# Pedigree Cats Exposed



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

as some of you may or may not know of Jemima Harrison who has caused utter uproar in the Pedigree dog world for her program Pedigree Dogs Exposed, has now produced a Cat version! i wonder what one sided twisted delights she will put in this one


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

Really? When is it showing?


----------



## chillminx (Nov 22, 2010)

Speaking as someone who is majorly concerned with animal rights, I am glad an experienced, respected journalist like Jemima Harrison has the courage to take on the Pedigree Dog World and also the Pedigree Cat World, which is far from blameless.

I think it appalling the way certain breeds (dogs and cats) are being bred with exaggerated feaures that result in them being so physically compromised, that they have problems with e.g. breathing, swallowing,
picking up their food, or chewing (to name but a few). 

I have been expressing my disgust for years at the way certain people in the pedigree world seem to think its fine to breed animals with faculties so distorted it affects their health adversely. And this warped behaviour is all down to humankind's vanity!! 

I obviously don't have the clout to make my voice heard in the way that Jemima Harrison does, so I say *all power* to her - long may she continue to raise these issues!!! I hope people will take notice of her and maybe, just maybe, some changes will be made in breeding policies, so one day 
animals will no longer be deliberately bred with physical "deformities".


----------



## colliemerles (Nov 2, 2007)

_hmmm ,does anyone know when we can see it, ????,_


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

Anything cats and I'm watching! Should be an interesting one...


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

I think the Pedigree Dogs Exposed was a fairly good thing as it did open peoples eyes to what goes on, and more to her for doing the same for cats.


----------



## K337 (May 20, 2011)

Any guesses on breeds we'll be seeing apart from Persians, Scottish folds and Munchkins?


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

This is from her blog this afternoon:

_A while back, when we were working on the promo for Pedigree Cats Exposed, I asked Royal Canin for a packshot of their "specially-designed" food for extreme Persians (have a google - they're worse, even, than the shortest-faced Peke or Pug). _

I'd say it was pretty imminent but can't find anything else thus far.....!!


----------



## Aurelie (Apr 10, 2012)

I will definately be tuning in to this, lets hope it goes after the real baddies - ie; the people Chilliminx describes and not everyone who breeds Pedigree cats. 

I would love to hear a Munchkin or Minipers breeder explain how the development/frankenstein freak show of those breeds is in any way beneficial to the actual cats.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Munchkin and Scottish fold are natural mutations, but they are so adverse for teh individual and the species that they will not survive long in the wild. 
Folds aren't even true pedigrees, as they have to be cross-bred with a BSH.


----------



## PetloverJo (Nov 4, 2011)

Aurelie said:


> I will definately be tuning in to this, lets hope it goes after the real baddies - ie; the people Chilliminx describes and not everyone who breeds Pedigree cats.
> 
> I would love to hear a Munchkin or Minipers breeder explain how the development/frankenstein freak show of those breeds is in any way beneficial to the actual cats.


Never heard of Minipers, just google OMG:mad2:


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

I did google it and came up with Minipers, Napoleons, Teacups, Minipaws and Lambkins. I feel a bit sick now tbh.


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

PetloverJo said:


> Never heard of Minipers, just google OMG:mad2:


 do they stay that small?? poor things and dont get me started on the munchkins!!!! nb


----------



## TatiLie (Nov 2, 2010)

Jonescat said:


> I did google it and came up with Minipers, Napoleons, Teacups, Minipaws and Lambkins. I feel a bit sick now tbh.


I did the same and got shocked with the price tag $2.5k and the note 'adopted'. Seriously? Adopted??? Adoption is what I did to Ari. I paid the rescue only €80, which doesn't covers her de-flea, de-worming and neutering surgery. For those $2.5k it should be written SOLD in big bright letters. I'm disgusted.

PS: bought by a Brazilian lady. This kind of things makes me ashamed of being Brazilian.


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

Jonescat said:


> I did google it and came up with Minipers, Napoleons, Teacups, Minipaws and Lambkins. I feel a bit sick now tbh.


seriously, are these breeds recognised by the gccf or about to be in the near future? how upsetting to see these poor 'deformed' cats 

I swear if these 'breeders' do anything to Siamese breed....:incazzato:


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

The thing is, we all complain about these cats but if they are selling them still...it´s because people are buying. Atleast someone is exposing things.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

No they are not recognised by the GCCF - they won't recognise a congenital *defect* basically. As far as I know there are no plans to either. Thank goodness.


----------



## codyann (Jan 8, 2011)

does anyone know when this is on? and also when the dog one was on? i completely missed it


----------



## Lunabuma (Dec 12, 2011)

When is the show on / channel? Can someone share a link to the blog? 

I'm very keen on animal welfare issues, especially if they involve connections to our furry friends.


----------



## buffie (May 31, 2010)

Lunabuma said:


> When is the show on / channel? Can someone share a link to the blog?
> 
> I'm very keen on animal welfare issues, especially if they involve connections to our furry friends.


 Not sure if this is the right one but it was the only one I could see..... Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog


----------



## codyann (Jan 8, 2011)

Lunabuma said:


> When is the show on / channel? Can someone share a link to the blog?
> 
> I'm very keen on animal welfare issues, especially if they involve connections to our furry friends.


im watching it in a minute the dog one i mean, heres the link

Google


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

uh oh ...according to that blog she had apple head siamese and not sure she particularly likes our new type babies! when the heck is this on??


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

codyann said:


> im watching it in a minute the dog one i mean, heres the link
> 
> Google


warning for those just seeing this for first time like me..this is very upsetting!!! 4 mins in and i'm in tears and i don't have dogs.....


----------



## messyhearts (Feb 6, 2009)

I think I read somewhere that the Siamese breed will feature a lot.

I wouldn't be surprised by Persians featuring.

I would hope the breeds displaying traits from gene defects are shown (Munchkin, Scottish Folds etc). as I think they are atrocious "breeds" to be encouraging.

I welcome this documentary as I think that though the cat world lags behind the dog world in terms of vetenary science, I think it excels at welfare.


----------



## Lunabuma (Dec 12, 2011)

codyann said:


> im watching it in a minute the dog one i mean, heres the link
> 
> Google


Thank you.

It makes me very sad watching that. 

I hope the cat one isn't as bad. I might end up being a hypocrite. :sad::sad:


----------



## codyann (Jan 8, 2011)

MollyMilo said:


> warning for those just seeing this for first time like me..this is very upsetting!!! 4 mins in and i'm in tears and i don't have dogs.....


thanks for the heads up. im about to watch it now.


----------



## codyann (Jan 8, 2011)

Lunabuma said:


> Thank you.
> 
> It makes me very sad watching that.
> 
> I hope the cat one isn't as bad. I might end up being a hypocrite. :sad::sad:


thats ok, ill probs be crying watching it. but i guess its the truth. i will go watch it now.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Can I just warn anyone watching the dog version of JH's programme, it's not entirely factual, not all the dogs are from show bred stock, and yet the focus of the programme is to try and prove that breeding for teh show ring equals unhealthy dogs, which simply isn't true. I would agree that *some* dog breeds have exaggerations that make them less healthy, but it's only a small minority, there are many healthy breeds, but none of the health testing schemes and progress made in collecting data was mentioned in the dog show. I hope the same doesn't happen to the cat programme, all negatives based around a small minority of folk putting themselves before their animals.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Going back a few posts (I had to go out) - TICA recognise these breeds of cat according to the site I was looking at.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

Exactly my thoughts. Although there was truth in her programme, it was very sensationalised. I didn't notice her present at either of the last two breeder seminars put on by Langford labs, so perhaps she's only interested in negatives again, and will feature less of the positive strides we're taking in the right direction.

Take Persians for example. Now, cats are regularly penalised for having nose leathers that are too small, i.e, linked to breathing problems. The standard of points states that the top of the nose leather must be no higher than the lower rim of the eyes. This means that very extreme persians, i.e, those with the problems, can't do well on the show bench. Eye tearing can't necessarily be linked with very flat faces either. I have two open type girls here, i.e, they have a nose, and they still tear. It's mentioned somewhere that Persians have over crowded teeth. Persians are one of the strictest sections in GCCF shows as far as bite is concerned. If a bite is off, then a cat will never achieve a good title.

So, while I'm not at all justifying the breeding of extreme or ultra flat Persians, I can tell you that the majority of us are breeding responsibly. yes, perhaps the faces are flat, but there's a whole world of difference between flat and ultra or extreme. I'd hate to be tarred and feahtered in this programme for simply being a Persian breeder, so I'll be most cross if she hasn't looked at the advances made, i.e, GCCF restrictions on extreme typing in the standard of points, and the massive steps we've made in reducing PKD in this breed.

Just my penny's worth.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I will definately be tuning in to this, lets hope it goes after the real baddies


Wouldn't it be wonderful if she did. I grew up in an era when dwarfism was a trait to be avoided and certainly not selectively bred in. Size, health, vigour were the aims. I really hope she even knows the difference between 'bad' for health reasons and simply *slightly* unusual in the looks department.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

from what she said when i emailed her it has been made but has not been picked up for broadcasting yet.

i agree there are many issues that do need to be changed, but she goes about it the wrong way and all of the clips shown were incredibly biased and twisted to show something that would make a good program and not the actual truth. so i hope with this one she goes about it the correct way and gives an unbiased view.


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

anyone know where i can see the update to pedigree dogs exposed? 3 years on i think


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

MollyMilo said:


> anyone know where i can see the update to pedigree dogs exposed? 3 years on i think


i think its on youtube like the first one is.


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

jimbo_28_02 said:


> i think its on youtube like the first one is.


so it is, thanks


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

MollyMilo said:


> so it is, thanks


ive been meaning to watch the first one again


----------



## ChinaBlue (Feb 3, 2008)

I can see on the one hand how raising awareness of some of the "bad practices" in breeding needs to be highlighted; I rather suspect, as others have indicated, it may be a bit one sided. I wonder if she would mention that the breed clubs are now encouraging/requiring their registered breeders to test their breeding cats for certain diseases i.e. HCM/PKD - probably not as this wouldn't "sell" the programme as much as sensationalising all the bad practices carried out by the minority of breeders.

I would hope, if she is as good a journalist as she perhaps thinks she is, she will give *BOTH* sides of the story.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Can I just warn anyone watching the dog version of JH's programme, it's not entirely factual, not all the dogs are from show bred stock, and yet the focus of the programme is to try and prove that breeding for teh show ring equals unhealthy dogs, which simply isn't true. I would agree that *some* dog breeds have exaggerations that make them less healthy, but it's only a small minority, there are many healthy breeds, but none of the health testing schemes and progress made in collecting data was mentioned in the dog show. I hope the same doesn't happen to the cat programme, all negatives based around a small minority of folk putting themselves before their animals.


When I look at photographs of what most breeds used to look like 50, or even 25, years ago, and I see what they look like now, I find that very hard to believe.

ALL breeds have moved to more extreme looks, and, very obviously, away from a healthy, functional physique.
I have always been disgusted by the ever increasing exrtemity of 'breed standards' in both cats and dogs, but his programme has confirmed ALL my worries and fears. You only have to look at pictures of certain breeds over the decades. For soneone with knowledge of genetics it has the stamp of inbreeding ALL over it. It isn't healthy, it isn't natural and it isn't beautiful.
It is breeders and breeder associations trying to play God and ending up with Frankenstein.
And as far as I am concerned that goes for ANY exrteme version of ANY breed of ANY species.

Sorry if I am stepping on people's toes, here, but I truly and sincerely prefer the original looks of species and breeds, the way they were meant to be when a breed was bred because of its function in life. And I do not say so just because of health issues, but simply because I find these inbred, extreme mutants disgusting. How can you call them beautiful? They are ugly, truly ugly.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

But you've contradicted yourself here. you can't prefer a breed the way it was meant to be, because by that logic, it wouldn't be. nature wouldn't select for looks, so all you'd end up with would be a load of random bred cats, basically moggies. We have those already, and people are strongly discouraged from breeding them. I've seen you yourself advise against it. I'm afraid for want of a better phrase, you can't have your cake and eat it. Once upon a time, the older versions of those breeds which you love the look of looked different as well. Like it or not, most if not all breeds of any animal are man made, and over time, demand will change the look of the breed due to demand for certain characteristics or traits.

Now just to make it clear again, I'm not condoning the breeding of very extreme cases.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

In the old days, breeds were not bred for looks, but for functionality.
A dachshund was bred to be able to go down rabbit holes, a sheep dog foor herding, a dalmatian for hunting, a retreiver for retreiving........
A breed that suffered health problems was not functional, so, basicly, they bred healthy traits into the dogs. And they did not mate brother and sister or father and daughter to make for a longer tail, or a shorter nose... Simply because they knew the risks of inbreeding.

Nowadays, a lot of the breeds are being taken away from heir functional and healthy physique and made more and more extreme, to the point of utter dysfunctionality.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

By the way, I'd be all for breeding moggies, if there were enough forever homes to go round. But moggies tend to end up in a shelter, and if they don't they take up the place of others that are still in the shelter.

Never breed ANY animal to end up unwanted or as food for predators.

But I think a lot of breeds would benefit from crossbreeding with a moggy to get rid of some of the extreme characteristics.

But in the end the buyers are to blame.
No matter what show you win, if the buyers prefer a healthier dog with a bigger nose, even if it doesn't meet the show standard, that's what breeders would breed, and that's what the new standard would become.

If I'd ever buy a persian, I'd want an oldfashioned, angular head, like my Precious had. She was half Persian, half moggy, and it gave her back the original head shape that once used to be characteristic of the breed.
Although the first Persians the wersterners saw were not a breed, really, it was a race of cat within the species. They were once the moggies of the middle-east, like the Mau evolved from the Egyptian temple cats.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

I think the difference between pedigree dogs and pedigree cats are that dog breeds now have incredibly specific traits per breed. I know this is the same with cats, but there seems to be a lot of mixing of breeds (out-breeding I think it's called?) where you stop the problem of inbreeding while maintaining the quality of the breed where possible, whereas this doesn't seem to be the case in the dog world (mainly because of irresponsible breeders).

Also, there seems to be a serious issue with the breeders themselves - clearly the ones mentioned in the film have no common sense at all, and aren't interested in the health of their animals. It's unfortunate that a good, reputable breeder wasn't shown on there, but I can understand why they weren't - it is important to get the point across that there are some awful people out there who breed animals fanatically to get the 'perfect' animal, except isn't perfect at all, it's a grotesque and incredibly ill creature who wouldn't really have a nice life because of its ill health.

That's just my thoughts anyways, I may have got things completely wrong.


----------



## chillminx (Nov 22, 2010)

Jiskefet said:


> > When I look at photographs of what most breeds used to look like 50, or even 25, years ago, and I see what they look like now, I find that very hard to believe.
> >
> > ALL breeds have moved to more extreme looks, and, very obviously, away from a healthy, functional physique.
> 
> ...


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> What was wrong with the way they used to look I much preferred those looks


There was nothing wrong with it but some, presumably more, people preferred the more contemporary look. There are people still breeding old fashioned Siamese. The current more extreme look isn't my idea of heaven but that's a personal preference. I have no idea what health issues can arise from such a look. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> .......I truly and sincerely prefer the original looks of species and breeds, the way they were meant to be when a breed was bred because of its function in life


Cats have never been selectively bred to produce looks/size/shape for any useful function. They were either prized as ratters and mousers or kept purely as companion animals.


----------



## Mo1959 (Mar 31, 2012)

chillminx said:


> Jiskefet said:
> 
> 
> > As a Siamese owner, I must admit that I even slightly favour the older traditional look. They are getting increasingly hard to find though and, I must admit the modern look is starting to grow on me now but I hope they don't go any more extreme.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jiskefet said:


> When I look at photographs of what most breeds used to look like 50, or even 25, years ago, and I see what they look like now, I find that very hard to believe.
> 
> ALL breeds have moved to more extreme looks, and, very obviously, away from a healthy, functional physique.
> I have always been disgusted by the ever increasing exrtemity of 'breed standards' in both cats and dogs, but his programme has confirmed ALL my worries and fears. You only have to look at pictures of certain breeds over the decades. For soneone with knowledge of genetics it has the stamp of inbreeding ALL over it. It isn't healthy, it isn't natural and it isn't beautiful.
> ...


I would agree that some have but don't think you can have looked at all breeds, the pietoro albums are good, but not a brilliant factual reference. Labradors haven't changed as such, what is shown in the ring has narrowed in scope, and they apparently went through a fashionable heavy set stage in the 80's which I missed (thankfully) but if you look at banchory bolo, who was a dual champion, his sort of shape and stamp is pretty much what you see in the ring today. I'll probably upset folk when I say what I do see in the ring and don't like, are unfit dogs. Their shape and conformation might be right, but I don't see many that are actually fit, but I think that's down to a lack of understanding of what a truly fit for function dog is.

You also have to ask yourself, looking at the breed standards, would some of the past dogs also not have had health issues, with hare feet and upright stifles? Back then though the dog would just have been called lame, I think it might well be looked at differently today.

What JH's programme did overnight with dogs, was push a large percentage of puppy buyers away from those with show dogs who were breeding healthy stock in all breeds, not just those affected by health issues which had been caused by breeding towards exaggeration. It also managed to create a sort of myth that they were the saviours of pedigree dogs, whereas in reality, the KC had been working for a number of years with the AHT and breed clubs to try and introduce health testing schemes and prevent problems arising from conformation that was being rewarded in the ring. I will admit it gave them a kick up the bum to work more quickly, but the negative impact far outweighed the positives for me, particularly when you still see people claiming without any knowledge whatsoever that their cross breed is healthier simply because it's a cross breed, and all pedigree dogs are unhealthy and inbred mutants, I wonder where they could have gotten that idea from?



Rabbitmonkee said:


> I think the difference between pedigree dogs and pedigree cats are that dog breeds now have incredibly specific traits per breed. I know this is the same with cats, but there seems to be a lot of mixing of breeds (out-breeding I think it's called?) where you stop the problem of inbreeding while maintaining the quality of the breed where possible, whereas this doesn't seem to be the case in the dog world (mainly because of irresponsible breeders).
> 
> Also, there seems to be a serious issue with the breeders themselves - clearly the ones mentioned in the film have no common sense at all, and aren't interested in the health of their animals. It's unfortunate that a good, reputable breeder wasn't shown on there, but I can understand why they weren't - it is important to get the point across that there are some awful people out there who breed animals fanatically to get the 'perfect' animal, except isn't perfect at all, it's a grotesque and incredibly ill creature who wouldn't really have a nice life because of its ill health.
> 
> That's just my thoughts anyways, I may have got things completely wrong.


I think the ones that have suffered most exaggeration are some of the companion breeds that either never had a function or their function no longer exists, and they seem to be the short nosed, domed headed type of breeds, and those with excess skin folds. I just don't like the show bassets, and I'm sorry if that offends but they look obviously unhealthy to me, I think the dogs would loose their tackle if they were sent out to work these days. 

I've posted these photos before, they're taken from a book published I think about 1930 (Nicki's borrowed it to read on her holiday so can't check) and shows the cocker spaniels of the time. It shows that already those who showed these spaniels were already breeding with disregard of what the working folk bred for, ie breeding for exaggeration, which was very much frowned upon back then.














































And a historic photograph of Labradors, this *type* is still alive and kicking, just not in the show ring.










I hope that any programme about pedigree cats is more well balanced, and does look at the positives as well as the negatives, because if we're honest there are definitely both sides. However, Passionate Productions is a business, and as much as they claim they have a higher goal, they have to make money for a living, so they will do what brings in the cash.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Jiskefet said:


> *If I'd ever buy a persian, I'd want an oldfashioned, angular head, like my Precious had. She was half Persian, half moggy, and it gave her back the original head shape that once used to be characteristic of the breed.*


Absolutely couldn't agree more!!!!

People have become SO used to Persians having a flat face (extreme version) that they are very surprised when I tell them that Merson is half-Persian because he has the original features of the Doll-Faced Persian. We have had evidence of that here on this forum.

The strangest thing that I fail to get is HOW anyone could have thought that the perfectly beautiful face of a doll-faced Persian needed to be changed...  What the feck was wrong in their head that made them go the route of squashing it all up????

I will be watching this show with great interest when it does finally get aired.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

MoggyBaby said:


> Absolutely couldn't agree more!!!!
> 
> People have become SO used to Persians having a flat face (extreme version) that they are very surprised when I tell them that Merson is half-Persian because *he has the original features of the Doll-Faced Persian.* We have had evidence of that here on this forum.
> 
> ...


Oh my, the doll-faced Persian is so cute! Why were their faced changed into the squished up look it is today, it looks utterly vile in comparison!


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Still, I feel the breeding standard and the Kennel Club should discourage and even forbid the extreme looks instead of embracing and rewarding them.

The extreme versions of cat AND dog breeds aren't animals, they are caricatures. People should stop watching Disney cartoons and Japanese rubbish and modeling their idea of beauty on them. 

We are destroying all that is beautiful, and we are not just doing this to our pets, but also to ourselves. Look at the anorexic girls that win beauty pageants. THEN look at a girl with a healthy figure, Marilyn Monroe, Sofia Loren or Brigitte Bardot, the most exquisite beauties of their time, and you will know what I mean. Today, they would be considered fat and be told they needed to lose AT LEAST 1 or 2 stone to even compete.

The human mind simply has become very perverted as to what beauty looks like.

And the fact that a dog suffering from a hereditary skull deformity (that WE have knowingly bred into them because we thought it beautiful) and is probably in constant pain as a result of it, can win a show and be allowed to breed and pass on this destructive gene, is a gotspe.
It is criminal, and there should be a law against it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jiskefet said:


> Still, I feel the breeding standard and the Kennel Club should discourage and even forbid the extreme looks instead of embracing and rewarding them.
> 
> The extreme versions of cat AND dog breeds aren't animals, they are caricatures. People should stop watching Disney cartoons and Japanese rubbish and modeling their idea of beauty on them.
> 
> ...


That's just what the KC are doing, which is why there are 15 (I think) High Profile breeds that are subjected to vet checks to ensure they are healthy, and those very vet checks were what caused such a furore at Crufts, because it seemed the vet checks meant different things to different people. I haven't read up about it recently, but one dog seemed to have been disqualified for an old injury which had healed up, rather than a defect from breeding for exaggeration, which if that was the case, isn't really fair if the dog is other wise a good and healthy representative of the breed.

I think the world of small pets needs to constantly step back and look at what they're doing, is it right, are they making breeding choices for healthy animals or just appearances? All domesticated animals, whether for companions, working or the table are altered to carry traits we want, and it's the ones where it's only to appear pleasing to our eye and/or to win in the show ring, that seem to be the ones that cause the most problems. But then is it just the show people breeding these animals that are to blame, or is it a wider problem? If people are breeding because they're told that's what the breed looks like, and that's what's rewarded in the show ring, and also people other buy them as pets because they like the look of them, is it just the breeders fault or does the whole perception need to change? I think it's a wider issue than just a handful of breeders breeding for exaggeration, but they are the ones that will be blamed I'm afraid. So I do agree with you that things need to possibly change, but it should already be happening, and we should always keep a constant check on what's motivating us to breed for certain qualities or traits, not just change things when they go wrong and we suddenly realise it, if that makes sense?


----------



## chillminx (Nov 22, 2010)

havoc said:


> There was nothing wrong with it but some, presumably more, people preferred the more contemporary look. There are people still breeding old fashioned Siamese. The current more extreme look isn't my idea of heaven but that's a personal preference. I have no idea what health issues can arise from such a look. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.


I am not saying there are any health issues with the Siamese's changed appearance (or at least none I am aware of). I was merely saying I do not like the way the looks of certain breeds have been 'messed about with' just to suit mankind's vanity.

You say "some..... people preferred the more contemporary look", which implies cats are a designer fashion statement, and their looks have to move with times, be *brought up to date*.  To my mind this is a cynical view of our companion animals.

That view, as I see it, is the *thin end of the wedge*, the *thick end* being the cats whose health has been compromised by the breeding in of exaggerated features or size.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

By the way, I think thart the gene pool of all breeds should be mapped, and if they are too inbred, outbreeding should be mandatory.

Geneticists have proved that the entire gene pool of the pure-bred pug comprises the genes of only FIVE seperate individuals. So even if you are breeding with a dog that is not anywhere related to its mate in the past 10 generations or so, you are still inbreeding, for it is always one of these 5 dogs, or rather, a mixture of these 5 dogs, your dog, who is also a mixture of the genes of these same 5 dogs, is mated to. So outbreeding will be absolutely essential for the health and the very survival of the breed.

I think it would be wise to map the gene pool of ALL breeds, in order to prevent this kind of thing happening to other breeds (and it may well have happened already to quite a lot of them).

I cannot believe any responsible breeder will vote against this, as it is in the interest of the breed as a whole and the health of the individual dogs. Only people who value their victory at a show over the wellbeing of their pets could possibly be against this.
Genetics (and I don't meen eugenetics, but the exact opposite: biodiversity) is the beginning and the end of ALL breeding.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

chillminx said:


> I am not saying there are any health issues with the Siamese's changed appearance (or at least none I am aware of). I was merely saying I do not like the way the looks of certain breeds have been 'messed about with' just to suit mankind's vanity.
> 
> You say "some..... people preferred the more contemporary look", which implies cats are a designer fashion statement, and their looks have to move with times, be *brought up to date*.  To my mind this is a cynical view of our companion animals.
> 
> That view, as I see it, the *thin end of the wedge*, the *thick end* being the cats whose health has been compromised by the breeding in of exaggerated features or size.


I couldn't agree more.
Cats' and dogs' faces and bodies get more and more contorted, shrunk to dwarfism or blown out of all proprtions, just because people look at them and find them funnier or more endearing that way, which is EXACTLY what I meant by playing God and ending up with Frankenstein.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jiskefet said:


> By the way, I think thart the gene pool of all breeds should be mapped, and if they are too inbred, outbreeding should be mandatory.
> 
> Geneticists have proved that the entire gene pool of the pure-bred pug comprises the genes of only FIVE seperate individuals. So even if you are breeding with a dog that is not anywhere related to its mate in the past 10 generations or so, you are still inbreeding, for it is always one of these 5 dogs, or rather, a mixture of these 5 dogs, your dog, who is also a mixture of the genes of these same 5 dogs, is mated to. So outbreeding will be absolutely essential for the health and the very survival of the breed.
> 
> ...


It already is  the kennel club have a mate select function on their website, the figures aren't as accurate as I'd like, but it's there for anyone to use, so you can put in the names of dogs and look at an individual co-efficient of inbreeding, or at a possible mating. They are developing it so that it will eventually suggest a dog for you to use with your bitch as well I think.

I don't know if you've got something similar for cats, but I'm sure there will be the same within the cat breeding community where folks keep their own databases with health testing results (I'm a member of a flatcoat group who do just this) and can help with calculating things like CoI?


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

Responsible breeders already monitor their own pedigrees and inbreeding co-efficients. There's also been a chart published listing the breeds in order of which are most inbred.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It already is  the kennel club have a mate select function on their website, the figures aren't as accurate as I'd like, but it's there for anyone to use, so you can put in the names of dogs and look at an individual co-efficient of inbreeding, or at a possible mating. They are developing it so that it will eventually suggest a dog for you to use with your bitch as well I think.
> 
> I don't know if you've got something similar for cats, but I'm sure there will be the same within the cat breeding community where folks keep their own databases with health testing results (I'm a member of a flatcoat group who do just this) and can help with calculating things like CoI?


I don't think you understand....
If the original gene pool was too small, say, 50, or even 100 years ago, you can mate (seemingly) totally unrelated dogs and still end up with the same narrow gene pool.

The genes of ALL pure-bred dogs should be completely mapped out, in order to see how many dogs they actually - originally - all stem from.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

carly87 said:


> Responsible breeders already monitor their own pedigrees and inbreeding co-efficients. There's also been a chart published listing the breeds in order of which are most inbred.


Inbred in terms of most father/daughter or brother/sister matings, but has the entire gene pool of every breed ever been mapped?
I believe not.

With pugs, the breed developed out of only FIVE dogs with a certain mutant look that became characteristic of the breed, so over the past 100 or 150 years, ALL pugs have been bred from the descendants of these same 5 dogs.

No matter how carefully you select a mate, the inbreeding is tremendous, for, in effect, you are still mating only these same 5 dogs.

THAT is what I mean by mapping the complete gene pool of the breed. 
How many dogs were used to create the breed in the first place, and has there been any outbreeding since then to bring in fresh DNA? Or are all pure-breds still descendants of these few original dogs.


----------



## Lunabuma (Dec 12, 2011)

I thought Siamese were one of the breeds with the least hereditary problems? I like the fact that Orientals are deliberately out crossed to get the different colours and patterns and widen their gene pool.

Is it allowable to out cross dogs because they didn't really touch on that? Can Cat breeders out cross for all different breeds?


----------



## chillminx (Nov 22, 2010)

Lunabuma said:


> > I like the fact that Orientals are deliberately out crossed to get the different colours and patterns and widen their gene pool.
> 
> 
> I would imagine it might depend on which breed they are outcrossed with, in terms of whether it is good for the breed overall, or *improves* (as opposed to widening) the gene pool.
> ...


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

chillminx said:


> Lunabuma said:
> 
> 
> > I would imagine it might depend on which breed they are outcrossed with, in terms of whether it is good for the breed overall, or *improves* (as opposed to widening) the gene pool.
> ...


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> the chance of mating between 2 moggies carrying the same recessive gene is many times smaller than in pure-breds


And yet ironically the chance becomes highest in an isolated community of free roaming cats such as barn or farm cats. Nowadays housing estates probably qualify as such an environment.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

havoc said:


> And yet ironically the chance becomes highest in an isolated community of free roaming cats such as barn or farm cats. Nowadays housing estates probably qualify as such an environment.


True...
Or cat hoarders who do not have their cats sterilized


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

Is that an attempt to imply that breeders are cat hoarders? If so, you've got me. I have a massive total of 2 cats in my house who, shock horror, are actually genetically free from the defects which affect Persians, i.e, PKD. You're right, it would be irresponsible to breed from an animal that had a genetic defect. That's why responsible breeders are constantly testing, or providing samples to help labs work towards genetic testing. That's why responsible breeders attend genetic seminars.

You don't seem to understand the cat breeding world really. People do outcross to widen the gene pool, and as long as you're prepared to work at it, it can be done with any breed. The pedigree must show 5 generations of the breed you're working with, so when you outcross, all you have to do is work that outcross into future generations and job done. We also import and export cats to ensure that gene pools remain viable. For example, I'm just about to pick up a kitten who is bred from 100% American lines. And without using the "yes but they have problems too" argument, they've been tested for those genetic defects that we know about, and they're clear.

It's impossible to map out the genetic roots of most cat breeds because nobody kept accurate records, and many moggs were used initially for most of them. Rest assured that they didn't only start from 5 cats though, well, nothing except the Ragdoll that I know of, and they've outcrossed.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jiskefet said:


> chillminx said:
> 
> 
> > If you outcrossed with a breed that has its own genetic defects, you need to be certain the individual dog or car does not posses this particular defect. Meaning you will need to know if any predecessors showed the defect, and preferably, a DNA test for these genes should be done prior to breeding. But that holds true for any individual, irrespective of breed.
> ...


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Whilst it sits well in theory, there's just no evidence of what actually happens, and in my own experience, the most unhealthy dog and temperamental one I owned so far has been a cross breed


It's actually a likely outcome though nobody without true understanding will admit it. People bandy about terms such as inbreeding without any real knowledge of genetics. The whole point of selective breeding is to pick out those traits we want and breed on those traits. It's happened since the dawn of time when animals first became domesticated to one level or another.

There's nothing wrong with breeding on 'good' genes and I find it a supreme irony that modern advances in genetic testing mean we are actually reducing the gene pool in pedigree breeding animals. In non pedigrees nobody tests and records aren't kept but this doesn't mean the problems aren't there. Show me the owner with an unspayed pet moggie who knows that their cat got pregnant and reabsorbed the kittens or miscarried deformed foetuses. Outcrossing could well increase the chances of polygenic problems we have yet to fully understand - who knows. The known benefit of outcrossing can be hybrid vigour, other than that it guarantees nothing.

Would you believe after all that I'm no fan at all of line breeding and believe in as wide a gene pool as possible. I do wish people would stop assuming a wide gene pool automatically equals a healthy gene pool though.


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

Interesting web page on Siamese past and present ( not extreme)

the ones from the 1950's don't look like traditional siamese of today but more like modern day(not extreme)

Inwood shadow was Gorgeous!

http://www.oldstylesiamese.co.uk/page10/index.html


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

havoc said:


> It's actually a likely outcome though nobody without true understanding will admit it. People bandy about terms such as inbreeding without any real knowledge of genetics. The whole point of selective breeding is to pick out those traits we want and breed on those traits. It's happened since the dawn of time when animals first became domesticated to one level or another.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with breeding on 'good' genes and I find it a supreme irony that modern advances in genetic testing mean we are actually reducing the gene pool in pedigree breeding animals. In non pedigrees nobody tests and records aren't kept but this doesn't mean the problems aren't there. Show me the owner with an unspayed pet moggie who knows that their cat got pregnant and reabsorbed the kittens or miscarried deformed foetuses. Outcrossing could well increase the chances of polygenic problems we have yet to fully understand - who knows. The known benefit of outcrossing can be hybrid vigour, other than that it guarantees nothing.
> 
> Would you believe after all that I'm no fan at all of line breeding and believe in as wide a gene pool as possible. I do wish people would stop assuming a wide gene pool automatically equals a healthy gene pool though.


Absolutely agree to a certain extent, I'm afraid I am a fan of line breeding, after all, that's how you aim to get certain characteristics, and/or retain them. I don't accept that we can breed 100% guaranteed free of any form of disease or defect animals though, and I don't believe in a clear check list for breeding, it should be used not just to avoid genetic conditions where possible, but also with a long term outlook to a healthy gene pool, and we can't afford to discard dogs/cats that are carriers, and even in some cases with a very good example, affected statuses, where it's easy to breed clear of the condition. It's already happening with pedigree dogs, and some breeders insist on only using a dog that is clear for conditions affecting their breed, I agree to a certain extent, particularly with debilitating and painful conditions, which have known triggers and early onset, but to cut out such a large portion of a gene pool without knowing the genetic status of a dog/cat for other conditions where no test has been developed yet, seems very short sighted. What happens when you've cut out quarter of the stud dogs you'd consider using because of their health status results, only to find the other 3/4 may have other conditions such as epilepsy, cancer, heart conditions etc, etc, floating about in their genetic make up with the propensity to pass that on to progeny.

I know very little about genetics, I hate any subjects like that as my brain just does not work that way. But it seems very naieve to stick with the very small bit of a health tested status that you know, without knowing the rest of the animal, and I don't think we even know the tip of the ice berg with them yet. It's something I'm always interested in when it crops up in discussion, even if I have to take my time reading it over a few times to get my head round it!


----------



## Aurelie (Apr 10, 2012)

MollyMilo said:


> Interesting web page on Siamese past and present ( not extreme)
> 
> the ones from the 1950's don't look like traditional siamese of today but more like modern day(not extreme)
> 
> ...


I was reading this this morning, great website - very interesting and yes Inwood Shadow was a beauty


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

Aurelie said:


> I was reading this this morning, great website - very interesting and yes Inwood Shadow was a beauty


Those eyes!! And it's black and white 

Did you see this too aureilie?

Modern Siamese

Right at the bottom are photos of the Siamese I consider extreme in my above post.


----------



## Aurelie (Apr 10, 2012)

MollyMilo said:


> Those eyes!! And it's black and white
> 
> Did you see this too aureilie?
> 
> ...


I hadn't seen this, the ultra or extreme look isn't my cup of tea really, although I don't really consider most modern Siamese to be that extreme. I'm thinking of an article I read a while ago where a couple of breeders in the US had been breeding the wedges so narrow that they were having problems with kittens being born with eyes on the side of the head - obviously this is fatal because the brain cannot process this type of vision.


----------



## chillminx (Nov 22, 2010)

havoc said:


> > I do wish people would stop assuming a wide gene pool automatically equals a healthy gene pool though.
> 
> 
> Hear, hear -- I completely agree.


----------



## chillminx (Nov 22, 2010)

MollyMilo said:


> Interesting web page on Siamese past and present ( not extreme)
> 
> the ones from the 1950's don't look like traditional siamese of today but more like modern day(not extreme)
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting that link.

You're right "Inwood Shadow" was a very beautiful looking cat. He reminds me of the pet Siamese cat my family had when I was growing up in the 
1950's. :001_wub:


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

chillminx said:


> Thanks for posting that link.
> 
> You're right "Inwood Shadow" was a very beautiful looking cat. He reminds me of the pet Siamese cat my family had when I was growing up in the
> 1950's. :001_wub:


that website says he and another yoko are usually on the back of modern siamese pedigrees how do i find out?

I love the fact that if you chase your pedigree cat back far enough to right at the beginning they are all related


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

Aurelie said:


> I hadn't seen this, the ultra or extreme look isn't my cup of tea really, although I don't really consider most modern Siamese to be that extreme. I'm thinking of an article I read a while ago where a couple of breeders in the US had been breeding the wedges so narrow that they were having problems with kittens being born with eyes on the side of the head - obviously this is fatal because the brain cannot process this type of vision.


oh no thats not right!!! i imagine thats one of the things this programm will highlight


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ChinaBlue said:


> I would hope, if she is as good a journalist as she perhaps thinks she is, she will give *BOTH* sides of the story.


Hmmmm. The dog world originally hoped that too. Good luck cat world!


----------



## codyann (Jan 8, 2011)

MollyMilo said:


> warning for those just seeing this for first time like me..this is very upsetting!!! 4 mins in and i'm in tears and i don't have dogs.....


yeah thanks it was a real eye opener the boxer bit got me pretty bad. thankfully i was in the room on my own


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

codyann said:


> yeah thanks it was a real eye opener the boxer bit got me pretty bad. thankfully i was in the room on my own


The boxer was not from show bred stock, unfortunately the programme leads you to believe all the dogs are from people who show, and breed to show, and that simply isn't the case.


----------



## codyann (Jan 8, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The boxer was not from show bred stock, unfortunately the programme leads you to believe all the dogs are from people who show, and breed to show, and that simply isn't the case.


oh yeah i understand that, i was just taken back at that poor boxer having a fit and his owners couldn't do anything to help him, and that king Charles spaniel bit about the brain condition. that was horrible too


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

codyann said:


> oh yeah i understand that, i was just taken back at that poor boxer having a fit and his owners couldn't do anything to help him, and that king Charles spaniel bit about the brain condition. that was horrible too


It's alll horrible but people need to separate what's being presented to them. The original programme appears to imply that all the dogs featured are from show bred dogs, and features people who show, and the genetic defects associated with their dogs and breeds of dog. And that just wasn't the case unfortunatly.

I hope the programme for cats isn't the same but I'd urge anyone who sees it to take it with a huge pinch of salt, and do your homework before buying a cat. Some of the buyers on the PDE programme just bought their pups out of the small ads, what do they expect?


----------



## codyann (Jan 8, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It's alll horrible but people need to separate what's being presented to them. The original programme appears to imply that all the dogs featured are from show bred dogs, and features people who show, and the genetic defects associated with their dogs and breeds of dog. And that just wasn't the case unfortunatly.
> 
> I hope the programme for cats isn't the same but I'd urge anyone who sees it to take it with a huge pinch of salt, and do your homework before buying a cat. Some of the buyers on the PDE programme just bought their pups out of the small ads, what do they expect?


yeah thats true, i will hopefully be watching the cat one if i know when its on lol,


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

codyann said:


> yeah thats true, i will hopefully be watching the cat one if i know when its on lol,


I won't watch it, I've seen the same sort of programme a couple of times now, and I despair. If only these organisations put their efforts into exposing puppy farming, back yard breeding, and similar, it would do some good. By targetting the show world, yes, they may catch a few people who prefer looks over health, but are they really making a difference in the big picture, no, not in my view. All they do is simply turn people away from those who show, sticking them all in one bucket.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I think it would be wise to map the gene pool of ALL breeds, in order to prevent this kind of thing happening to other breeds (and it may well have happened already to quite a lot of them).


I think there may be some confusion here with terminology. When I hear the term 'mapping' I instantly think in terms of a complicated scientific process mapping the full set of genes of species. I suspect that's not what you mean.

If I'm right and you mean recording the parentage of all animals so that breeders can ensure they do not inbreed then that has been happening for a LONG time. That's what 'registered' animals are - those with details kept in a registry. A pedigree certificate may only show four or five generations but the central registry goes back hundreds of generations. Breeders don't rely only on what is seen on the 'front page' of a pretty pedigree certificate given out to kitten buyers. They have access to, and use much more detailed information.


----------



## munchkinpie (Oct 20, 2011)

My mother actually wrote to the kennel club after watching the show. No reply from them. I think the fact that these dogs are recognised pedigrees from registered breeders is what most people had a problem with, the fact they were shown and won prizes showed how most breeders are in a sort of clique. The dogs welfare and health Doesnt seem to be a big factor in judging. I showed my siamese neuter for the first time in may and was shocked ( in a good way ) at how strict they are when it came to health over beauty i seen at least 5 "extreme" persians with not to be judged on the pen, one of which, as my gran stated looked as though it were crying. Several calls went out asking owners to produce their vetinary card again. Some were even asked to leave. From what i witnessed the gccf do seem to have better standards than the kennel club. The vetting in process, health over beauty and the cats welfare comes first. But i have only been to one show.


----------



## Puindoors (May 19, 2011)

Jiskefet said:


> By the way, I think thart the gene pool of all breeds should be mapped, and if they are too inbred, outbreeding should be mandatory.
> 
> The dog program did have quite a profound effect on the GCCF, many discussions were held following its airing and all 'Breed Advisory Committees' were asked to provide updated registration policies for their breed. Most (as far as I know) have complied. However the issue of outcrossing for most breeds is problematic, and still not included in allowable breedings.
> The GCCF will not recognise a cat if its parents are not both bred according to the BAC rules for that breed. So even if a cat has a 'moggie' 8 or 9 generations back, the rest all being from the same breed, the individual is still registered as 'no recognised breed'.
> ...


----------



## Puindoors (May 19, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I won't watch it, I've seen the same sort of programme a couple of times now, and I despair. If only these organisations put their efforts into exposing puppy farming, back yard breeding, and similar, it would do some good. By targetting the show world, yes, they may catch a few people who prefer looks over health, but are they really making a difference in the big picture, no, not in my view. All they do is simply turn people away from those who show, sticking them all in one bucket.


To be media literate, we really have to watch the program for what it is, an attempt to gain audience and for the show to be talked about. I'm not saying the items shown in the dog program were untrue, but merely slanted to give a sensational program. it would have been boring if 90% of the item showed responsible, caring breeders, which I'm sure the majority of pedigree breeder actually are.

Several cat breeders were contacted to take part in this proposed program, I think the vast majority declined due to the biased 'cherry picked' segments shown from dog breeders who took part.


----------



## Puindoors (May 19, 2011)

munchkinpie said:


> I showed my siamese neuter for the first time in may and was shocked ( in a good way ) at how strict they are when it came to health over beauty i seen at least 5 "extreme" persians with not to be judged on the pen, one of which, as my gran stated looked as though it were crying. Several calls went out asking owners to produce their vetinary card again. Some were even asked to leave. From what i witnessed the gccf do seem to have better standards than the kennel club. The vetting in process, health over beauty and the cats welfare comes first. But i have only been to one show.


If you look on the GCCF website, the judges write ups for all the cats at a particular show are listed, so you can check out what happened. Most 'not to be judged' cats have threatened ( or actually caused) injury to officials, its more of a safety thing both for the people and to prevent an already upset cat being handled further. If an exhibit is found to be 'unfit' during the show it is often removed to the quarantine pens every show must have set up in another area.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

And a lot of the breeders who did agree to take part were never contacted again. I was interviewed in the initial stages when they were looking into how they were going to do the programme and which breeders they were going to use. At the time, they spun rubbish that they wanted to make a positive programme with only positive spins. I didn't know about the dog programme at the time, so was only too happy to show off my girls. I can now brag about the fact that they told me, and I quote that I wasn't "mad enough to be featured. You're not extreme enough". So in other words, I wasn't crazy, I wasn't a cat hoarder, my house was clean and my cats were happy and healthy and well loved. Poor old journalist must have been so disappointed to see a mum and three balls of fluff rolling about the floor without a care in the world.


----------



## Lunabuma (Dec 12, 2011)

This continues to be a very interesting thread!



Puindoors said:


> The GCCF will not recognise a cat if its parents are not both bred according to the BAC rules for that breed. So even if a cat has a 'moggie' 8 or 9 generations back, the rest all being from the same breed, the individual is still registered as 'no recognised breed'.


It seems kind of wrong. I can understand the reasons (to a degree) behind it but surely after 8 - 9 generations the credibility of the line and genes would be assured?

You would think that they would be able to build a new rule in based on advances in science and understanding of genetics.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

carly87 said:


> And a lot of the breeders who did agree to take part were never contacted again. I was interviewed in the initial stages when they were looking into how they were going to do the programme and which breeders they were going to use. At the time, they spun rubbish that they wanted to make a positive programme with only positive spins. I didn't know about the dog programme at the time, so was only too happy to show off my girls. I can now brag about the fact that they told me, and I quote that I wasn't "mad enough to be featured. You're not extreme enough". So in other words, I wasn't crazy, I wasn't a cat hoarder, my house was clean and my cats were happy and healthy and well loved. Poor old journalist must have been so disappointed to see a mum and three balls of fluff rolling about the floor without a care in the world.


Well if any cat owners are in any doubt about the kind of program it is going to be, this should put you clearly in the picture. They are obviously not interested in all the happy, healthy cats with good owners - they only want the crazy people with unhealthy cats. Doesn't bode well for a balanced, informative program. Interesting times!


----------



## Puindoors (May 19, 2011)

Lunabuma said:


> This continues to be a very interesting thread!
> 
> It seems kind of wrong. I can understand the reasons (to a degree) behind it but surely after 8 - 9 generations the credibility of the line and genes would be assured?
> 
> You would think that they would be able to build a new rule in based on advances in science and understanding of genetics.


You'd hope so wouldn't you. The wheels of the GCCF usually turn very slowly. Scientific knowledge and logical thinking are not a criteria for representatives and some are very conservative. Others are not, but as everything goes though a proposal, debate and vote stage ( via representatives of the many cat clubs) small changes are far more likely to be accepted.

The wheels in TICA turn remarkably quickly in comparison, but they do not seek to 'govern' cat breeding, and assume cat breeders are to a large extent able to make sensible choices for themselves regarding outcrossing and certain breed characteristics.

For example the GCCF rules about which colours/patterns of British Shorthairs can be mated together (and produce active register offspring) are very extensive and complicated. In TICA its up to the breeder.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

That's exactly what I thought. At the same time mind you, I'm so relieved that I wasn't asked to be featured knowing what I know now! I take it as a huge complement that they considered me unworthy of their programme! It's very telling though, isn't it? It did make me watch the dog programme from two very different viewpoints.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> For example the GCCF rules about which colours/patterns of British Shorthairs can be mated together (*and produce active register offspring*)


That's a stunning restriction  I wasn't aware the GCCF could automatically register anything non-active, other than the close matings of mother-son, father-daughter etc. which they do restrict and won't allow the progeny of such matings to be bred from without special permission of course.

Even if I choose to outcross to a moggy I could still register the progeny as active to breed on from if I wanted. What are the BSH BAC going to do about the requirement for a permitted outcross? Are they planning on having one just to satisfy a paper exercise but not allowing any progeny on the active register?


----------



## Puindoors (May 19, 2011)

havoc said:


> That's a stunning restriction  I wasn't aware the GCCF could automatically register anything non-active, other than the close matings of mother-son, father-daughter etc. which they do restrict and won't allow the progeny of such matings to be bred from without special permission of course.
> 
> Even if I choose to outcross to a moggy I could still register the progeny as active to breed on from if I wanted. What are the BSH BAC going to do about the requirement for a permitted outcross? Are they planning on having one just to satisfy a paper exercise but not allowing any progeny on the active register?


The GCCF are largely at the mercy of the BAC's for each breed, they set the rules for registration for their breed, not the GCCF as a whole. The GCCF is essentially ( apparently) a 'we' not a 'them', as its made up from delegates from the cat clubs. But as with every other form of democracy, there are those who feel strongly and are able to give up time to attend meetings in London and at their cat club and those that do not and do not have the inclination.

Or do what I'm doing, register a non-compliant GCCF outcross down through TICA, and when the pedigree matches GCCF requirements I may transfer individuals back into GCCF. Takes a long time, which most breeders cannot be bothered with.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Pedigree Dogs Exposed has within three years pushed the pace of change in certain areas to prevent unnecessary suffering for many animals by those who say they love their dogs and have been, in the past viewed as the "elite" of the dog world. Its ruffled a lot of feathers in the process. 

Have a look at those breeds who have working dogs and show dogs and compare and tell me which are healthier?

The handling of the program, the denial and the dismissive nature from many in the dog show world has done more harm than the program itself. The continued support for those who do breed to extreme to prevent "damage" to to the reputation of showing as a whole is telling. All for the sake of ribbons, cups and slips of paper.

I know the dog show brigade will now jump on this post but had to be said.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Pedigree Dogs Exposed has within three years pushed the pace of change in certain areas to prevent unnecessary suffering for many animals by those who say they love their dogs and have been, in the past viewed as the "elite" of the dog world. Its ruffled a lot of feathers in the process.
> 
> Have a look at those breeds who have working dogs and show dogs and compare and tell me which are healthier?
> 
> ...


you are doing what jemimma does and tarring all with the same brush Goblin:nono:

i have Siberian Huskies & had a GSP...both very much dual purpose breeds...and form follows function in other working breeds you see in the ring.

please take a look at this link of UK's siberian husky champions http://www.siberianchamps.org.uk/page3.html , im curious to see if your views still stand? & note the age that many of these 'Champions of show ring' lived to...mid to late teens is very common in well bred individuals in both the sibe & the gsp.

is there any wonder that the 'dog brigade' jump on posts like this!

.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Any post in support of PDE is jumped on.



Goblin said:


> The handling of the program, the denial and the dismissive nature* from many *in the dog show world has done more harm than the program itself. The continued support for those who do breed to extreme to prevent "damage" to to the reputation of showing as a whole is telling. All for the sake of ribbons, cups and slips of paper.


Many not all.

Nowhere do I say it's all working vs show dogs but then searching means people can make up their own minds. Do you really want me to link in some of the differences between show and working dogs such as the basset hound to counter yours?

As soon as portions of the "show fraternity" are highlighted the majority band together rather than simply saying "it not all but yes there are problems which we are addressing". Fact is people are addressing the problems whilst on the other hand trying to hide the issues from public view.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Or do what I'm doing, register a non-compliant GCCF outcross down through TICA


I think I get what you mean now. Are you saying you won't register them with the GCCF because they'd be labelled 'no recognised breed for the required number of generations'? It isn't that they can't be registered with the GCCF, any cat can and can be on the active register.



> It seems kind of wrong. I can understand the reasons (to a degree) behind it but surely after 8 - 9 generations the credibility of the line and genes would be assured?


It IS only a matter of outcrossing and breeding back the number of generations with cats. If you look at the registration policies for breeds it will say something like "only breeds x or y within the previous z generations" It's usually 4 or 5. What that breeder did with dalmations to introduce a particular gene would be possible. It could be that she wanted a dog recognised that was an early gen example, I honestly don't know.


----------



## MominsMummy (Jun 14, 2012)

MollyMilo said:


> warning for those just seeing this for first time like me..this is very upsetting!!! 4 mins in and i'm in tears and i don't have dogs.....


Same here


----------



## HeartofClass (Jan 2, 2012)

Anyone know when this is going to be aired yet?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Any post in support of PDE is jumped on.


I can believe so and I do think it's a crying shame it was such a biased programme which caused such a strong reaction. It did cause a closing of ranks and it hasn't done anything good.

My abiding memory of the programme was a vet condemning 'hobby' breeders and going on to explain that by 'hobby' she meant people who just fancied letting their dog have pups so either bought a male from any source or got together with anyone who could make that possible. She understood that puppy farms are the normal source of such breeding 'stock', not breeders who show. I don't claim there aren't inbred dogs in the show ring but there are far more which aren't.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Any post in support of PDE is jumped on.


I can believe so and I do think it's a crying shame it was such a biased programme which caused such a strong reaction. It did cause a closing of ranks and it hasn't done anything good.

My abiding memory of the programme was a vet condemning 'hobby' breeders and going on to explain that by 'hobby' she meant people who just fancied letting their dog have pups so either bought a male from any source or got together with anyone who could make that possible. She understood that puppy farms are the normal source of such breeding 'stock', not breeders who show. There are inbred dogs in the show ring but there are far more which aren't and will never go near.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

The most entertaining phenomenon to come out of the PDE program is the creation of the _Armchair Expert on Dog Showing and Show Breeders_.

These are people whose only knowledge of what they write about is what they have read or seen on various shock horror programs, magazine articles and blogs. They have no practical, hands-on, actual experience or knowledge of what they write about. They have never been to a dog show, don't know people who do show dogs, and in some cases don't even live in the UK.

The _Armchair Experts on Dog Showing and Show Breeders_ never let a little thing like lack of actual knowledge or experience prevent them from pontificating about a subject. They think that reading someone else's biased views somehow makes them an expert on the subject, and qualifies them to dictate what should happen to the people who actually _do_ have knowledge and experience. They think it qualifies them to come out with ludicrous statements which have no basis in fact and which only serve to show their ignorance of the matter, but which are bandied about by the _Armchair Expert on Dog Showing and Show Breeders_ as if they were true.

If Pedigree Cats Exposed ever does get aired, it will be interesting to see if the same phenomenon happens in the cat world.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

havoc said:


> I think there may be some confusion here with terminology. When I hear the term 'mapping' I instantly think in terms of a complicated scientific process mapping the full set of genes of species. I suspect that's not what you mean.
> 
> If I'm right and you mean recording the parentage of all animals so that breeders can ensure they do not inbreed then that has been happening for a LONG time. That's what 'registered' animals are - those with details kept in a registry. A pedigree certificate may only show four or five generations but the central registry goes back hundreds of generations. Breeders don't rely only on what is seen on the 'front page' of a pretty pedigree certificate given out to kitten buyers. They have access to, and use much more detailed information.


It is EXACTLY what I DO mean.

People think that if they do not breed animals related in the 2nd, 3rd or even 10th degree, they are not inbreeding.

But if, like it was proven in pugs, the entire gene pool of thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of dogs ALL stem from a mere 5 original pugs they started out with a couple of hundred years ago, which they were ALL bred from, EVERY dog is severely inbred.

So, YES, I do mean actual gene mapping of the breed, to determine how big the actual gene pool is, how many individual dogs or cats they started out with, and if there has been any outcrossing since.
And yes, I do know enough about genetics to know what I am talking about, genetics was one of my subjects when I was a student, which I fear is more than can be said for most people who dismiss a thorough mapping of the gene pool, or they would not be so flippant about it.

Ever taken a look at the pictures of the members of the royal Habsburg family? Or read about hereditary characteristics of secluded mountain communities?
People with distinctive, even charicatarural features, 6 toes and 6 fingers, hereditary diseases? If the original gene pool is small enough, even totally unrelated people are in fact very closely related.


----------



## BlueBeagle (Oct 27, 2011)

Jiskefet said:


> It is EXACTLY what I DO mean.
> 
> People think that if they do not breed animals related in the 2nd, 3rd or even 10th degree, they are not inbreeding.
> 
> ...


The interesting thing about gene mapping is it has been done for humans already, therefore all European people can be traced back to 7 women, all Native Americans to 4, Japanese to 9 etc. It has been suggested we could all have 1 common mitochondrial ancestor but I haven't read anything recently about it to be sure.

In Europeans they are called the 7 daughter's of Eve and we are descended from them.

So I am not entirely sure what you think will come out of gene mapping for all breeds as they can't be much more inbred than us and suggests that over time coming from a small gene pool does not automatically mean a negative impact for a breed as a whole *if* the breeding is done carefully and with this in mind.

My own cat is quite inbred as she is a rare breed and I will never breed from her because of this but I am aware of more lines being created to extend the gene pool. As I understand it after 4 generations these outcrosses will be registered as pure bred and will introduce new blood into old lines.

A very interesting discussion!


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Ah, but that is over a zillion more times the elapsed time. We are talking first **** sapiens here, NOT 100 to 200 years ago. There have been a zillion times more mutations in that time, too. Breeders reject the mutants because they do not carry the desired genes for the racial features. You are breeding with just a part of the gene pool, the part you find disirable. Moreover, in humans there has beennot just breeding from all individuals, but also a lot of outcrossing to other races, AND there is at least 5 to 10% neanderthal genes in **** sapiens, all of which is not included in the daughters of Eve concept.......

The daughters of Eve are the original KAUKASIAN **** sapiens.
Modern humans have traces of all other races, plus Neanderthal, plus the mutations of the entire human history. 

And don't forget we were not born from women alone, there must have been at least as many sons of Adam as well..... They looked at the X-genes in males, which is only 50% of the story.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Or read about hereditary characteristics of secluded mountain communities?


It doesn't have to be secluded mountain communities. Not so long ago it was perfectly normal for most rural commnities to be inbred with only occasional new blood added. The same can be said today for certain cultural or religious groups and problems do arise when recessive genes causing known problems are prevalent within them. What we have to remember is that 'outcrossing' in such cases doesn't remove the cause but only masks it's potential because it decreases the possibility of a pairing of harmful recessive genes. Obvious recessives and autosomal dominants will become easier to avoid as knowledge increases. Polygenic issues are another thing altogether and simply outcrossing can cause as many problems as it solves. It doesn't matter how inbred something is if all the genes are 'good', individually and as a whole.

Have to say, whenever this sort of discussion starts up I do start to think of the unbelievable risks taken with the human breeding programme - and nobody seems to mind that


----------



## BlueBeagle (Oct 27, 2011)

Genetics is not my strong point, apart from the bits that interest me so I am not an expert at all and take all your points on board Jiskefet. As I understand it mDNA is used because it is passed from your mother however, at the point of fertilisation the mDNA from the sperm is destroyed and this is why it is possible to trace mDNA only through your mother line. This is why we can trace it back to 7 common female ancestors but not to any common father ancestors. But it wouldn't surprise me if we had the same few father ancestors.

A breeder is more godlike as they decide who mates with who and therefore knowing breed lines and health problems and outcrossing can extend the gene pool in an artificial way, such as humans did by accident over millions of years. So breeding for extremes is creating problems and does need to be addressed and we have gone slightly off topic


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

I like turtles


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Not all that much off-topic.
The breed-related problems are genetic in nature, and by knowing more about the genetics and preventing breeding animals with potentially harmful characteristics instead of embracing them as beautiful, we can save both future individual animals and the breeds as a whole.

But we will have to rethink our concept of beauty, and learn to prefer the normal, healthy look over the charicaturesque again.


----------



## Lunabuma (Dec 12, 2011)

I have to admit, I feel much more enlightened after reading these posts. Its a bit of a complex subject! 

I burst out laughing when I was at work on my lunch in a hospital canteen when i read about the turtle.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Lunabuma said:


> I have to admit, I feel much more enlightened after reading these posts. Its a bit of a complex subject!
> 
> *I burst out laughing when I was at work on my lunch in a hospital canteen when i read about the turtle.*


Teehee    :lol:


----------



## HeartofClass (Jan 2, 2012)

This is a very interesting topic and so far I have really enjoyed reading everyone's opinions, however different from each other they may be  keep it coming!


----------



## WitchMatus (Jul 17, 2013)

MrRustyRead said:


> i wonder what one sided twisted delights she will put in this one


Can you explain in details what you see one sided and twisted in PDE?


----------



## Aurelie (Apr 10, 2012)

WitchMatus said:


> Can you explain in details what you see one sided and twisted in PDE?


What made you drag up a post from over a year ago to ask this question??


----------



## JordanRose (Mar 10, 2012)

Aurelie said:


> What made you drag up a post from over a year ago to ask this question??


Their first post, too 

My suspicion is that they may be some kind of researcher/ journalist. Could be wrong, though.


----------



## Aurelie (Apr 10, 2012)

JordanRose said:


> Their first post, too
> 
> My suspicion is that they may be some kind of researcher/ journalist. Could be wrong, though.


Has the film actually come out yet? *goes off to Google*


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

I think I may have been contacted about this, although the BBC put it to me that "We're just looking for cat breeders who really, really love their cats. You know, the sort whose life revolves around them"... Yep, right! Mine were obviously too healthy and well loved, as they never contacted me again after spending an afternoon being swamped by purry, friendly, naughty little kittens!

Will be curious to see if the film's out yet.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

WitchMatus said:


> Can you explain in details what you see one sided and twisted in PDE?


because it did not show the full perspective on pedigree dogs it focused on the negatives without showing people yes there are these cases but there are good breeders out there. but that wouldnt make good tv so thats why they wouldnt of put it in.



Aurelie said:


> Has the film actually come out yet? *goes off to Google*


hasnt come out yet as far as i know, prob coz no one will pick it up to broadcast coz of the backlash of the first pde.



carly87 said:


> I think I may have been contacted about this, although the BBC put it to me that "We're just looking for cat breeders who really, really love their cats. You know, the sort whose life revolves around them"... Yep, right! Mine were obviously too healthy and well loved, as they never contacted me again after spending an afternoon being swamped by purry, friendly, naughty little kittens!
> 
> Will be curious to see if the film's out yet.


what sort of questions did they ask you?


----------



## WitchMatus (Jul 17, 2013)

Both films (Pegigree Dogs Exposed and Pegigree Dogs Exposed: Three Years On) didn't suggest that all breeders are bad and they did mention that there are good ones. The second film was even partly dedicated to good breeders in author's view. What else should they show do you think?


----------



## Aurelie (Apr 10, 2012)

WitchMatus said:


> Both films (Pegigree Dogs Exposed and Pegigree Dogs Exposed: Three Years On) didn't suggest that all breeders are bad and they did mention that there are good ones. The second film was even partly dedicated to good breeders in author's view. What else should they show do you think?


Have you seen the Pedigree cats exposed film?


----------



## WitchMatus (Jul 17, 2013)

It doesn't exist yet. You can subscribe the PDE blog and you will be notified about the broadcast. 
Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

They asked about the health of the breed, PKD etc, but didn't seem too happy when I told them that most good breeders are now PKD negative, and the cats don't have the breathing problems they once did thanks to careful breeding. She didn't seem overly impressed.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

WitchMatus said:


> Both films (Pegigree Dogs Exposed and Pegigree Dogs Exposed: Three Years On) didn't suggest that all breeders are bad and they did mention that there are good ones. The second film was even partly dedicated to good breeders in author's view. What else should they show do you think?


I smell a rat, you join a forum just to post on a thread that was over a year old, you are either JH or one of her allies.

I think you will find it pointed out all of the negatives and didnt point out yes this is a negative and this is how we can improve it, if it had been done that way i dont think it would of hit so badly as it is better to work with them rather than against them.


----------



## WitchMatus (Jul 17, 2013)

Actually they did point out how to solve some problems in the film, shortly, of course. What I can remember is "You can change the breed standard," for Rhodesian Ridgebacks, or "Don't you think that Kennel Club's rules should be changed so that dogs with Syringomielia shouldn't win?" or "You can no longer register mother/son brother/sister matings". Though it's too obvious for anyone.
There is an official blog, where you can find more detailed information, a LOT of suggestions and ideas, like this post, for example Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: Ten steps to help save the pedigree dog And there is more.
But ok, I got it. No more uncomfortable questions any more.


----------



## jasminex (Oct 16, 2012)

carly87 said:


> They asked about the health of the breed, PKD etc, but didn't seem too happy when I told them that most good breeders are now PKD negative, and the cats don't have the breathing problems they once did thanks to careful breeding. She didn't seem overly impressed.


As well as that, (I read back at the start of the thread from the blog), pointing out specially shaped kibble for persians cos they can't pick up normal kibbles is just ridic :sosp: - Oooh, this unnatural shaped cat face can't pick up "natural" foodstuffs for cats therefore it's wrong - well my flatface has not a single problem chowing down on nice pieces of meat and raw mince :dita:


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Both films (Pegigree Dogs Exposed and Pegigree Dogs Exposed: Three Years On) didn't suggest that all breeders are bad and they did mention that there are good ones. The second film was even partly dedicated to good breeders in author's view.


Those good breeders were around when she made the original and when I first saw it I thought the valid points she raised would have been much stronger if she'd included the contrast then. I very much got the feeling the second programme was intended to imply that the first programme was responsible for some perceived improvement. Why else call it 'three years on' when the same content had been available to film three years earlier?


----------



## Tigermoon (Apr 2, 2013)

Aurelie said:


> Have you seen the Pedigree cats exposed film?


This programme was filmed about 2 years ago, some of my friends where interviewed on film and they visited at least one of my friends homes. Last I heard the programme had been shelved.


----------



## Aurelie (Apr 10, 2012)

Tigermoon said:


> Last I heard the programme had been shelved.


I wonder if that is a reflection on viewing figures for the previous two programs. People get fed up of being offered neatly edited versions of someone's opinion loosly trussed up as a documentory.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Probably partly that and partly that she couldn't get the same level of dramatic content - which will of course amount to lousy viewing figures so yes


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

MoggyBaby said:


> Absolutely couldn't agree more!!!!
> 
> *People have become SO used to Persians having a flat face (extreme version) that they are very surprised when I tell them that Merson is half-Persian because he has the original features of the Doll-Faced Persian*. We have had evidence of that here on this forum.
> 
> ...


Same with our Ollie - she is half-persian and has the original proper cat-shaped face. She's stunning! I think the flat-faced ones are as ugly as hell, personally, but that wouldn't bother me if it didn't cause health problems for the cats.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I won't watch it, I've seen the same sort of programme a couple of times now, and I despair. * If only these organisations put their efforts into exposing puppy farming, back yard breeding,* and similar, it would do some good. By targetting the show world, yes, they may catch a few people who prefer looks over health, but are they really making a difference in the big picture, no, not in my view. All they do is simply turn people away from those who show, sticking them all in one bucket.


I would second that! The conditions of puppy farms are horrific - I can't understand how they are not all closed down! Or can't they get them for tax evasion (like Al Capone)? I bet they're fiddling numbers right, left and centre.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

MrRustyRead said:


> I smell a rat, you join a forum just to post on a thread that was over a year old, you are either JH or one of her allies.
> 
> I think you will find it pointed out all of the negatives and didnt point out yes this is a negative and this is how we can improve it, if it had been done that way i dont think it would of hit so badly as it is better to work with them rather than against them.


I think you will find that JH is a member here and if she felt the need to comment would do so under her own name, as she has done on other threads


----------



## Apollo2012 (Jun 10, 2013)

Seeing the show gsds actually made me feel sick why would you breed a dog with those problems its horrible and the judge saying that's what they should look like has issues if he thinks that is ok and that boxer had me in tears

Edit:just read the other comments didn't realise this was an old thread lol


----------



## Tigermoon (Apr 2, 2013)

Aurelie said:


> I wonder if that is a reflection on viewing figures for the previous two programs. People get fed up of being offered neatly edited versions of someone's opinion loosly trussed up as a documentories.


I think Havoc is right in that the programme on cats, particularly those bred under GCCF rules, couldn't get the same level of dramatic content as the programme on dogs and therefore wasn't worth airing. I don't believe that viewing figures were low because suddenly it was everywhere, on the news, all the newspapers picked up and ran numerous stories the BBC dumped Crufts quicker than lightening

Having watched both the original programme and the 3 years on programme I have to disagree that it didn't show good breeders, because it did. However the title of the programme rather gave away the fact that it was about focusing on the bad side.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> I think you will find that JH is a member here and if she felt the need to comment would do so under her own name, as she has done on other threads


doesnt stop her from opening another one  just seems very strange for someone to have their first post on a thread that is over a year old


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

MrRustyRead said:


> doesnt stop her from opening another one  just seems very strange for someone to have their first post on a thread that is over a year old


Well, let's be charitable and assume that they found it via Google and misread the previous final post date of 28 June 2012 as _28 June 2013_, eh? I know I misread the date for the first half of the thread, I only realised when I saw Carly's comments about waiting from an American kitten to arrive and thought 'hang on, didn't know about that - oh, wait...' 

I may be a moggy slave, but I do get annoyed when people look to condemn the entire pedigree fraternity of people based on the sins of a minority of 'extreme' breeders and the far larged den of cruelty that is back yard breeding. Fair play to expose general shortcomings in the governing bodies, but at least be honest about efforts to improve things too.

Now, if only they'd put the same amount of effort into exposing Back Yard Breeders, or milti-million pound pet food companies who solely exist to invent more foods to 'solve' problems their other foods cause... 

"Pet Food Companies Exposed: Are big name pet food companies killing your pet?" - that would be a good working title 

~Jes


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Tigermoon said:


> I think Havoc is right in that the programme on cats, particularly those bred under GCCF rules, couldn't get the same level of dramatic content as the programme on dogs and therefore wasn't worth airing.





Jesthar said:


> I may be a moggy slave, but I do get annoyed when people look to condemn the entire pedigree fraternity of people based on the sins of a minority of 'extreme' breeders and the far larged den of cruelty that is back yard breeding. Fair play to expose general shortcomings in the governing bodies, but at least be honest about efforts to improve things too.


I hate it when someone else says exactly what I was about to...... :lol:

To expand if I may - If an 'expose' of this nature was to be done for cats, then by emphasising how much money caring slaves lose by going to BYB's, how the health of kittens suffer, the lies told by BYB's and advising people on how to spot BYB's, this could do so much good for the cat community.

They could run comparisons alongside the top quality breeders like our Carly, Lynn or Spid - showing the difference in what kind of kitten you get when you go through the correct channels and by-pass the con-men.



> Now, if only they'd put the same amount of effort into exposing Back Yard Breeders, or milti-million pound pet food companies who solely exist to invent more foods to 'solve' problems their other foods cause...
> 
> "Pet Food Companies Exposed: Are big name pet food companies killing your pet?" - that would be a good working title
> 
> ~Jes


Gee, I would LURVE to see that but it will never happen!!! The companies that churn out this dross make SO much money on them they would have injunctions on any attempt to air a programme of this nature.

More's the pity.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> Well, let's be charitable and assume that they found it via Google and misread the previous final post date of 28 June 2012 as _28 June 2013_, eh? I know I misread the date for the first half of the thread, I only realised when I saw Carly's comments about waiting from an American kitten to arrive and thought 'hang on, didn't know about that - oh, wait...'
> 
> I may be a moggy slave, but I do get annoyed when people look to condemn the entire pedigree fraternity of people based on the sins of a minority of 'extreme' breeders and the far larged den of cruelty that is back yard breeding. Fair play to expose general shortcomings in the governing bodies, but at least be honest about efforts to improve things too.
> 
> ...


Would it be sponsored by Bakers?  haha


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> I hate it when someone else says exactly what I was about to...... :lol:


Aww, sorry MB - may I apologise with a cookie?












MoggyBaby said:


> To expand if I may - If an 'expose' of this nature was to be done for cats, then by emphasising how much money caring slaves lose by going to BYB's, how the health of kittens suffer, the lies told by BYB's and advising people on how to spot BYB's, this could do so much good for the cat community.
> 
> They could run comparisons alongside the top quality breeders like our Carly, Lynn or Spid - showing the difference in what kind of kitten you get when you go through the correct channels and by-pass the con-men.


Would be fab, wouldn't it? It wouldn't end the BYBs overnight, but if it shuts even some of them down and made people think twice about neutering it would be worth it...



MoggyBaby said:


> Gee, I would LURVE to see that but it will never happen!!! The companies that churn out this dross make SO much money on them they would have injunctions on any attempt to air a programme of this nature.
> 
> More's the pity.


More's the pity indeed... Maybe we need to start a website, 'Pet Food Ingredients Explained' :devil:

~Jes


----------



## WitchMatus (Jul 17, 2013)

______________________


----------



## kirksandallchins (Nov 3, 2007)

Looking at Persians with flat faces and bulging eyes, I think the cat world does need looking at seriously.

I am more of a dog person, and could never understand why some breeds look virtually identical to their ancestors, but others have been changed beyond recognition. I also remember when Siamese were heavier than they are today and looked a lot better than the scrawny things seen today

It's no just dogs and cats that have been exaggerated - some horse breeds are going the same way. It is time anmial shows got back to basics - when an animal could be worked (or a pet) one day, given a good brush then be taken to a show the following day


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

My cat who is going on show this weekend is a good pet today, will be a good pet tomorrow, and then will be brushed and go to a show. Just because we show them doesn't mean we don't treat them as pets! All you'd have to do is take one look inside my house to see the truth of that. Perhaps that's what put the TV guys off...


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I also remember when Siamese were heavier than they are today


That could be an interesting one if the data exists. Siamese used to have much heavier coats but it doesn't mean the cat was bigger or heavier. I've bathed the odd 'fluffy' and it always surprises me how scrawny the cat actually is under all that fur


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

I have to concur. I have one here with a massive coat. For months and months, everyone who saw her told me she was grossly fat and this was a little kitten who wasn't even 3 KG yet!


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

carly87 said:


> My cat who is going on show this weekend is a good pet today, will be a good pet tomorrow, and then will be brushed and go to a show. Just because we show them doesn't mean we don't treat them as pets! .


Exactly, my show cats are pets first Except my cats are never brushed . If one decides it doesn't enjoy shows, it doesn't go, simple.

All my breeding cats are treated as pets, the girls live inside alongside my neuters. And my male spends a great deal of time inside as well.
They're not living in outdoor pens, they're part of the family.

Most breeders I know work the same way.


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

WitchMatus said:


> Actually they did point out how to solve some problems in the film, shortly, of course. What I can remember is "You can change the breed standard," for Rhodesian Ridgebacks, or "Don't you think that Kennel Club's rules should be changed so that dogs with Syringomielia shouldn't win?" or "You can no longer register mother/son brother/sister matings". Though it's too obvious for anyone.
> There is an official blog, where you can find more detailed information, a LOT of suggestions and ideas, like this post, for example Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: Ten steps to help save the pedigree dog And there is more.
> But ok, I got it. No more uncomfortable questions any more.


Let me guess: you are in the marketing division of BBC or whoever made this "documentary"?


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

Dragging up an oldish thread here, but just wondering was this ever made and shown? Hope I haven't missed it!


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

havoc said:


> That could be an interesting one if the data exists. Siamese used to have much heavier coats but it doesn't mean the cat was bigger or heavier. I've bathed the odd 'fluffy' and it always surprises me how scrawny the cat actually is under all that fur


I have to agree with Kirksandallchins here, a Siamese used to be much more cobby like this -

"Bella ~ 5 Years ago" by Marjorie Wallace | Redbubble

My aunt had one.

And look at the difference is a Persian nose from 20 years ago to now.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

It's worth reading the late and lamented Julia May's comments on this, towards the bottom of this page:

Palantir Cats - the first litter


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

This website shows siamese from 50-70's they weren't all cobbly even then!

Historic Photo Archive


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

MollyMilo said:


> This website shows siamese from 50-70's they weren't all cobbly even then!
> 
> Historic Photo Archive


They were fine and elegant. There is just no comparison to today's show winning shapes.


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

ForeverHome said:


> They were fine and elegant. There is just no comparison to today's show winning shapes.


I don't think that photo you posted is siamese? Where are the big pointy ears?
My siamese from 25 years ago had wider face yes, but still the pointy ears like those in the link I posted.


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

When I get my own computer back I'll scan my aunt's cat and post that. He was very much the same shape as the one I linked to and was from absolute pedigree lines ... unfortunately someone had got out and his brother was his father and he had a stump for a tail.

Do you really not see the difference between that beautiful gallery you posted of those fine, elegant, slightly triangular faced Siamese, and the thin alien-faced ones of today?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...biw=1366&bih=643#q=siamese+show+cats&tbm=isch


----------



## Sophiebee (Jul 9, 2013)

ForeverHome said:


> And look at the difference is a Persian nose from 20 years ago to now.


I dont know alot about genetics/breeding etc so cant comment on that, but i have to say i really prefer the older type, less extreme persian faces, they look so much more natural and comfortable, some of the ones i see now look as though they have been taken to such extremes they can hardly breathe  (although this certainly isnt the case for all of them and we have some beautiful persians on here!) Personally i love love love the doll faced persians, but as i said dont know enough about breeding as to why you dont really see them anymore.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

Beaumaris Alexander is a pretty good-looking Siamese.


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

ForeverHome said:


> When I get my own computer back I'll scan my aunt's cat and post that. He was very much the same shape as the one I linked to and was from absolute pedigree lines ... unfortunately someone had got out and his brother was his father and he had a stump for a tail.
> 
> Do you really not see the difference between that beautiful gallery you posted of those fine, elegant, slightly triangular faced Siamese, and the thin alien-faced ones of today?
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...biw=1366&bih=643#q=siamese+show+cats&tbm=isch


I admit I don't like the very very very extreme siamese with the ears on the side of the head, but most of the cats on your link gorgeous


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

Yes its been made but not show and no broadcaster will touch it after the backlash of Pedigree Dogs Exposed


----------



## MollyMilo (Feb 16, 2012)

MrRustyRead said:


> Yes its been made but not show and no broadcaster will touch it after the backlash of Pedigree Dogs Exposed


Oh that's frustrating


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

chillminx said:


> Speaking as someone who is majorly concerned with animal rights, I am glad an experienced, respected journalist like Jemima Harrison has the courage to take on the Pedigree Dog World and also the Pedigree Cat World, which is far from blameless.
> 
> I think it appalling the way certain breeds (dogs and cats) are being bred with exaggerated feaures that result in them being so physically compromised, that they have problems with e.g. breathing, swallowing,
> picking up their food, or chewing (to name but a few).
> ...


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

MollyMilo said:


> Oh that's frustrating


Exactly, I was hoping that when we see it the program would show a very unbiased view and show people the issues without sensationalising it all, but with jemima it wouldn't be her if it wasn't sensationalist unfortunately.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

MollyMilo said:


> This website shows siamese from 50-70's they weren't all cobbly even then!
> 
> Historic Photo Archive


From another page on that link:


> The ears ... should be placed on the head with the lower edge continuing the diagonal line of the jaw.


Very few of the cats in the photos actually are like that, Beaumaris Alexander being one that is. The ears are too upright in most of them, more like a Russian Blue. It's also not clear (at least to me) if all of those are winning cats, or pet cats of the past. Beaumaris Unknown Ajax was, and there is a page from his breeder with some information about him and some other photos:

New Page 1

It's worth looking at her other pages as well.
Beaumaris* Anne Gregory~ website designed by Debbies Doodles
Beaumaris* Anne Gregory~ website designed by Debbies Doodles

Some modern siamese are definitely overtyped, but there are plenty around which are correct. From the current SoP:



> Ears - Rather large and pricked, wide at the base, set so as to follow the lines of the wedge. Adult exhibits should be penalised equally for ears which are set too high or too low, distorting the balance of the triangular effect.


The other thing a lot of people who haven't handled one don't realise is that many moggies are quite skinny under their coats - think of photos of wet cats - and a good Siamese (or Oriental) is a muscular cat of some substance. When I was showing Errol I let people hold him, including someone who thought he was skinny. As soon as she felt him she realised that he was a very solid muscular cat.

Quite a few US breeders seem to have lost sight of that, but again there are plenty of cats being shown in the UK who are solid and muscular despite having a light and elegent appearance.


----------



## korrok (Sep 4, 2013)

Historic Siamese

Quintral Pirata is a good example of a long-faced Siamese from the archives.

Also I do wish people would stop making nasty comments about the appearance of breeds, "alien faced" etc. These are our beloved pets. There are many breeds I don't like the appearance of personally but would never make such remarks because it's just nasty to read for those who own them and adore them. Maybe being over sensitive but it just seems a bit needless.


----------



## jasminex (Oct 16, 2012)

korrok said:


> Also I do wish people would stop making nasty comments about the appearance of breeds, "alien faced" etc. These are our beloved pets. There are many breeds I don't like the appearance of personally but would never make such remarks because it's just nasty to read for those who own them and adore them. Maybe being over sensitive but it just seems a bit needless.


I was thinking of making a similar comment myself.. I mean, I have a pretty extreme faced exotic, which I'm sure many people don't like the look of or "approve of" (he has no breathing difficulty or had any medical problems as a result of his breeding; he was bred by responsible breeders who aim to breed out these type of problems). I personally don't find pointies appealing, but I guess that's why different looks have been bred, something for everyone :thumbsup:


----------



## korrok (Sep 4, 2013)

jasminex said:


> I was thinking of making a similar comment myself.. I mean, I have a pretty extreme faced exotic, which I'm sure many people don't like the look of or "approve of" (he has no breathing difficulty or had any medical problems as a result of his breeding; he was bred by responsible breeders who aim to breed out these type of problems). I personally don't find pointies appealing, but I guess that's why different looks have been bred, something for everyone :thumbsup:


Yep full disclosure I am a meezer owner! We were going to go for an "old type" and buy from a breeder but as fate had it we ended up with a modern type adult mum and son, Shanti being tortie point, my least favourite Siamese markings! But now they are my gorgeous babies and I admire their big ears and elegant long profile every day. :thumbsup:


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

which is why there are such a diverse amount of breeds, not everyone likes every breed but then others do like that breed, everyone likes different things.


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

korrok said:


> Historic Siamese
> 
> Quintral Pirata is a good example of a long-faced Siamese from the archives.
> 
> Also I do wish people would stop making nasty comments about the appearance of breeds, "alien faced" etc. These are our beloved pets. There are many breeds I don't like the appearance of personally but would never make such remarks because it's just nasty to read for those who own them and adore them. Maybe being over sensitive but it just seems a bit needless.


My apologies for any offence caused by my comments. I love all cats and believe it or not my words were not intended to offend any individual cat or their human companion.

My point is that since cats began to be bred for a certain look those looks have become more extreme, in the case of some breeds to the point of damaging their health. The variety of dog breeds we have today has its roots in specialising dogs for different work. That is not the case for cats, whose breeding diversification is purely aesthetic. I have no particular objection to that except when it becomes extreme.

Take my own Bobby as an example - as dearly as I love him, I love him for being a cat. The qualities he was bred for, how many fingers you can fit between his ears, the length of his coat, the way he stands - those mean nothing to me.

What I do see is how much duller his senses are compared to the alley cats I'm used to, how much slower and less accurate his reactions are, and most of all what makes me want to cry is that he can't even groom himself properly. His fur it too long to get off the end of his tongue without some ridiculous gymnastics.

People bred him to be this way, people who value his long silky coat and big blue eyes and perfectly spaced ears. Fine, but personally one of a million attributes cats have that I love is being self-cleaning. It's a pleasure to watch a short-haired cat wash itself. That has been destroyed by generations of selective breeding to appeal to people, I believe at the expense of some of the most wonderful aspects of what it means to be a cat.

I am not against different breeds, I just think some are getting extreme and should not become any more extreme than they already are. I would still love a Persian, a Siamese, a Sphinx, a Scottish Fold or any other cat just like the next one - I simply think extremes have to stop somewhere.


----------



## Sophiebee (Jul 9, 2013)

jasminex said:


> I was thinking of making a similar comment myself.. I mean, I have a pretty extreme faced exotic, which I'm sure many people don't like the look of or "approve of" (he has no breathing difficulty or had any medical problems as a result of his breeding; he was bred by responsible breeders who aim to breed out these type of problems). I personally don't find pointies appealing, but I guess that's why different looks have been bred, something for everyone :thumbsup:


Just wanted to say i hope my comment didnt cause offence, it was aimed at the irresponsible breeders who do breed kittens with breathing problems (i was thinking more of the ones who have tiny, pinprick noses set right back in their face- the ones that do look uncomfortable) just for the look, theres nothing wrong with an exxgerated face type, UNLESS it is damaging to the animal (as some of the ultra extreme ones are.) I did say i prefer the doll faces, but i only mentioned that as i was curious as to why you dont really see them anymore, as you said everyone likes different things and i certainly didnt mean to insult anyone (or your kitty who is lovely.!)


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

I think a lot of people dislike what the Persian has become, and suspect that if the British Longhair ever takes off in the UK it will be very popular because of that, and because the coat should be easier to take care of.


----------



## Sophiebee (Jul 9, 2013)

OrientalSlave said:


> I think a lot of people dislike what the Persian has become, and suspect that if the British Longhair ever takes off in the UK it will be very popular because of that, and because the coat should be easier to take care of.


Ive just had a look at some british longhair pictures, they are gorgous! (im not great with breeds and dont think ive seen one before) this may be a silly question but are they very like british short hairs in terms of temperment etc, just with a long coat?


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2014)

I must say I do prefer the modern breeds and I think they all look wonderful . I much prefer the look of my soft faced norwegian forest cat to the look of the. Origional muscular big bonned variety which you don't see a lot of in brittan nowadays. I. Don't think that breeders would be allowed to breed the modern day persians, siamese and breeds that origionate from them if they had the health problems and defects the critics make out they have.


----------



## JordanRose (Mar 10, 2012)

MollyMilo said:


> This website shows siamese from 50-70's they weren't all cobbly even then!
> 
> Historic Photo Archive


There are some beauties there!!! :001_tt1:



ForeverHome said:


> When I get my own computer back I'll scan my aunt's cat and post that. He was very much the same shape as the one I linked to and was from absolute pedigree lines ... unfortunately someone had got out and his brother was his father and he had a stump for a tail.
> 
> Do you really not see the difference between that beautiful gallery you posted of those fine, elegant, slightly triangular faced Siamese, and the thin alien-faced ones of today?
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...biw=1366&bih=643#q=siamese+show+cats&tbm=isch


I must admit, I'm more of a traditional Siamese fan (such as the ones in MM's link- I'm not a big fan of the apple heads) and did, for ages, find Siamese very, very unappealing. Just didn't 'get' them at all.

I will say though, that when you see these cats 'in the fur' at shows- they are absolutely beautifully shaped; they're muscular, healthy and have not got any problems functioning. In fact, they're extremely capable of running round at full speed, have no issues exhibiting 'normal' cats behaviour and, may I add, they have FANTASTIC lungs!! (This is coming from first hand experience, living with a Siamese, after originally not being keen on the breed. Sometimes, it's fantastic to be proved wrong!  )

For all I see that modern Siamese have changed- and yes, I admit I would like to see more traditionals doing well in the show ring- this has not, as far as I can tell, been in detriment to their _health_.


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

I've never suggested Siamese might be one of the breeds with health problems. 

In common moggies who go out and do their common moggy thing, queens select the best toms to pass on their genes. What the 'best' genes are would be for survival and continuation of the cat species.

Human intervention in that process, ie selection for breeding, is for our judgement of what is attractive for that breed. Unnatural selection. Survival of the prettiest.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

JordanRose said:


> I must admit, I'm more of a traditional Siamese fan (such as the ones in MM's link- I'm not a big fan of the apple heads) and did, for ages, find Siamese very, very unappealing.


The Appleheads are termed Traditional, but for me it's the Classics - the ones from 1950-1970. My first Siamese was a classic from some exceptionally good Classic lines, and many of the cats in those photos were in her background. I did a 10-generation pedigree for her at one point (and went back even further to some of the first imports in the 1890s).


----------



## JordanRose (Mar 10, 2012)

MerlinsMum said:


> The Appleheads are termed Traditional, but for me it's the Classics - the ones from 1950-1970. My first Siamese was a classic from some exceptionally good Classic lines, and many of the cats in those photos were in her background. I did a 10-generation pedigree for her at one point (and went back even further to some of the first imports in the 1890s).


Ah, that's the word! Yes, the classics are my favourite (not that I'm biased or anything  )

I would love to know Spooks' lines- wish I had his papers!


----------



## JordanRose (Mar 10, 2012)

ForeverHome said:


> I've never suggested Siamese might be one of the breeds with health problems.
> 
> In common moggies who go out and do their common moggy thing, queens select the best toms to pass on their genes. What the 'best' genes are would be for survival and continuation of the cat species.
> 
> Human intervention in that process, ie selection for breeding, is for our judgement of what is attractive for that breed. Unnatural selection. Survival of the prettiest.


Ah, I see what you mean now!

Yes, it's true- we call the shots when it comes to pedigrees, not the cats themselves and an 'ideal' is being adhered to in this process. However, on the most part, I don't see this is a bad thing; and as with anything, there are good breeders and bad breeders.

It's not the breeds themselves but the people who breed them that cause the problems. Good breeders strive for healthy lines and aim to breed out any genetic problems, they also ensure they have low inbreeding coefficients and the health of their beloved kittens is paramount.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2014)

MerlinsMum said:


> The Appleheads are termed Traditional, but for me it's the Classics - the ones from 1950-1970. My first Siamese was a classic from some exceptionally good Classic lines, and many of the cats in those photos were in her background. I did a 10-generation pedigree for her at one point (and went back even further to some of the first imports in the 1890s).


 WOW that's amazing !


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

JordanRose said:


> Ah, I see what you mean now!
> 
> Yes, it's true- we call the shots when it comes to pedigrees, not the cats themselves and an 'ideal' is being adhered to in this process. However, on the most part, I don't see this is a bad thing; and as with anything, there are good breeders and bad breeders.
> 
> It's not the breeds themselves but the people who breed them that cause the problems. Good breeders strive for healthy lines and aim to breed out any genetic problems, they also ensure they have low inbreeding coefficients and the health of their beloved kittens is paramount.


Thanks - whew! It's so not anyone or any breed I'm "against" and I love the Siamesey character (my Misha was quarter Siamese apparently) but it's how extreme it can get that actually worries me. Yes I do appreciate that breeders go to a lot of effort to keep good healthy genes.


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

Sophiebee said:


> Ive just had a look at some british longhair pictures, they are gorgous! (im not great with breeds and dont think ive seen one before) this may be a silly question but are they very like british short hairs in terms of temperment etc, just with a long coat?


......

In a nutshell yes , however and this is only my opinion regarding the coat care , Molly needs much more attention , than our two coonies ....

Molly


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

megsie84 said:


> WOW that's amazing !


Her pedigree - (only 4 gens, but it's possible to go back further on this site)
Adreeam Fuchsia


----------



## Sophiebee (Jul 9, 2013)

tincan said:


> ......
> 
> In a nutshell yes , however and this is only my opinion regarding the coat care , Molly needs much more attention , than our two coonies ....
> 
> ...


Shes a beauty :001_wub: thanks for answering, i love hearing about all the different breeds from people who actually own them


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

Sophiebee said:


> Shes a beauty :001_wub: thanks for answering, i love hearing about all the different breeds from people who actually own them


Colliemerles ( Lorraine ) has several BLH's on here ..... And Sara ( we love british shorthairs) also has Molly's sister .... Sara is Molly's breeder btw


----------



## AnnaRC (Jan 10, 2013)

Sphynx?

QUOTE=K337;1062060950]Any guesses on breeds we'll be seeing apart from Persians, Scottish folds and Munchkins?[/QUOTE]


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

ForeverHome said:


> In common moggies who go out and do their common moggy thing, queens select the best toms to pass on their genes. What the 'best' genes are would be for survival and continuation of the cat species.
> .


The girls don't decide anything, they are simply mated by whoever comes along


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

Exactly what I wanted to say. It's only decided by whoever gets there first.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> All they do is simply turn people away from those who show, sticking them all in one bucket.


is that such a bad thing?

i mean, the whole idea of beauty pageants is a bizarre and freakish hobby

miss world, mr universe, dog shows, american child pageants.....jus what is all that sbout ::blink:


----------



## Lunabuma (Dec 12, 2011)

carly87 said:


> Exactly what I wanted to say. It's only decided by whoever gets there first.


Even if it's a brother or son...


----------



## korrok (Sep 4, 2013)

spotty cats said:


> The girls don't decide anything, they are simply mated by whoever comes along


Exactly. They are grabbed by the scruff by whatever big tomcat comes along first and potentially 3 more after that. There's no selection process. :blink:

What I find odd is when people say to me - and others - "oh, you have a pedigree, it'll be a bit thick compared to your average moggy then". Couldn't be further from the truth! Both our cats are clever, but Teemo (the more extreme typed of the two, since he has a true "ears in line with jaw" wedge shape) is the most intelligent cat I've ever encountered. He responds quickly to his name, plays fetch, carefully and methodically works out puzzle/treat toys, understands when I'm not well and stays a lot quieter...he's amazing. People are just a bit quick to jump to conclusions that pedigree must always = unhealthy and dull animals.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

megsie84 said:


> I must say I do prefer the modern breeds and I think they all look wonderful . I much prefer the look of my soft faced norwegian forest cat to the look of the. Origional muscular big bonned variety which you don't see a lot of in brittan nowadays.


Interesting. I prefer the older look and am a bit worried (aesthetically) about the extreme pointyness in some strains of NFC. If I ever got interested in breeding it would be to help preserve the old style. It is obviously very popular though.


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

It's not random or first-come-first served at all. The strongest toms are favoured. Yes there are multiple matings over several days and the litter may have different fathers. As every breeder obviously knows, the tiny spines on the penis are thought to stimulate ovulation and maximise the chances of that tom being one of them. Yes there is a chance of occasional inbreeding, just as there will be in any wild cat population, and that is why young leave their mothers and go roaming, to establish a territory further away. Mother Nature has some great ways of ensuring survival and health of a species.


----------



## Lunabuma (Dec 12, 2011)

Strongest will not always = genetically diverse or free from disease. The domestic cat population doesn't behave in the same way as a totally wild population. Too many irresponsible owners


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

Don't you ever wonder how the cat as a species managed to make it to the 20th century?

Felines are just about the world's most efficient hunters, some of the longest-lived for their size, and over 9000 years of domestication have needed the least human intervention. Indeed, until recent times we didn't even interfere with their natural selection process. 

Anyway I'll just say it's great that we all have such different views and can discuss them on this forum without arguing or falling out.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

You could argue that selecting for "pretty" and "friendly" has saved them from a Scottish Wildcat-like fate and helped them make it to the 21st century.


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

Jonescat said:


> You could argue that selecting for "pretty" and "friendly" has saved them from a Scottish Wildcat-like fate and helped them make it to the 21st century.


You could, except for the simple fact that the cat was brought to our shores already domesticated and has never been accused of killing livestock. Otherwise yes you could.


----------



## Aurelie (Apr 10, 2012)

Tails and Trails said:


> is that such a bad thing?
> 
> i mean, the whole idea of beauty pageants is a bizarre and freakish hobby
> 
> miss world, mr universe, dog shows, american child pageants.....jus what is all that sbout ::blink:


Have you been to a dog or cat show? I think bundling the human shows up with the animal shows in terms of how or why they horrify you is using a pretty big brush. I have never been worried that Bruno will not be taken seriously in his future career, or seen as an airhead for taking part in a show, nor do I worry that Nancy will become too aware of her looks at too young an age


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Aurelie said:


> Have you been to a dog or cat show? I think bundling the human shows up with the animal shows in terms of how or why they horrify you is using a pretty big brush. I have never been worried that Bruno will not be taken seriously in his future career, or seen as an airhead for taking part in a show, nor do I worry that Nancy will become too aware of her looks at too young an age


have been to a dog show and after several dogs walking about in a certain fashion I kind of lost the will to live ....like watching paint dry

its the humans Iwonder about 
the need to beauty pageant anything seems decidedly odd


----------



## chillminx (Nov 22, 2010)

megsie84 said:


> > Don't think that breeders would be allowed to breed the modern day persians, siamese and breeds that originate from them if they had the health problems and defects the critics make out they have.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't bet on it! I recall the rows there have been over dog breeding in recent years with Crufts approving standards for features in breeds that were either damaging to health (e.g respiratory problems) or mutilating (e.g. tail docking). It reached the point in 2009 where the BBC withdrew from broadcasting Crufts for this very reason.
> ...


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

chillminx said:


> I wouldn't bet on it! I recall the rows there have been over dog breeding in recent years with Crufts approving standards for features in breeds that were either damaging to health (e.g respiratory problems) or mutilating (e.g. tail docking). *It reached the point in 2009 where the BBC withdrew from broadcasting Crufts for this very reason.*
> 
> The fact is many cats with short or flattened noses often do have respiratory problems - ask any vet - simply because the drainage ability of the sinuses has been adversely affected. Even one of my BSH whose nose was not anything like as flattened or short as the noses of some modern breeds, had problems all her life with her eyes watering constantly. My other BSH had a longer, more "normal" nose and he was fine.


I think you will actually find it was because the BBC were trying to tell the kennel club that certain breeds could not be included, so as the kennel club were not willing to adhere to these demands that is why it was rejected by the kennel club, so it wasnt dropped by the BBC because the BBC wanted to, it was because the kennel club rejected the demands the BBC had for showing the program


----------



## chillminx (Nov 22, 2010)

Mr RR - thank you for clarifying the details of why the BBC didn't broadcast Crufts that year  Yes, I agree there was much bad feeling from the Kennel Club and many dog breeders, towards the BBC. I did follow all the reports at the time, having an interest in the subject myself.

As you say, the basis for the row was the exclusion of certain breeds from Crufts, and these were breeds which animal welfare organisations felt were being bred with extreme (and unhealthy) features. I also recall that tail docking was one of the issues too.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

chillminx said:


> Mr RR - thank you for clarifying the details of why the BBC didn't broadcast Crufts that year  Yes, I agree there was much bad feeling from the Kennel Club and many dog breeders, towards the BBC. I did follow all the reports at the time, having an interest in the subject myself.
> 
> As you say, the basis for the row was the exclusion of certain breeds from Crufts, and these were breeds which animal welfare organisations felt were being bred with extreme (and unhealthy) features. I also recall that tail docking was one of the issues too.


exactly which is why they shouldnt be excluded it should be allowed to show the improvement and also make people aware that the improvement isnt going to happen over night.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

The strongest tomcat is favoured by who? Not the females. He's favoured only because he beats the snot out of everyone else so that he can be the FIRST to come along. So there's no selection in terms of the female. She doesn't hunt for the strongest tom, and it doesn't stop her being mated by less of a bully boy if he happens along first.

As for beauty pageants, sorry, but I laughed. Do you see miss world get penalised to a standard of points? Showing is not about who looks the prettiest. It's about confirmation to the breed standard, and I've seen some fuglies win above stunners for exactly this reason.

CM, I don't think it's fair to say that flatties will have problems that those with long noses don't have. One of my flattest cats has pretty much no eye drainage, while both of my doll faces have a fair bit of it. however, the flattie came from someone who selects well in her breeding, and the first open faced girl from someone who really didn't. Again, it's not about the shape of the cat, it's about selecting for problem free lines.

I don't think it's fair to suggest that peds are more stupid, FH. As you said yourself, the biggest and strongest, i.e most aggressive tom mates the queens in uncontrolled situations. A stud passes on some of his traits, particularly temperament, to his offspring. Peds have been selectively bred, choosing cats who are very sweet and sociable. This, over the generations, has led to cats who haven't grown up on the streets or have had access to outdoors at a young age, so who consequently don't pass those lessons on to their offspring. It doesn't mean they don't have it in them. I've watched my Persians, the laziest cat breed in creation, jump well over 5 ft into the air and snap a fly straight out of it with one bite, then roll over and go straight back to sleep. Just because they don't display these behaviours every second doesn't mean they don't have the ability.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2014)

chillminx said:


> megsie84 said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't bet on it! I recall the rows there have been over dog breeding in recent years with Crufts approving standards for features in breeds that were either damaging to health (e.g respiratory problems) or mutilating (e.g. tail docking). It reached the point in 2009 where the BBC withdrew from broadcasting Crufts for this very reason.
> ...


----------



## JordanRose (Mar 10, 2012)

Aurelie said:


> Have you been to a dog or cat show? I think bundling the human shows up with the animal shows in terms of how or why they horrify you is using a pretty big brush. I have never been worried that Bruno will not be taken seriously in his future career, or seen as an airhead for taking part in a show, nor do I worry that Nancy will become too aware of her looks at too young an age


I've repped you for this as I thought it was a fantastic response!! You need to account for the whole picture- it's all hugely context based.

I love visiting both cat and dog shows and would love to be more involved in them as a participant (as it is, I have no dog and Spooks would hate the atmosphere of it all).

Human beauty pageants, however, I find extremely tasteless. Not something I would ever consider for any future children.

In the same way, I very much dislike rabbit showing as it is a species that is vulnerable to fear induced heart-attacks, that has stress responses to handling (generally speaking) and I don't like the way a lot of breeders seem to keep their rabbits. Not my cup of tea at all!

Call me a 'hypocrite' if you like, but there are enormous differences!


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

carly87 said:


> The strongest tomcat is favoured by who? Not the females. He's favoured only because he beats the snot out of everyone else so that he can be the FIRST to come along. So there's no selection in terms of the female. She doesn't hunt for the strongest tom, and it doesn't stop her being mated by less of a bully boy if he happens along first.
> 
> I don't think it's fair to suggest that peds are more stupid, FH. As you said yourself, the biggest and strongest, i.e most aggressive tom mates the queens in uncontrolled situations. A stud passes on some of his traits, particularly temperament, to his offspring. Peds have been selectively bred, choosing cats who are very sweet and sociable. This, over the generations, has led to cats who haven't grown up on the streets or have had access to outdoors at a young age, so who consequently don't pass those lessons on to their offspring. It doesn't mean they don't have it in them. I've watched my Persians, the laziest cat breed in creation, jump well over 5 ft into the air and snap a fly straight out of it with one bite, then roll over and go straight back to sleep. Just because they don't display these behaviours every second doesn't mean they don't have the ability.


I suggest you find out more about the cat's natural mating process.

It wasn't me who called pedigrees stupid. I have observed that my particular pedigree cat has slower reactions and less keen senses than any of the moggies I've had. That's one example of one breed. It is also a fact that he was bred to have long hair and that he struggles to wash himself because of this trait that humans have bred into him. (Or rather, the hair growth limitation has been bred out, apparently.) And I did not use the word stupid so kindly have a go at someone else.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Aurelie
> Have you been to a dog or cat show? I think bundling the human shows up with the animal shows in terms of how or why they horrify you is using a pretty big brush. I have never been worried that Bruno will not be taken seriously in his future career, or seen as an airhead for taking part in a show, nor do I worry that Nancy will become too aware of her looks at too young an age


Made me laugh. The reality is that no animal will show well if it hates being there - not so sure the show offs don't get a touch big headed though if they do well


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I suggest you find out more about the cat's natural mating process.


I'd love to. Where can I observe this in a completely natural setting? What do you consider the 'natural' mating process among domestic cats which leads to choice completely unaffected by man?


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2014)

Jonescat said:


> Interesting. I prefer the older look and am a bit worried (aesthetically) about the extreme pointyness in some strains of NFC. If I ever got interested in breeding it would be to help preserve the old style. It is obviously very popular though.


 I do like the old breed don't get me wrong I think they look more majestic than the new style and I take my hat of to the breeders who work really really hard to preserve them, but prefer the new style as pets.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

Well having not delved into the thread - I can say without reservation that my moggy is the thickest, dimmest, laziest cat I have ever known! One brain cell Presto he's known as. And most of the time that's switched off. And the Selkirks are incredibly inquisitive and want to know what is happening all the time.

I did watch a program on wild cats in Rome - the females mated mainly with the boss tom (as he beat everyone else up) occasionally they would get caught by a younger tom testing his luck. They certainly didn't choose their mates - they just mated.


----------



## korrok (Sep 4, 2013)

Having lived in a crummy village near Glasgow when I was growing up with lots of outdoor cats I witnessed plenty of female cats getting grabbed by random toms. Our downstairs neighbour had a queen called Cheeky who was snagged in the garden repeatedly by the first cat that came along...one occasion two more were queued up waiting. 

AFTER the act was done, they'd turn round and give the tom a smack most of the time, but generally it's bloody rough and they just get scruffed, mated and that's it. If there's somewhere in the world where queens go around hunting for the strongest tom and turning down the inferior ones they don't want, it wasn't what I witnessed or have ever heard of.


----------



## Sophiebee (Jul 9, 2013)

spid said:


> Well having not delved into the thread - I can say without reservation that my moggy is the thickest, dimmest, laziest cat I have ever known! One brain cell Presto he's known as. And most of the time that's switched off. And the Selkirks are incredibly inquisitive and want to know what is happening all the time.


This made me laugh out loud! :lol: Reminds me so much of loki, although at times can be incredibly switched on and inquisitive, he also picks things up quickly and has learnt 'tricks' like sit and high five.

However other times he is incredibly dim, ive seen him fall off a table, jump to catch a toy and definitly NOT land on his feet (something i thought cats always did!) oh and 'hunt' and attack his own tail!! Hes also scared of my sisters rabbit.... Im not sure he's firing on all cylinders half the time (just one of the reasons im glad hes a happy indoor cat!)


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

FH, I was not having a go. Let's keep this nice, eh? I was airing an opinion, that's it.

As for learning about the mating process, I'd be interested in your answer to Havoc's question. I'll not comment on my knowledge of breeding. As I say, I'd rather keep this nice, but do bare in mind that there are many breeders on this forum who have first hand experience of the mating process, and who have certainly done extensive research, so can be expected to know about the bread and butter side of their hobby.


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

carly87 said:


> FH, I was not having a go. Let's keep this nice, eh? I was airing an opinion, that's it.
> 
> As for learning about the mating process, I'd be interested in your answer to Havoc's question. I'll not comment on my knowledge of breeding. As I say, I'd rather keep this nice, but do bare in mind that there are many breeders on this forum who have first hand experience of the mating process, and who have certainly done extensive research, so can be expected to know about the bread and butter side of their hobby.


I don't take kindly to being accused of what I have not done. I did not call pedigree cats stupid. You said I did. I resent that. "Let's keep this nice - EH?"

I am fully aware that I'm in the presence of breeders who will know all about genetics and pedigree, how to breed this colour or that shape or the other characteristic. I'm well aware that breeders will know every detail of a queen in call, when to take her to what stud, how to manage introductions, how to look after her through call, pregnancy and motherhood, how to cater for her every need. I don't know all that stuff, but I am interested in the cat's natural behaviour, its psychology, and its adaptations to 9000 years of domestication.

Havoc - well I didn't answer at first because it seems obvious to me that you don't have to observe domestic or feral cats' courtship behaviour to find out about it. If direct and personal experience was the only way to know anything, well we may as well burn every book ever written. As it happens I was able to observe it as a child, before people became more responsible with neutering. And I take an interest in my feline companions.

A queen in call in a "natural" environment (I'm including a normal feral population such as those of Mediterranean and African cities, and Korrok's village) will attract several males towards her. Females living in groups with related males tend to range further in search of a mate, which is thought to be an evolutionary behaviour to avoid incest. However if there is only one male available then she will mate with him, even if he is related. First priority, reproduce; second priority, if at all possible avoid incest.

Where a queen is courted by more than one tom, there is one main male who will normally do most of the mating, and several hopeful hangers-on. The main male is normally heavier and older than the hangers-on and socially senior. He may have to fight off the hopefuls and they may squabble amongst themselves as well - but he is not necessarily the one who wins all the fights. The queen doesn't just pick the one she likes best, she mates with the strongest and most virile male as do the majority of animal females. So yes she does pick which one she wants if there are several to choose from, but she doesn't just walk away from one and go in search of one she likes better.

Ovulation occurs as a result of stimulation by mating, which is thought to be due to the 120-odd small barbs on the penis raking as he withdraws. This stimulates the female to produce leuteinizing hormone and when the level is high enough she will ovulate. Maximum hormone levels are attained after about 10 matings. So if there are several males present, if the first to get there doesn't have another go, he may not have sired any of the kittens. Only around half of first copulations will result in conception.

The barbs rake and hurt the queen as the male withdraws (which stimulates the hormone), causing pain and being the reason for a queen to normally give him a good slap (as mentioned by Korrok) and some choice language as he withdraws. Those barbs develop from around 12 weeks of age and interestingly disappear soon after castration. the more virile the male, the bigger the barbs.

What else would you like to test me on?


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

In a free-mating situation there is often more than ONE male that mates, resulting in dual- or even tripe-sired litters. It's not just the biggest and strongest who gets to share his genes.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2014)

MerlinsMum said:


> In a free-mating situation there is often more than ONE male that mates, resulting in dual- or even tripe-sired litters. It's not just the biggest and strongest who gets to share his genes.


 That always amazes me about cats.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> If direct and personal experience was the only way to know anything, well we may as well burn every book ever written


Well if I've learned anything in decades of breeding it's to believe the evidence of my own eyes over the written word. I am an avid reader, my collection on the subject would make quite a bonfire, but all writing is tinged with opinion and is often out of date before it hits the printer. One of the things I'm careful to do on this forum is to give the reference if anything I write comes from or is learned from another source. If I don't do so then members can be pretty sure the comment is mine from direct and personal experience. If I don't have a source to quote I'll preface a comment with 'I've heard' or something similar. If your comments stem from purely academic research rather than field work I don't see why you couldn't quote the source rather than become defensive.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Carly,

In your opinion, as a breeder, owner and exhibitor of Persians, why has the breed apparently fallen so drastically out of favour over the years?

GCCF registration records/statistics (at least those published) go back to 1997. In that year, rounding up/down the figures, 8,500 Persians were registered making them far and away the most popular breed with Siamese and British Shorthair ranked second at 4,800 and 4,300 respectively.

Since then, there has been a steady but marked downward decline in numbers registered to, in 2012, 1,277. A few other breeds have also declined in registration numbers but nothing *near* the almost sevenfold decrease in Persian registrations.


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

havoc said:


> Well if I've learned anything in decades of breeding it's to believe the evidence of my own eyes over the written word. I am an avid reader, my collection on the subject would make quite a bonfire, but all writing is tinged with opinion and is often out of date before it hits the printer. One of the things I'm careful to do on this forum is to give the reference if anything I write comes from or is learned from another source. If I don't do so then members can be pretty sure the comment is mine from direct and personal experience. If I don't have a source to quote I'll preface a comment with 'I've heard' or something similar. If your comments stem from purely academic research rather than field work I don't see why you couldn't quote the source rather than become defensive.


I've known most of this for 30 years since I got my special kitten and read books, watched TV programmes, since the internet has come about I've found articles there. I've talked with my aunt who was my first vet at some length and other vets since, and two animal behaviourists, one of whom specialises in cats. I have better things to do with my time now than retrace every one of those to find you specific quotations.

If you have more up to date information that shows I am wrong on any of what I've said, I will gladly take it on board, because I like to keep my understanding of my companions up to date.

As for getting defensive - your question to me was purely facetious, and I do not appreciate Carly's false accusation.

As breeders you have all the knowledge of breeding. I would have assumed you would have known what I, an amateur cat lover, have bothered to find out and observe about these beautiful creatures we love. Your reply suggests to me that perhaps what I've said surprises you. I find it hard to believe that the champions of the future of the domestic cat could possibly not have made the effort I have to understand its psychology and natural behaviour.


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

Very interesting thread. I don't know anything about breeding, except that in my humble layman's opinion extreme persians with watery streaming eyes are butt-ugly. Sorry.
Here is a pic of a traditional persian face. What could me more beautiful or desireable? I just don't get it.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> As for getting defensive - your question to me was purely facetious,


It wasn't. I really don't know why you insist on reacting to true interest in the subject so negatively. Unless you can observe cats without any input from man you can't make assumptions on 'natural' habits. There must have been no previous or present interference eg TNR or even straight culling. There must be no feeding by humans, no ability for members of the colony to scavenge on litter or waste left by humans. In terms of a dominant male the best scavenger is unlikely to be the best hunter so what we would consider the best and strongest characteristics would not be passed on.


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

havoc said:


> It wasn't. I really don't know why you insist on reacting to true interest in the subject so negatively. Unless you can observe cats without any input from man you can't make assumptions on 'natural' habits. There must have been no previous or present interference eg TNR or even straight culling. There must be no feeding by humans, no ability for members of the colony to scavenge on litter or waste left by humans. In terms of a dominant male the best scavenger is unlikely to be the best hunter so what we would consider the best and strongest characteristics would not be passed on.


The clue is in the name DOMESTIC cat. The closest you can get to wild behaviour would be feral populations and populations in towns and villages where mass neutering has not been happening. As stated in my post, that is the 'natural' behaviour I'm referring to. The instincts and behaviour shown by the same animal that graces our homes in a setting where the population survives by hunting and scavenging, which does include food discarded or donated by man as there's precious few other species that waste food like we do.

I'm sorry if you deem that the domestic cat in this situation cannot be counted as wild, the only alternative is a time machine to go back 9000 years to when the cat was truly wild, and although there is still some debate about where it originated there's one thing for sure, it wasn't in the UK.

If your interest in feline instinct and behaviour is genuine, all the information is out there and more readily available than ever. I just find it unbelievable that anyone who breeds cats would not know all about their natural breeding behaviour first.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Well here's my two cents - I'll do my best not to offend anyone...

Most of my knowledge of conformation and health problems relates to dogs, but there are clearly similarities.

I do think that, as in the dog world, there are many irresponsible cat breeders out there and a huge number of lovely cats suffering as a result of poor breeding practices.

My first concern are the known, but often hidden, health problem - HCM, eye problems, hip dysplasia etc. I understand there are several health tests now available for cats of various breeds, so my first bugbear is the number of breeders that don't bother to do them. Breeding animals that may carry genetic health problems when a test is availale is simply inexcusable imo. Frankly, where tests exist it should be easy to reduce the number of cats affected at each generation, until the levels reach acceptable levels, or even get wiped out. Unfortunately in practice this is likely to be impossible as so many breeders don't bother to test, or breed from those with known problems.

I should add here that I have no objection to people breeding cats if they DO health test and breed with the aim of producing healthy, sound kittens.

The other issue for me is conformation. Don't get me wrong, we don't all like the same things and I personally love having the wide variety of breeds available.

However, to be blunt, I can not condone breeding cats whose conformation itself is the cause of health problems. It's one thing to discover your breed has a problem, its quite another to deliberately produce animals that are likely to have issues just because you happen to prefer their appearence.

I'm not a big fan of the really cobby breeds like BSH but that's just a personal prefence; I don't see anything "wrong" with them. Same with siamese - I didn't used to like the long rangy look, although I admit that has grown on me, but again this doesn't seem to cause them any problems so doesn't concern me either way.

But there are several physical attributes that are well known to cause, or carry a highly increased risk, of health problems and these I do find hard to swallow. 

One obvious example being the Scottish fold - the very thing that gives them the defining characteristic of folded ears is the cause of osteochondrodysplasia and painful arthritic conditions. All homozygous cats are affected, and even heterozygous are at high risk of painful, debilitating conditions.

Frankly, the idea of breeding cats that will almost certainly suffer bone and cartilage deformities that cause pain and distress just because they have "cute" ears disgusts me. Forgive me if I don't find a stiff, pained, and unhappy cat "cute". 

Now I realise I risk offense, but I feel the same way about extreme brachycephalic cats. There is no way round it - the health problems that result from brachycephala are not an accidental byproduct, it is the very head shape being selected for that causes known problems. 

Changing the outer shape of the cats face affects the internal structures; causing problems like stenotic nares, elongated soft palate, hypoplastic trachea, everted laryngeal saccules etc. The end result for the cat is potential dental, difficulty breathing normally, risk of collapse in heat or after exertion, problems with tears which may cause irritation, difficulty eating normally, protruding eyes at greater risk of damage, greater anaesthesia risk etc. Personally I don't find this acceptable.

Now I realise that not all brachy cats suffer all these problems; but there is no denying that brachycehala can and does cause these otherwise completely preventable issues; and that broadly speaking the more extreme the face shape the higher the risk.

I'm not suggesting we stop breeding brachy breeds; but I would like to see some common sense and compassion in play. Breeding cats with only moderate brachycephala; and only from cats that are free from all those health problems, is fine by me. I certainly don't think less of anyone just because they happen to like - or breed - persians etc so long as the cats' welfare remains the top priority.

But seeing some of these "ultra" persians with their tiny noses flat into their faces and up between their bulging eyes I find quite heartbreaking.

I have no issue with pedigree cats; I don't believe moggies are somehow "better" (and there are almost certainly far more irresponsible moggy breeders out there); but I do think some people need to open there eyes and realise that risking an animals health, welfare and even life for the sake of apearences is just not on.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

Colette, you raise some very, very valid points that a lot of Persian breeders find difficult to swallow at times. I do agree with you that there is such a thing as too extreme. You also raise the point that very careful selective breeding can preserve the look without many of the nasty associated problems. That's what I aim to do in my lines. It's actually my highest priority, as it should be with anyone breeding extremes.

Skinner, I can only answer your question with opinion, supposition and experience, nothing set in stone, so please view this as personal thoughts, not law. I believe that the decline has to do with a number of things. Firstly the look of the cat. Like it or not, Persian breeders have steadily been breeding towards extremes, and while these do well on the show bench, they don't appeal to the vast majority of pet owners. Sure, there are some who like them, more than some to be honest, but there are proportionally more who like the doll faced look. When it comes down to it, breeders will rehome the majority of their cats to pet homes, so pet owners somewhat dictate the number of Persians registered, in that, if a breeder doesn't rehome, they don't breed more until they home the first lot.

Secondly, time. When statistics were first recorded, there were proportionally more stay at home mums/family who could devote time to coat care, bathing etc. Now, in today's manically fast paced society, anything that takes up lots of time is seen as undesirable. Hence people don't want the commitment of a cat who will need daily grooming and regular bathing.

Thirdly, money. I believe that there are many more Persians being bred than are actually being registered. Many breeders declare litters now and in recent years (not me, but I know people who do this) rather than registering due to the over all costs involved in registration/transfer etc. It would be interesting to look at declared vs registered numbers. Persians tend to have smaller litters than some other breeds which decreases the return when they're rehomed, and thus increases the costs that have to be absorbed by the breeder. Add to that the problems that some of the very extreme types have with passing kittens, associated vet bills etc, and perhaps this section are just penny pinching more than others.

Have you looked at the stats in other organisations to see if this is a worldwide trend? Would be interesting to know.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I believe that there are many more Persians being bred than are actually being registered


There will be but you also need to take into consideration that the GCCF is no longer the first choice registration body for many. Not being registered with the GCCF doesn't necessarily mean not registered at all. Numbers have fallen across most breeds according to the GGCF figures and I'd guess this is partly a downturn in breeding because of a recession and partly a choice available as to where a breeder registers kittens.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

I'd agree with that. I know TICA's on the rise in the UK for starters.


----------



## Tigermoon (Apr 2, 2013)

carly87 said:


> I believe that there are many more Persians being bred than are actually being registered.


I can only agree with Carly's comment here. When I was looking for my first Persian, all of the breeders I spoke to would not register the kitten as I was buying it as a pet. I more or less had to beg the breeder I bought my cat from to register her, and she was quite suspicious why I wanted a pet registered.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Colette said:


> Well here's my two cents - I'll do my best not to offend anyone...
> 
> Most of my knowledge of conformation and health problems relates to dogs, but there are clearly similarities.
> 
> ...


I agree with your post apart from the bit in bold. There is no reason to breed a cat with compromised breathing, other than to create the squashed face that certain people seem to like. That cannot be justified in any way IMO. The sooner that deformity is bred out of the breed the better for the cats. I don't understand why any sane person would want an animal with a deformed face in the first place 

If it happened as a natural hiccup in the pregnancy, then obviously provided that the cat was not suffering I would hope they would be kept so long as they were neutered.

The same goes for all the deformities which are commonly bred into cats and dogs.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Lurcherlad - I think for me it's the same way I feel about brachy dogs. I don't object to all the brachy breeds - boxers for example are moderately brachy but they don't tend to suffer any ill efects from it; they are generally very fit, healthy, athletic dogs blessedly free from breathing difficulties.

Bulldogs, pekes and pugs otoh have IMO been bred way, way too extreme; and as a result the associated health problems are now considered "normal" in those breeds.

Some persians aren't too bad at all, and if they are indeed free from problems I don't really see why I should object.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

Deformed faces? Please remember, these are people's pets!


----------



## chillminx (Nov 22, 2010)

Colette said:


> > Some persians aren't too bad at all,
> 
> 
> Colette, I agree - "some" being the operative word, and sadly there are those who are NOT all right, and who are prone to respiratory problems and who gulp constantly because of poor drainage. And it's not only the Persian breed that is affected but other breeds such as BSH, which had Persian crossed into the breed way back. I had a BSH myself which suffered from respiratory problems all her life because of her slightly shortened nose. I found it very depressing and it put me off getting another BSH (even though my cat's brother had no problems).
> ...


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

There is a pretty relevant thread in the health section at the moment - and also in the breeding section. There are numerous breeds of cats and dogs where owners and breeders have to be on the look out for known health problems - as others have said, why is it still allowed?


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

Laurac said:


> There are numerous breeds of cats and dogs where owners and breeders have to be on the look out for known health problems - as others have said, why is it still allowed?


Why are moggies still allowed? Every health issue in pedigree cats is also found in moggies.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

spotty cats said:


> Why are moggies still allowed? Every health issue in pedigree cats is also found in moggies.


Will never forget a neighbour hammering on my door one day in tears - his 11 month old moggie had just died in his arms from what turned out to be a heart attack.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

carly87 said:


> Deformed faces? Please remember, these are people's pets!


It was not meant as an insult, but an accurate description IMO.

adjective: deformed

1. 
(of a person or part of the body) not having the normal or natural shape or form; misshapen.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

And iMo, deformed is quite a charged word to use. Really not necessary. By your logic, then every cat breed influenced by man has a deformed face, as it's not the natural shape, given that we bred selectively. But you don't mean that, do you? You haven't said that every breed is deformed. So perhaps the definition needs to be revised... If you don't like the Persian look, that's fair enough. Many don't. But please choose words more carefully baring in mind that you're talking about peoples' much loved pets.


----------



## Tigermoon (Apr 2, 2013)

The argument over animals bred to an extreme of any species will always be heated, with both sides of the argument fighting their corner passionately. 

Breeders do not like the word deformed because of course no one wants to be accused of breeding deformed animals. People on the other side love the word deformed because it suits the argument they are trying to put across.

In cats there are very few breeds that have a natural (or wild) shape to the skull, as all have been bred for a certain look, often for decades. Some swing more to the left (short and broad) and others swing more to the right (long and narrow) of the 'natural' skull shape.

Yes, the definition given is correct, that anything not of the 'norm' is technically deformed, but please define normal ....

I think there are probably only 3 breeds (in the UK) that can be classed as having a head shape that is close to the natural shape of wild cats, all the others are variations on this shape.


----------



## moggiemum (Mar 28, 2013)

why are ALL moggies now getting attacked 

Actually this was a very intresting thread but lets not have a free for all  merlinsmum you speak a lot of sense


----------



## korrok (Sep 4, 2013)

Tigermoon said:


> The argument over animals bred to an extreme of any species will always be heated, with both sides of the argument fighting their corner passionately.
> 
> Breeders do not like the word deformed because of course no one wants to be accused of breeding deformed animals. People on the other side love the word deformed because it suits the argument they are trying to put across.
> 
> ...


Hmm, cat breeds resemble all kind of wild cats. There's a lot of variance in the small cats remember. Look from the sand cat through to the Scottish wildcat to the pallas cat to the serval and so on. For the most part our cat breeds are not terribly out of touch with their wild counterparts visually. Not nearly the same difference between wild canines and many domestic dog breeds.


----------



## Tigermoon (Apr 2, 2013)

korrok said:


> Hmm, cat breeds resemble all kind of wild cats. There's a lot of variance in the small cats remember. Look from the sand cat through to the Scottish wildcat to the pallas cat to the serval and so on. For the most part our cat breeds are not terribly out of touch with their wild counterparts visually. Not nearly the same difference between wild canines and many domestic dog breeds.


The Pallas Cat and the Serval are from a different genus to the domestic cat so their skulls show a number of differences to those of domestic cats. There are only 5 species of felis cats still living and they all have very similar skull shape. What's more all domestic cats are thought to have been developed from the wildcat, meaning that the wildcat has the natural skull shape to which I was referring in my previous post. I think we can safely say that not many modern breeds look like wildcats.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2014)

Tigermoon said:


> The Pallas Cat and the Serval are from a different genus to the domestic cat so their skulls show a number of differences to those of domestic cats. There are only 5 species of felis cats still living and they all have very similar skull shape. What's more all domestic cats are thought to have been developed from the wildcat, meaning that the wildcat has the natural skull shape to which I was referring in my previous post. I think we can safely say that not many modern breeds look like wildcats.


 F1 savanaha ??


----------

