - who want to promote the less exaggerated slope of back - and some of the breed clubs, who want to promote the more germanic style - have been well-documented, with the KC threatening to remove CCs from the breed if they did not agree to the contract. That is what this video refers to. The contract that Caroline Kisko speaks about was signed by some of the clubs, but others - the ones who want things to stay as they are - broke away.

Actually, this proves my earlier point about knee-jerk reactions not always being good. On PDE, Joe Public sees a video of a GSD they don't like, the KC are pressurised into taking a stance, some GSD clubs accuse the KC of victimisation and break away from the KC, so now we have some clubs who have a watch on their breeding, and some where there is no regulation on their breeding at all. Is that good for the breed or bad?

ETA - and, of course, the clubs who signed are the clubs who promoted the less exaggerated dogs - so it logically follows that GSDs being shown now have less and less exaggerations. So your comment above about people who go to shows not recognising the problem is totally unfounded.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Just as with everything else that has been discussed on here, the problem is with the minority, not the majority.


Totally agree with most things but this shows a BEST OF BREED at a premier event. If this is not desired what went wrong with the judging?



Spellweaver said:


> Actually, this proves my earlier point about knee-jerk reactions not always being good. On PDE, Joe Public sees a video of a GSD they don't like, the KC are pressurised into taking a stance, some GSD clubs accuse the KC of victimisation and break away from the KC, so now there is no regulation on their breeding at all. Is that good for the breed or bad?


So are saying that extreme sloping backs should be encouraged and that is a healthy trend?

At the end of the day the KC can ask, cajole, plead and beg people to do what is best but sometimes, without enforcement there is nothing they can do to get the fact a problem exists accepted. What then.. let people continue to do what they want?

Edit:


> ETA - and, of course, the clubs who signed are the clubs who promoted the less exaggerated dogs - so it logically follows that GSDs being shown now have less and less exaggerations. So your comment above about people who go to shows not recognising the problem is totally unfounded.


Wrong.. It means those who wanted to change things before, having accepted the problem existed, potentially trying for ages to get things changed could actually do it without being blocked by politics within the breed club(s). The fact that it can change now indicates they were a minority, the majority either didn't accept the problem existed or couldn't be bothered.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> If you mean me - and I think you do with the remark about no-one outside the dog world hearing of the breed standard - then have the decency to speak directly to me, rather than bleat on about "some people".


I am presuming you are not alone in your thoughts, though I could be wrong of course, hence I said 'some'.



> First of all, I did not say that no-one outside the dog world has heard of the breed standard - I said they hadn't before PDE. Get your facts right before you get angry with me.


I most certainly had heard of breed standards long, long before PDE. I'm not getting angry with you. I'm a bit sad actually.



> The health of my dogs is paramount - and conformation is part of health. If the conformation is not right you are not going to get e healthy dog.


I am glad to hear it.

Nowhere in any of my posts have I said that *ALL* breeders who show their dogs are more concerned about ribbons and trophies than their dogs' health. Nowhere have I said I thought the breed standard asked for exaggerations, I said it was open to interpretation. I believe the GSDs being bred for the show ring are not good examples of the breed.

I am entitled to my opinion and to express it, I'm sorry you don't agree with me, but I don't expect everyone to.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> So are saying that extreme sloping backs should be encouraged and that is a healthy trend?


No!! The exact opposite! I'm saying that because the KC were forced into a knee-jerk reaction (ie taking away the CC) then some of the clubs broke away. Now the KC may not have any legal jurisdiction - but they are all we've got, and now GSDs being bred by breeders in some clubs don't even have that. And that is a BAD thing, caused by a knee-jerk reaction to Joe Public's reaction to sensationalist media - ie exactly what I was posting about earlier and exactly what you said could not happen.



Goblin said:


> At the end of the day the KC can ask, cajole, plead and beg people to do what is best but sometimes, without enforcement there is nothing they can do to get the fact a problem exists accepted. What then.. let people continue to do what they want?


No - give the KC legal powers to enforce legislation so that people cannot do what they want. And just in case you are in any doubt of my opinion on the subject - because you seem to have totally misread/misinterpreted my last post - people doing just what they want with regard to breeding is a BAD thing.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Still doesn't alter the fact that most of the GSDs being shown do not have a problem.
> ...the problem is with the minority, not the majority.


i strongly disagree.

here's a video from a Crufts entry in 2010 - showing mostly her dog at the beginning, but all 3 winners 
at the end; look carefully at 1:19 & again at 2:15.

My Montage 8/16/10 - YouTube


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> i strongly disagree.
> 
> here's a video from a Crufts entry in 2010 - showing mostly her dog at the beginning, but all 3 winners
> at the end; look carefully at 1:19 & again at 2:15.
> ...


1.19 is the camera angle - the dog looks much better at 1.45 to 1.47

The other dog's hocks at 2.15 do look dreadful I agree - but hey, that's one dog - in other words a minority!


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> i rather doubt this is true - A neighbor of mine in Va Beach brought her [lovely!] male Standard Poodle
> with her when she emigrated from Norway, & he had a full-length tail. I was excited to see that, & asked her
> where he'd come from, expecting to hear that he was a Euro-import or from an early-adopter USA-breeder -
> 
> ...


Actually, was not me who said it will take 10 years approx to see a standard tail in rotts in the Uk, but a European breed expert who spoke at a Seminar in the UK about the breed and spoke at length about tails etc. so perhaps if I point you in his direction, you can take it up with him.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> ... now GSDs being bred by breeders in some clubs don't even have that. And that is a BAD thing, caused by a knee-jerk reaction to Joe Public's reaction to sensationalist media - ie exactly what I was posting about earlier and exactly what you said could not happen.


Which they were doing anyway regardless, contributing to the acceptance of sloping backs to the detriment of health over the long term with little chance of internal change.



> give the KC legal powers to enforce legislation so that people cannot do what they want.


Agree with you here but do you honestly see it happening? Thinking about it I'd prefer a more generic council concerned not just with pedigree dogs but one encompassing all breeders/breeds and crossbreeds even if not recognized by the KC.



> people doing just what they want with regard to breeding is a BAD thing.


Never said you agreed with that, just your posts seemed to point to a view that sloping backs were acceptable as you didn't feel it was a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong I think most people, certainly on these forums, realize how much dedication to breeds and breed health is around. This is demonstrated by many of the pedigree breeders on this forum. The feeling is one of frustration that this dedication can't provide the fixes in a timely manner even when it is possible. PDE highlighted this to joe public as problems simply were not accepted as being problems, potentially "being a necessary trait of the breed". The more people protest against how "unfair" the program was the more this impression is strengthened.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> The other dog's hocks at 2.15 do look dreadful I agree - but hey, that's one dog -
> in other words, a minority!


I WOULD SUGGEST that U look at all 3 winning dogs, as they stand. It's not *'just one dog'.*

this string of excuses - 'it's the camera angle, it's the show-pose, it's the lighting, it's the shadow...' - 
tell me, Weaver - *how many videos of breed-ring entries, solely of GSDs, would U like?*

i'll cheerfully post 30 *%#[email protected]*&!* links, if that's what it takes. 
OTOH i do not think U'd believe it if i posted *every GSD breed-ring for Best of Breed or CC-match 
from the AKC, UKC, FCI & Kennel Club for the last decade - * U would still find some excuse. :thumbdown:

here's some more: 
VA1 Zamp vom Thermodos at Crufts 2008 - YouTube 
LOOK at his Sieger stance, 2006 - there's a dam* good reason they spend 80% of their camera time 
staring at his FACE or Head - he's a huge wedge, like a doorstop, massive in front & wee behind. 
'the ultimate GSD', indeed. :thumbdown1:

his granddaughters - massive bone in the forearms, DOWN ON THEIR HOCKS in the rear - 
Zamp Vom Thermodos Granddaughters(XARO pups) - YouTube

the 2009 Sieger line-up: German Shepherd SIEGER Show 2009 - YouTube

Hungary, 2010: German shepherd breeding show Hungary 2010 - YouTube

2010 Westminster: German Shepherd judging at 2010 Westminster Kennel Club Show - YouTube

2009 Reliant dog-show, Houston, TX - 
German Shepherds in the show ring - YouTube

SLO-MO from the side, courtesy of WKC German Shepherd World - 
German Shepherd Dog gaiting in slow motion - YouTube 
look at his [IMO] dropped croup, goose rump, roached back & low-set tail.

the national GSD-specialty of the AKC - 2007: 
German Shepherd Dog Specialty Show Stacking and Judging - YouTube 
this is the BEST OF THE BEST, right? :nonod:

World Dog-Show, Bratislava 2009: GSDs 
Goda_Bratislava.mpg - YouTube

July 2010 UKC show: look at the B&T dog, not the white bitch: 
UKC Shows - Halle 7-17-10 - YouTube


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

International show 2009 in Penna; UKC Champion, AKC POINTED - 
this dog is an International Champion with a V-1 rating. 
"JET" at the International Dog Show in Pennsylvania. - YouTube

2007 nameless UKC show: 
Nikki's first show - YouTube

Logan: he paces frequently & when he runs, bunny-hops. Yet he's a Schutz competitor? 
Logan Movement.mpg - YouTube


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> I WOULD SUGGEST that U look at all 3 winning dogs, as they stand. It's not *'just one dog'.*
> 
> this string of excuses - 'it's the camera angle, it's the show-pose, it's the lighting, it's the shadow...' -
> tell me, Weaver - *how many videos of breed-ring entries, solely of GSDs, would U like?*
> ...


Post away from your armchair - it amuses me that you could possibly think that it compares in any way to being there and seeing the dogs in the flesh. And without wishing to be in any way racist or xenophobic, you are not English and your knowledge of the English Championship Show circuit is limited to bad videos and sensationalist programs. Do you even know anything about the schism between the KC and some of the GSD clubs? The KC wanted them to stop the exaggerations - some clubs did (because they always did; they were known as the "English" strain rather than the Germanic strain) and still show at KC Shows, some didn't (because they favoured the Germanic strain) and these no longer show at KC Shows. Bet you feel pretty stupid now, huh? Shooting your mouth off about something you know nothing at all about other than what you've googled..

Now, read my posts properly - I am not advocating that the exaggerations are good. I am advocating that they are *BAD *How many times have I got to write that, ffs? I am saying that the clubs who have broken away from the KC and are still advocating exaggerations IE THE CLUBS WHOSE MEMBERS ARE NO LONGER SHOWING AT CHAMPIONSHIP SHOWS IN ENGLAND, THE CLUBS WHOSE MEMEBRS ARE ADVOCATING EXAGGERATIONS are BAD

Do you understand that now?

Btw - how do you explain how much better the dog looks at the time I indicated on your clip if not for camera angles? Fairy dust?

I make no apology for the tone of this post. I'm tired and have had a bad day and if you start being sarcastic with me sweetie you'll have to accept you'll get it back in spades.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Len4847's Channel - YouTube

Len4847's Channel - YouTube

Special puppy class and the winner of Best of Breed (German Shepherd) Crufts 2011. 

The winner is a little less exaggerated than some of the dogs in the clips already linked. Though I much prefer the working dogs, which are more what I'm used to. I also like long haired GSDs and ones with more gold in their coats, so the breed standard would change altogether if I was in charge. 

The dog who came second I didn't think was much of an improvement, if at all tbh. and the young ones were still quite sloping and weak behind imo. So, those of us that live long enough will see what happens in the future no doubt. 

(that doesn't mean I think it'll take 50 years, I mean I'm over 50, so might not live long enough to see the changes)


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> Yes, there are extremes and no-one denies this, but they are in a minority, something people easily forget, or just dont seem able to take on board at all. I dontl ike what these breeds have either, but, breeders are trying to change things, but change doesnt happen overnight - just for instance, within my own breed, since the docking ban we now leave tails on, obviously, and we are getting all manner of tail set and tail carriage, it will take 10 years minimum to standardise tails.


Does it matter though, why do you need standardised tails?



Spellweaver said:


> First of all, I did not say that no-one outside the dog world has heard of the breed standard - I said they hadn't before PDE. QUOTE]
> 
> Doubt I am unique, not in the "dog world" but I knew of breed standards many years ago ie 20+
> 
> ...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> (because they always did; they were known as the "English" strain rather than the Germanic strain)


I was only talking to someone with a working shepherd about this the other day. If you mean that the KC wanted GSD breeders to go for the straight back rather than the roach back? The dogs would still have sloping backs and exaggerated hind-leg movement, but they wouldn't also have the roach. Do the American dogs have the roach, or are they completely different? Is this what you meant, or have the KC got other problems with some of the GSD breeders?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Very brief replies becuse I am just off for a 13 hr shift - in fact I have three 13 hr shifts in a row so won't be on much until Thursday:



DoodlesRule said:


> I knew nothing about any dispute between the KC & GSD clubs but don't feel stupid so don't see why LFL should either!


The difference is, you didn't go shooting your mouth off with several sarcastic posts as Terry did!



DoodlesRule said:


> I don't understand your point, all it demonstrates to me is that KC has been pretty ineffectual, what is the point of a governing body that cannot stand up and say something is wrong/unacceptable


I agree - as I posted earlier, they need to be given legislative powers.



Elles said:


> I was only talking to someone with a working shepherd about this the other day. If you mean that the KC wanted GSD breeders to go for the straight back rather than the roach back? The dogs would still have sloping backs and exaggerated hind-leg movement, but they wouldn't also have the roach. Do the American dogs have the roach, or are they completely different? Is this what you meant, or have the KC got other problems with some of the GSD breeders?


I have no knowledge of American dogs other than what I see on the internet so cannot comment about them. You will have to ask Terry.

As for what I mean - I mean exactly what I wrote. The KC wanted the GSD groups to stop breeding for all exaggerations. There were other issues - such as double handling at shows - but health was the main one.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Does it matter though, why do you need standardised tails?
> 
> All breeds have a standardised tail, as you would know already if you had looked at any breed standards, lol!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Goblin said:


> To Joe Public the question isn't, were people doing something about it. It's why was it allowed to get into the state in the first place and why was it still in the same state for so long. The general feeling is still.. looks more important than anything else within certain breeding clubs. I'm not undermining the efforts of people to introduce needed change but there is/was lack of acceptance of changes being needed to the fundamental standard for a minority of breeds. Unfortunately, yes there are unsung heroes and as progress is made the breeder clubs/KC need to inform the public more, hell they need to really shout out about it. However that fact does not change the fact that core "standards" were allowed to encourage people to go too far and the culture of acceptance in some circles was simply wrong. People can sideline this, they can get upset by being named only by association but that's the problem with a "brand". You are judged by the worst not the best.
> 
> Something else to consider as it was brought up in another thread. How many people protested against docking for certain show dogs (not working lines) as their dogs wouldn't be an X breed any longer if ears/tail did not look like Y? It's the same process of accepting what is viewed as "normal" simply because it's within the culture.


Docking is a bug bear of mine, the way show people docked some breeds wass a disgrace (apologies in advance as I know this will upset a couple of the show people but) spaniels in particular, where they were docked to a stump simply to be shown. Should never have happened, and I'm glad it's been stopped. But, yet again, this proves spellweavers point about knee jerk reactions, now to find a vet who will dock a dog properly is a nightmare. Many of them won't because they have no understanding about how to and why, some think it's cruel, and some are frightened to because they fear the *anti* brigade will be on to them. And yet I know people with working spaniels and despite suffering with several years of tail injuries, their vets won't shorten the tail for fear of being seen as unethical  So the poor things have to live with a tail that splits open at the slightest knock :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:



Devil-Dogz said:


> Goblin -I havent said, nor suggested that a judge can tell the dogs health simply when going over it in the ring, although anyone can see what 'appears' to be a healthy dog. - If the judge who is hands on cant tell a dogs full health (which we have established they cant) - why do people who sit ring side, attend shows ect' then come back here and claim they saw aload of unhealthy dogs (its been said)..Hmm that dont make much sense does it!
> anyways, I merely said that for a breeder there is not one main area to work in, there are atleast three a decent breeder will consider, when mating.
> 
> and as for show and working lines differing, I agree there has been a change in some breeds - doesnt mean their suffering, just means show breeders have/are making the most of the breeds finest features (that not including them, that go over board on exaggerating them!)


A few of the spaniel breeds are (thankfully) making headway, worst affected were the heavier set spaniels, clumbers and sussex. They are meant to be heavier as they work heavy cover, but not quite as heavy as the show ring has bred for in the past. To me, that's not making the most of a breed, particularly as ability wasn't part of the equation, so they were rendered pretty much unable to do the job they were meant to do 



leashedForLife said:


> i rather doubt this is true - A neighbor of mine in Va Beach brought her [lovely!] male Standard Poodle
> with her when she emigrated from Norway, & he had a full-length tail. I was excited to see that, & asked her
> where he'd come from, expecting to hear that he was a Euro-import or from an early-adopter USA-breeder -
> 
> ...


Don't agree, for the reason above ^^


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Does this forum have competitions to see how long they can argue different opinions about certain topics? We are on page 69/70 now and it seems to have become a bitchfest with neither side backing down and no-body having the maturity to stand up and agree that everyone has a different view and has that right. End of?


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

AlisonLyn said:


> Does this forum have competitions to see how long they can argue different opinions about certain topics? We are on page 69/70 now and it seems to have become a bitchfest with neither side backing down and no-body having the maturity to stand up and agree that everyone has a different view and has that right. End of?


But but but, we loves discussions Miss!! :scared: Please dont tell us off!:scared:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> Does this forum have competitions to see how long they can argue different opinions about certain topics? We are on page 69/70 now and it seems to have become a bitchfest with neither side backing down and no-body having the maturity to stand up and agree that everyone has a different view and has that right. End of?


You don't have to read/post, if you don't want to.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Some of us enjoy a good debate and I wouldn't say the majority of us are involved in any way in a 'bitchfest'.


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> But but but, we loves discussions Miss!! :scared: Please dont tell us off!:scared:


LMAO!! yes you all do don't you? :thumbup:


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elles said:


> I was only talking to someone with a working shepherd about this the other day. If you mean that the KC wanted GSD breeders to go for the straight back rather than the roach back? The dogs would still have sloping backs and exaggerated hind-leg movement, but they wouldn't also have the roach. Do the American dogs have the roach, or are they completely different? Is this what you meant, or have the KC got other problems with some of the GSD breeders?


Both English and Germanic types are shown in the UK. There is a great deal of confusion that all show GSDs are Germanic. However, what turns up for the show is based on whether the judge goes for English or Germanic type. This has caused a huge amount of friction in the breed with arguments to actually split them into two separate breeds.

The roach is caused by the exaggerated rear end.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Can you imagine us all sat in a pub? We'd be the group that gets noisier and noisier as the evening wears on and people would start moving away. :lol:


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Elles said:


> Can you imagine us all sat in a pub? We'd be the group that gets noisier and noisier as the evening wears on and people would start moving away. :lol:


Can I rephrase that hun??

Can you imagine us all sat in a pub? We'd be the group that gets noiser and noiser and

within a couple of hours we'd get chucked out & barred for life, PMSL!!!!!!!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Yeah especially that Spellweaver- she has been shouting
On here so what would she be like if we all did meet in a pub


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> Does this forum have competitions to see how long they can argue different opinions about certain topics? We are on page 69/70 now and it seems to have become a bitchfest with neither side backing down and no-body having the maturity to stand up and agree that everyone has a different view and has that right. End of?


To have a discussion - with differing points of view - is the whole point of the forum. If you don't want to join in, don't post. Equally, don't set yourself up to lecture those who do want to post - it's none of your business what others want to do.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yeah especially that Spellweaver- she has been shouting
> On here so what would she be like if we all did meet in a pub


I'd be exactly the same as I am on here - the quiet one in the corner unless someone attacked me, and then I'd be on 'em like a ton of bricks giving 'em like for like!

As for the shouting - I am making no apoligies for that. Terry turned my words into the exact opposite of what I wrote and anyway Miss, she shouted first! Ner! 

It's a good job I'm not one of these lily-livered specemins we get on here who bleat on about leaving cos people gang up on them :lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Me, in a pub?! Oooohhhh no, not me, never :aureola:


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

oh for a good old english pub with real english ale... oops total divergence of thread.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

someone mentioned the pub, might come back to this thread after all :lol:


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> someone mentioned the pub, might come back to this thread after all :lol:


You alcoholic person DD!!! SHock Horror!!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Goblin said:


> oh for a good old english pub with real english ale... oops total divergence of thread.


Sadly a lot of them are closing- you often drive through villages and see the local pub closed down 

"tis very sad.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> You alcoholic person DD!!! SHock Horror!!


nooooo an alcoholic *needs* a drink.. I *have* one  (got a nice bottle of wine for judging) care to share? 

btw im not really drinking at this time


----------



## AlisonLyn (Sep 2, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> To have a discussion - with differing points of view - is the whole point of the forum. If you don't want to join in, don't post. Equally, don't set yourself up to lecture those who do want to post - it's none of your business what others want to do.


Like everyone I was giving my opinion


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> DoodlesRule said:
> 
> 
> > Does it matter though, why do you need standardised tails?
> ...


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Ceearott said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I know they do, but why?! People come in all shapes & sizes but are not cast aside because they have say a bigger nose than usual or are taller or shorter than average
> ...


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> DoodlesRule said:
> 
> 
> > Tails can play a part in the overall balance of a dog, certain types of tail can mean the a spinal deformity and much more besides
> ...


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Ceearott said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, was just trying to understand why! Why had they used to be docked then as surely wouldn't know the balance or if there was a deformity if it was already cut off as a puppy? (this isn't a controversal argumentative questions, just a question
> ...


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> DoodlesRule said:
> 
> 
> > No, good questions, something we are just learnng about, I am deffo no expert on tails, lol! I attended a Seminar on the rottie not long back and the guy spoke at length on tails, some of it I did know and some I did not. Its a learning process for u allat the moment. A docked dog has a different 'point of balance' than one which has not.
> ...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Of course I know a fair bit about tail set and natural tail carriage in a horse, but not a lot about how it relates to dogs, as horse tails are mostly hair, don't wag and don't affect balance as much. 

A horse carrying his tail off to the side, when he doesn't normally, usually means a back problem, and tail set and carriage relates to the conformation and usability of the hindquarter generally, so tails in dogs can probably tell you a lot about the rest of the dog too.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Ceearott said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder if it affected communication with other dogs too as I think different tail positions mean things between dogs?
> ...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I knew nothing about any dispute between the Kennel Club & GSD-clubs...
> all it demonstrates to me is that [the Kennel Club] has been pretty ineffectual, what's the point of a governing body
> that cannot stand up & say something is wrong / unacceptable?


i definitely agree - 
An oversight organization that can't do anything but make disapproving noises is pretty pointless.

there needs to be someone or something ABOVE the breed club, to oversee not the health of *each* breed, 
but the health of *all* breeds - perhaps a veterinary or geneticist board, made up of those experts who are 
willing to donate their time for X-months or a 12-month term, & if they wish to step down, concede their seat 
to another volunteer with specialized knowledge for 12 to 24-months, etc.

For retirees from full-time work, such a post could be for as long as they are willing & able to fill it, 
offering specialized knowledge on best breeding practices, CoI variance, what tests might help tease-out carriers 
from clear individuals, etc.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

AlisonLyn said:


> We are on page 69 / 70 now...


:yesnod: suggestion - 
set Ur preferences to 40-posts per page.  i'm on page-18, so far.

& so long as discussions are factual, not irrational & personal, i don't care how long they run on. 
i only get exasperated if posts become abusive, ranting, rudely personal or attack the poster - 
*the idea* is the thing under dissection, not the folks who post. :wink:


----------



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> :yesnod: suggestion -
> set Ur preferences to 40-posts per page.  i'm on page-18, so far.
> 
> :


yeah me too


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

For Leashed for Life Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> For Leashed for Life Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding


thanks, S-B! :yesnod:

unfortunately, the Advisory Council can only 'advise' - i see nothing that makes their recommendations supercede 
those of the KC or the breed-club, & only breeders who are ABS-participants can be required to test, etc.

i did like this - 


> _ There were some 'assured' litters which were cross-bred. As clearly such puppies could not be recorded
> on the pedigree register, [they're required to] be placed on either the KC Activity or Companion Dog register.
> In such cases, breeders would be recommended to do health tests for both elements of the cross, for example,
> Labradoodles would be subject to tests for both Labradors and Poodles.
> ...


but again, of course: *recommending* that breeders test for any conditions found in either parent-breed 
[test as if testing Lab-pups AND test as if testing Poodle-pups] is only a suggestion.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> thanks, S-B! :yesnod:
> 
> unfortunately, the Advisory Council can only 'advise' - i see nothing that makes their recommendations supercede
> those of the KC or the breed-club, & only breeders who are ABS-participants can be required to test, etc.
> ...


If you're suggesting mandatory health testing and results, then that's a dangerous route, perhaps you'd like to expand?


----------

