# Discussing breeding



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Should this be something that needs to be based on individual circumstances? Following a few threads I wondered what peoples' thoughts were, because it seems a bit difficult to discuss ethics for a 'breed' and feel constrained when it comes to a cross breed. Am aware this is a touchy subject, possibly, so please keep it on topic


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2011)

most of my hunting dogs are crossbreeds good strong dogs


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

I don't have a problem with pure or cross breeding as long as it's done correctly etc health testing and such and not using a stud much bigger than the damn, if x'ing then using breeds that compliment each other nicely.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2011)

SpringerHusky said:


> I don't have a problem with pure or cross breeding as long as it's done correctly etc health testing and such and not using a stud much bigger than the damn, if x'ing then using breeds that compliment each other nicely.


i have never health tested


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

borderer said:


> i have never health tested


That's you're choice though and if I remember all your breeding is just lurchers which by that point are refined mongrels and health testing would be pointless, although myself will still check hips at the least.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2011)

SpringerHusky said:


> That's you're choice though and if I remember all your breeding is just lurchers which by that point are refined mongrels and health testing would be pointless, although myself will still check hips at the least.


i i have allso bred terrier cross and receenly greyhound bull cross all doing well


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ok, as an example, I could quite easily say without any research, I had come across a litter of chocolate Lab pups that I thought were from dodgy breeders; however, if I said the same about a litter of purpose bred cross breed pups, then I'm on dodgy grounds, so what's the difference?


----------



## Rolosmum (Oct 29, 2010)

I do have a problem with a friend of mine who wants to breed a dog/people aggressive dog, that has guarding issues and cant be around anyone other than family.

How on earth will she cope with puppies! With no mention of any health/temperament testing, no prospective homes and an offer of another breed of dog to father the pups.


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, as an example, I could quite easily say without any research, I had come across a litter of chocolate Lab pups that I thought were from dodgy breeders; however, if I said the same about a litter of purpose bred cross breed pups, then I'm on dodgy grounds, so what's the difference?


Nothing at all.

The problem is you get pedigree owners who don't like cross breeds and cross breed owners who don't like pedigrees. Both suddenly become offended only difference is there's more hatred towards cross breeding that the owners of crosses start to feel Every pure owner hates them, when it's not true.

At the end of the day people will never be happy.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Rolosmum said:


> I do have a problem with a friend of mine who wants to breed a dog/people aggressive dog, that has guarding issues and cant be around anyone other than family.
> 
> How on earth will she cope with puppies! With no mention of any health/temperament testing, no prospective homes and an offer of another breed of dog to father the pups.


Geez that's terrible! I know so often you get people who want to breed because they have a lovely dog, which is, of course, no guarantee that you'll get a dog exactly the same, it's very little guarantee of course. But to knowingly breed with no health tests and a temperament issue??


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

SpringerHusky said:


> At the end of the day people will never be happy.


Just in general, lol


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, as an example, I could quite easily say without any research, I had come across a litter of chocolate Lab pups that I thought were from dodgy breeders; however, if I said the same about a litter of purpose bred cross breed pups, then I'm on dodgy grounds, so what's the difference?


I think the issue is that the thread would go _"I was offered a lab from a dodgy breeder" _...

then someone would say _"I was offered a cross from a a dodgy breeder"_.... then ''''everyone'''' would say 
_"well all breeders of crosses are dodgy because breeding crosses is unethical so they must be dodgy".._

Dodgy cross-breeders (yes) dodgy breeders of 'pedigrees' (yes) generalisation is the issue.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

SpringerHusky said:


> only difference is there's more hatred towards cross breeding that the owners of crosses start to feel Every pure owner hates them, when it's not true.


Speaking for myself, I don't think owners of "pure" breeds hate 'us'... very, very rarely do I get any disparaging comments at all..mostly compliments TBH. It's only on here and amongst the self-appointed dog world experts and KC'ists where I've ever had a problem.


----------



## Rolosmum (Oct 29, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Geez that's terrible! I know so often you get people who want to breed because they have a lovely dog, which is, of course, no guarantee that you'll get a dog exactly the same, it's very little guarantee of course. But to knowingly breed with no health tests and a temperament issue??


And the stupid thing is she regularly tells me the dog is a pain, she should get rid, but then oh i suppose she is cute when she cuddles up and keeps your feet warm. I can see nothing other than money being the motivation, cos it is small and fluffy.

I have tried as best i can to reiterate that i have no plans to breed my good temperament, good example of the breed, well behaved, people and dog friendly dogs, because why would i when there are people with much more knowledge and equally good dogs as me, that can do it, and there are more than enough dogs, pedigree or otherwise out there, so why add to it. But i suspect i have fallen on deaf ears, so one can only hope that the pups dont take much from the mother!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I think the issue is that the thread would go _"I was offered a lab from a dodgy breeder" _...
> 
> then someone would say _"I was offered a cross from a a dodgy breeder"_.... then ''''everyone'''' would say
> _"well all breeders of crosses are dodgy because breeding crosses is unethical so they must be dodgy".._
> ...


I'm sorry, but what a load of ********! I've never pulled my punches, whether that relates to pedigrees or not, so to pigeon hole all of us is really crap! I've warned so many people off naff breeders of pedigree Labs, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Out of the one forum of cross breeds I've joined, I have to say if I had a case of internet contagious flu I think I would have felt more welcome. And I also have to say, it was pretty much ruled by puppy farmers, and held together by those who supported them. Having had a few dodgy phone calls following my membership and 'outing' as supporting ethical breeding, I decided to take a back seat on that one!!



Rolosmum said:


> And the stupid thing is she regularly tells me the dog is a pain, she should get rid, but then oh i suppose she is cute when she cuddles up and keeps your feet warm. I can see nothing other than money being the motivation, cos it is small and fluffy.
> 
> I have tried as best i can to reiterate that i have no plans to breed my good temperament, good example of the breed, well behaved, people and dog friendly dogs, because why would i when there are people with much more knowledge and equally good dogs as me, that can do it, and there are more than enough dogs, pedigree or otherwise out there, so why add to it. But i suspect i have fallen on deaf ears, so one can only hope that the pups dont take much from the mother!


It's sad, heard it all before unfortunately


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm sorry, but what a load of ********! I've never pulled my punches, whether that relates to pedigrees or not, so to pigeon hole all of us is really crap! I've warned so many people off naff breeders of pedigree Labs, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Out of the one forum of cross breeds I've joined, I have to say if I had a case of internet contagious flu I think I would have felt more welcome. And I also have to say, it was pretty much ruled by puppy farmers, and held together by those who supported them.


Like I said... say something and........

I did double invert ''''everyone'''' and didn't direct it at you so not sure why you take it so personally. I was making the point as to why it causes such an issue... that is certainly my experience on here. I've also been the subject (openly) of my personal details being Pm'd between member on here... seeing if they can dig up any dirt on me (I'm not that interesting) so I share at least that with you..... I now tend to ignore people who simply patronise or dish out abuse on here... and there's been plenty.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2011)

The issue seems to be if its pedigree its fine to talk about hell even slate the health of the dog breed in general however if its a cross breed that we are talking about the rules change, people become defensive and comments are made from the people becoming defensive saying things like "against cross breeds again" or "another anti-cross thread" or "another thread calling cross breeds" when no one has. 

All forms of breeding should be open to discuss. As long as name calling not happening I have no issues with any thread. I am more than happy to go into a long discussion with someone about the breeding and health issues in Shetland sheepdogs.:wink:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

... and as if by magic...


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Like I said... say something and........


Dodgy breeders are dodgy breeders, be it crosses or pure.

But breeders of crosses are not dodgy because they breed crosses, which is what I feel like is being said a lot of times on here.

I give in. Long ago trying to get people to understand why I like crosses. I just do. Something I will not make apologies for nor can I change!


----------



## pika (Apr 6, 2010)

I don't see a problem with cross breeding, providing the puppies will not end up in a shelter/breeder has owners lined up for a maximum number of pups and is willing to keep puppies unsold or take them back if the new owners cannot cope. As well of course the parents been of good temprament, good health and breeds that compliment one another (eg. NOT breeding a husky with a chihuahua). 

Also with health testing I do believe in dogs KC or not having health tests done to ensure they will not pass on any defects to pups. Eg. breeding a dog with a terrible hip score could lead to HD or other issues in a pup.

As long as breeding is done responsibly with the welfare of the bitch and pups in mind at all time I see no problems KC or not. 

The problem for me comes when people with KC or otherwise breed and the pups end up in shelters when no owners can be found!


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

I think I'll get a lurched next time. Seems to be an accepted mutt!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> Dodgy breeders are dodgy breeders, be it crosses or pure.
> 
> But breeders of crosses are not dodgy because they breed crosses, which is what I feel like is being said a lot of times on here.
> 
> I give in. Long ago trying to get people to understand why I like crosses. I just do. Something I will not make apologies for nor can I change!


I am (apparently) an apologist so I could do that for you if you like


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I think the issue is that the thread would go _"I was offered a lab from a dodgy breeder" _...
> 
> *then someone would say "I was offered a cross from a a dodgy breeder".... then ''''everyone'''' would say
> "well all breeders of crosses are dodgy because breeding crosses is unethical so they must be dodgy"..
> ...





Elmo the Bear said:


> Like I said... say something and........
> 
> I did double invert ''''everyone'''' and didn't direct it at you so not sure why you take it so personally. I was making the point as to why it causes such an issue... that is certainly my experience on here. I've also been the subject (openly) of my personal details being Pm'd between member on here... seeing if they can dig up any dirt on me (I'm not that interesting) so I share at least that with you..... I now tend to ignore people who simply patronise or dish out abuse on here... and there's been plenty.


So, you feel it right to single out cross breeds, and then single out those who don't single out cross breeds, as being wrong, well, forgive me for being slightly confused


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So, you feel it right to single out cross breeds, and then single out those who don't single out cross breeds, as being wrong, well, forgive me for being slightly confused


-------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

.. Dogs looking for homes - Many Tears Animal Rescue Homing dogs across the UK I think that All I have to say.......


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> That's a cracking collection of words...if only I could make it into a sentence.
> 
> I just single out everyone? (LOL)
> 
> You clearly want a row so fill your boots... this is why these threads go this way. People ask for a view - I give you a view based on my experience and you simply chuck expletives and nonsense at me... don't bother.


Wow, how wrong are you? Nice to think you've the object of my desire , I'd like to say hate to disappoint you, but that'd be a lie 



momentofmadness said:


> .. Dogs looking for homes - Many Tears Animal Rescue Homing dogs across the UK I think that All I have to say.......


So true, all dogs deserve a good home, shame it ain't the case for so many.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> have tried as best i can to reiterate that i have no plans to breed my good temperament, good example of the breed, well behaved, people and dog friendly dogs, because why would i when there are people with much more knowledge and equally good dogs as me, that can do it, and there are more than enough dogs, pedigree or otherwise out there, so why add to it. But i suspect i have fallen on deaf ears, so one can only hope that the pups dont take much from the mother!


That is both appalling and frightening. I would forget the gentle hints and tell her straight out - temperament is inherited! is she really prepared to produce more aggressive dogs? I would also add that puppies come under the sale of goods act and should be 'fit for purpose'. A pup bought as a family pet that turns out to be aggressive is not fit for purpose and she could find herself on the wrong side of the Sale of Goods Act.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2011)

Back on subject.

All form of breeding talk should be allowed. Good or bad, pedigree or cross.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Back on subject.
> 
> All form of breeding talk should be allowed. Good or bad, pedigree or cross.


Surely not, that would equal fairness!

Chuckle, now whilst I appreciate some would and do welcome that, it's something that others think is biased, why?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, as an example, I could quite easily say without any research, I had come across a litter of chocolate Lab pups that I thought were from dodgy breeders; however, if I said the same about a litter of purpose bred cross breed pups, then I'm on dodgy grounds, so what's the difference?


The difference for some would be that chocolate is the most popular type, therefore if the breeder is dodgy, the parents probably aren't health tested and the breeder may purely be after the cash, never mind the health of the pups.

Others would say they want a designer cross (why, I dunno, not my thing, I hate that the prices charged are so silly: owners get very defensive, the dog is gorgeous, yes, but just tell me WHY! Oh, and did you health test? Frankly, I'm disappointed that so few KC registered breeders health test-it should be obligatory IMO. Id be loody hard pressed to find a litter of my preferred breed with basic health tested parents {hips, elbows, eyes, eyes are standard, nothing else in springers, really} And BREATHE! Please note, personal opinion, not to everyone's taste, sorry )

Nowt wrong with cross breeds, just let's stop with the increasingly stupid names and call it what it is.

Dodgy breeders of pedigrees are cashing in on the pedigree factor and should be totally ashamed of themselves.

So ultimately, no difference, IMO.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I am (apparently) an apologist so I could do that for you if you like


It's ok pal, I ain't apologising and sure as he'll don't want no bugger else doin it for me. But thanks fir your offer!!!!

P.s how awkward is it typing on a ruddy IPad???
P.p.s I've just read your reason for editing... :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

cinammontoast said:


> The difference for some would be that chocolate is the most popular type, therefore if the breeder is dodgy, the parents probably aren't health tested and the breeder may purely be after the cash, never mind the health of the pups.
> 
> Others would say they want a designer cross (why, I dunno, not my thing, I hate that the prices charged are so silly: owners get very defensive, the dog is gorgeous, yes, but just tell me WHY! Oh, and did you health test? Frankly, I'm disappointed that so few KC registered breeders health test-it should be obligatory IMO. Id be loody hard pressed to find a litter of my preferred breed with basic health tested parents {hips, elbows, eyes, eyes are standard, nothing else in springers, really} And BREATHE! Please note, personal opinion, not to everyone's taste, sorry )
> 
> ...


So what's the difference between someone who advertises a litter of chocolate lab pups (kc registered parents) to a litter of cavapoo pups (kc registered parents)

Surely the difference is how and why, and that is up to posts from there on in, that's not in any way against cross breeds, it's against unethical breeding?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> It's ok pal, I ain't apologising and sure as he'll don't want no bugger else doin it for me. But thanks fir your offer!!!!
> 
> P.s how awkward is it typing on a ruddy IPad???
> P.p.s I've just read your reason for editing... :smilewinkgrin:


Cant do Ipad... I need keys to make a noise that's gets louder the harder I type :cursing:


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Cant do Ipad... I need keys to make a noise that's gets louder the harder I type :cursing:


I think I may invest in one of those keyboard things you can plug into them...then the noise of my fingers slamming on the keys will be most satisfying instad of this ruddy clicking!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Cant do Ipad... I need keys to make a noise that's gets louder the harder I type :cursing:





Horse and Hound said:


> I think I may invest in one of those keyboard things you can plug into them...then the noise of my fingers slamming on the keys will be most satisfying instad of this ruddy clicking!!


Awwww, you two seem close, nice to see such healthy relationships develop over the internet


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So what's the difference between someone who advertises a litter of chocolate lab pups (kc registered parents) to a litter of cavapoo pups (kc registered parents)
> 
> Surely the difference is how and why, and that is up to posts from there on in, that's not in any way against cross breeds, it's against unethical breeding?


There is no difference ethically, only aesthetically. Unless the second type is charging silly money for a puppy because it's 'fashionable'? Dunno  Both are popular, I bet you the second type are more expensive, yet having just looked at Many Tears, they're charging £170 for springer or collie puppies. I know where I'm going next time! No, seriously, I'll be off to a health tested litter.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Can you all stop this petty sniping please.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

cinammontoast said:


> There is no difference ethically, only aesthetically. Unless the second type is charging silly money for a puppy because it's 'fashionable'? Dunno  Both are popular, I bet you the second type are more expensive, yet having just looked at Many Tears, they're charging £170 for springer or collie puppies. I know where I'm going next time! No, seriously, I'll be off to a health tested litter.


Ok, without any drama, you're right, however. take a look at the replies before you, speaks volumes


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lymorelynn said:


> Can you all stop this petty sniping please.


They started it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lymorelynn said:


> Can you all stop this petty sniping please.


Would love to have an even playing field, one reason for me posting in the first place, and I hope I've done so in the right sections


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> *They *started it.


And so the division continues, what a fabulous attitude, not. I've been on this forum for a couple of years, nothing changes.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Bloody hell look at the time, best go before my car turns into a pumpkin...


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> I think I may invest in one of those keyboard things you can plug into them...then the noise of my fingers slamming on the keys will be most satisfying instad of this ruddy clicking!!


Just turn up the volume, mine is right hand side button if I have the on/off button to the left. 

No-one is contradicting you. Can we not have a discussion about ethical breeding or is that just not allowed? I don't see why this can't be discussed rationally and why some people are getting so wound up?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Bloody hell look at the time, best go before my car turns into a pumpkin...


Leave if you like, I ain't leaving' not tonight.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Can I ask an innocent question? Are Labradoodles recognized by the KC?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

bearcub said:


> Can I ask an innocent question? Are Labradoodles recognized by the KC?


No they're not, they are bred to type currently, and are not a pedigree as agreed by any kennel club.

You will, however, get some breeders try to sell them as a pedigree, as such.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I'm not discussing ethical breeding with you no more- last time I supported you I got branded a trouble maker and people were out to get me banned :lol: ( not on here)

You is a bad influence:001_tt2: I'm not allowed to play with you anymore on the breeding sections


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No they're not, they are bred to type currently, and are not a pedigree as agreed by any kennel club.
> 
> You will, however, get some breeders try to sell them as a pedigree, as such.


So if a Labradoodle is bred to a Labradoodle, there are no health tests?


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Leave if you like, I ain't leaving' not tonight.


Well, Erm, good for you...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

bearcub said:


> So if a Labradoodle is bred to a Labradoodle, there are no health tests?


Why?..................


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

bearcub said:


> So if a Labradoodle is bred to a Labradoodle, there are no health tests?


I don't believe there are a set of tests for a Labradoodle as it's not a breed. There are tests for a poodle and a Labrador so you'd test for whatever they were I would expect if you were testing.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Why?..................


I read it s being no defined health tests like there are recommended for a Labrador or a poodle.

Or are there?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> I don't believe there are a set of tests for a Labradoodle as it's not a breed. There are tests for a poodle and a Labrador so you'd test for whatever they were I would expect if you were testing.


"hip testing
There are 2 methods of hip testing available - the kennel club BVA traditional scheme which is a number out of a possible score of 106. A good average score is approximately 16 at present. The lower the score the better. The total is broken down on the scoresheet for example a score of 5/5 (left hip/right hip) would be a total of 10. Ideally the faults would be evenly distributed between the hips and no individual fault exceeding 3 on a specific part of the hip. A score of 9/9 would be less alarming than 17/1 though both total 18.

Pennhip program is growing in popularity internationally as its more comprehensive - 3 x-rays are taken rather than 1 by the vet. Also the test can be performed earlier - from 16 weeks as opposed to 12 month under the BVA scheme. Pennhip also informs breeders whether the dog has DJD. 0.7 is the higher risk score, with 0.3-0.4 being excellent, 0.55 being good. The lower the score the better.

All our breeding dogs are hip tested either with BVA or Pennhip or both.

optigen testing
The OptiGen prcd-PRA test is a DNA-based test that helps us avoid one form of Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA). PRA refers to a group of diseases that cause the retina of the eye to degenerate slowly over time. The result is declining vision and eventual blindness. prcd stands for progressive rod-cone degeneration which is the type of PRA known in several breeds including poodle crosses.

We eliminate the risk by ensuring that at least one parent is Optigen Class A as BOTH parents need to be recessive or affected to produce a pup which will go blind. All our studs are Class A so its genetically impossible. It is vital that you ensure your breeder has undertaken Optigen screening as they hold the patent for prcd testing.

In addition to optigen testing we undertake the traditional CERF eye screening however this result is limited to whether the parent is affected, not whether they hold the recessive gene for an eye problem. "


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Why?..................


I was asking a question. I figured if Labradoodles are not recognised by the KC then a Labradoodle with Labradoodle parents wouldn't be obliged to carry out any health tests. I'm just interested, that's all.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> I read it s being no defined health tests like there are recommended for a Labrador or a poodle.
> 
> Or are there?


Unfortunately there are no required health tests for any dog.. which is sad. Good crossbreeders do a significant amount of testing... I've quoted some on the post above.


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> I don't believe there are a set of tests for a Labradoodle as it's not a breed. There are tests for a poodle and a Labrador so you'd test for whatever they were I would expect if you were testing.


I dunno bout this.. as Labradoodles have been around for some time..


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> they are bred to type currently


Are they  The ones I've seen have varied from looking like a labrador with a strange wispy beard and looking like a standard poodle and everything in between.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

bearcub said:


> I was asking a question. I figured if Labradoodles are not recognised by the KC then a Labradoodle with Labradoodle parents wouldn't be obliged to carry out any health tests. I'm just interested, that's all.


Sad to say that the KC does not require any health tests on any dogs and also (thankfully) the KC are not responsible for managing any health testing. This is left purely at the discretion of the breeder or (for KC) the breed clubs to 'recommend' but none insist (unless this has changed recently).


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> I read it s being no defined health tests like there are recommended for a Labrador or a poodle.
> 
> Or are there?


You've never ansewred, so here, let me preempt you:

Indie

3:3 hips
2:1 elbows
cnm clear
pra clear

decided not to breed, despite being accepted by a top dual purpose kennels for her, and she has been spayed.

Tau

0:0 hips
0:0 ellbows
cnm clear
pra clear although I will test for this to ensure it's on the KC paperwork

so, come on, share those healthy results..... dare ya


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

bearcub said:


> I was asking a question. I figured if Labradoodles are not recognised by the KC then a Labradoodle with Labradoodle parents wouldn't be obliged to carry out any health tests. I'm just interested, that's all.


sorry, I meant "why" would there be no testing... testing is nothing to do with KC.


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sad to say that the KC does not require any health tests on any dogs and also (thankfully) the KC are not responsible for managing any health testing. This is left purely at the discretion of the breeder or (for KC) the breed clubs to 'recommend' but none insist (unless this has changed recently).


But obviously within clubs.. breed clubs you are thought of a lot higher if you do proceed to have the recommended health tests..


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You've never ansewred, so here, let me preempt you:
> 
> Indie
> 
> ...


I don't breed so have not tested. The parents were tested but they're not my dogs. Elbow testing is a little pointless as most ED will not show on x-rays.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

bearcub said:


> I was asking a question. I figured if Labradoodles are not recognised by the KC then a Labradoodle with Labradoodle parents wouldn't be obliged to carry out any health tests. I'm just interested, that's all.


You are not obliged to carry out health tests on any dog, I don't think. It's not a requirement for KC registering as far as I can see? I'm sure if that's wrong someone with more knowledge will tell you.

Elmo, thanks for that. Is CERF testing the one that has to be done regularly for you to stay on the register.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> sorry, I meant "why" would there be no testing... testing is nothing to do with KC.


My mistake. Just assumed it was as most of the breeders I have come across health test so thought it was mandatory to be KC registered breeder.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You've never ansewred, so here, let me preempt you:
> 
> Indie
> 
> ...


Those are fantastic results. I've never come across a dog to have such low scores


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> so, come on, share those healthy results..... dare ya


what healthy results?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> Is CERF testing the one that has to be done regularly for you to stay on the register.


Not sure - I took this from a breeders site. I'm not a breeder so only have experience of the issues I've had.

One of my dogs was thought to have ED (turned out to be a traumatic injury - tendon). The surgeon asked me about the history and I told him the parents had been elbow scored. He made it clear this was very limited as most ED would not show up on xray or even MRI but would only be visible from arthroscopy.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> what healthy results?


Since you own a cross breed and expound the health of them, what health test results have the parens got?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Not sure - I took this from a breeders site. I'm not a breeder so only have experience of the issues I've had.
> 
> One of my dogs was thought to have ED (turned out to be a traumatic injury - tendon). The surgeon asked me about the history and I told him the parents had been elbow scored. He made it clear this was very limited as most ED would not show up on xray or even MRI but would only be visible from arthroscopy.


ED/OCD is incredibly difficult, know a few owners affected by this including pedigrees, ....


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Since you own a cross breed and expound the health of them, what health test results have the parens got?


Erm SL.. One of HH is a rescue.. and Im not sure about the other.. What I will say.. is it doesn't matter what health test a dogs has at times.. cause sometimes they are not accurate and what use is good scores when your dog pulls its tendon or is born with a hernia?


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Since you own a cross breed and expound the health of them, what health test results have the parens got?


I answered you on the other thread.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Since you own a cross breed and expound the health of them, what health test results have the parens got?


I don't expound anything.. you're getting mixed up. I simply object to the blanket assumption that all x's are from BYBs and are not health tested.

The health results of whose parents?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Not sure - I took this from a breeders site. I'm not a breeder so only have experience of the issues I've had.
> 
> One of my dogs was thought to have ED (turned out to be a traumatic injury - tendon). The surgeon asked me about the history and I told him the parents had been elbow scored. He made it clear this was very limited as most ED would not show up on xray or even MRI but would only be visible from arthroscopy.


Sorry, a bit ripe considering how you came across elmo!!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Just assumed it was as most of the breeders I have come across health test so thought it was mandatory to be KC registered breeder.


It is not mandatory (except for KC Accredited Breeders), however, the KC do keep all results of KC/BVA health tests on their database and other health tests too.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry, a bit ripe considering how you came across elmo!!


Sorry? How I came across... on what?


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I don't expound anything.. you're getting mixed up. I simply object to the blanket assumption that all x's are from BYBs and are not health tested.
> 
> The health results of whose parents?


On about Rupert's. Which i have answered on the other thread.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> On about Rupert's. Which i have answered on the other thread.


Oh... OK. Last time I posted anything about our breeder on here she got nasty phone calls... won't be doing that again


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Can I just say this cause I think its valid....


Just because a breeder does health tests, does not make them care for their bitch and pups any better.. and I think many people who have gone and looked at many litters will say the same..


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Also there are many breeders out there who would not class themselves as back yard breeders.. That will have dabbled in producing a few crosses.. I bet even there is a few breeders that attend big shows who have a cross litter somewhere in their history.. This is purely my opinion and not to be taken as the bible..


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Oh... OK. Last time I posted anything about our breeder on here she got nasty phone calls... won't be doing that again


Seriously?! That's mental. 

Bloke who bred Roo doesn't breed now. He had 2 litters that's it.

Taken from other thread...

I've openly said before Roos dad isn't health tested. He is a non KC resisted JRT. I had no idea about any of it before I bought him, it's only since coming on here learnt about it, which is something I've always said, education is the way forward. His mum was apparently hip scored prior to her first litter, although I'm led to believe it's not something ppl regularly do on westies, not sure how true that is, she was free from CMO and perthes, and her eyes were apparently tested every year up until she had Roo's litter. As he was her second and last litter before being spade, I've never dug into it as I only found out about this after I'd bought him when I saw his breeder a few months after.

As for Harvey, none whatsoever I imagine. He is a rescue.


----------



## LolaBear (Jul 20, 2011)

I have a question, and I'm sorry if it comes across stupid but...

In regards to heart testing, what do they do?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

LolaBear said:


> In regards to heart testing, what do they do?


it depends upon the breed or mix, & what the parents may have carried.

in Dobes they recommend an ultrasound annually for all breeding stock, done by a k9 cardiologist. 
that's for a left-side cardiac failure which is often preceded by expansion of the heart - it gets bigger. 
undiagnosed, apparently healthy Dobes have collapsed & died while playing in their own yard, or out for a walk - 
& these can be 2-YO dogs, not seniors - very young, healthy, active dogs.

a fellow USA-apdt-nik is a Dobe-breeder in Chesapeake, VA - she is exceptionally ethical. 
*every one of her dogs*, including her then-12-YO house-pet Dobe, a retired stud who had not bred 
in over 8-years, STILL got his annual ultrasound along with the actively-breeding or potential breeders. 
her vet teased her about it, since he was neutered around 4.5-YO, & she pointed out that she wanted 
to KNOW if his heart began to expand, so that he could get meds prescribed to help normalize his heart action 
[if he developed any worrying issues] ASAP.

by this time, her sweet old boy is surely long-dead, but i wonder if he ever developed any cardiac problems.

another breed with very-serious worries about heritable heart conditions is Cavalier King-Chs Spaniels - 
but i don't know what testing is recommended. In CKCS, the issue can be PDA [open vessel to the lung, 
AKA blue-baby in humans] or cardiac valves that are abnormal & allow mixing of oxygenated & low-O2 
blood between the chambers.


----------



## Rolosmum (Oct 29, 2010)

I know someone who had their heart set on a maltese terrier, and this is what they wanted, until they saw the price of a pedigree dog, so they ended up with a maltese x bichon, cos the price was about a 1/4 of the full maltese terrier price.

I dont think you will ever stop people thinking like this, so the only hope is that the places available for anyone to buy any dog, pedigree or otherwise take responsibility for the litters they breed.

I have two un health tested dogs, because i didnt know much when i got them, except the chap kept and raised to a good age and worked his dogs, without any issues, whether i will live to wish i had gone to a health tested breeder only time will tell.

I also dont believe you will ever get every body to do health testing, and maybe more should be made aware in the news and publications just what this does for dogs etc, as i know none of my friends that have got or are just getting puppies have any idea about it, there main motivation has been price, even to choosing a completely different breed, cos the other turned out £50-£100 dearer.

I mentioned health testing to my friend who wants to breed the dog that i dont believe should be, and she said, oh no the vets has looked at her, they have no idea that times have moved on and it isnt really the done thing to let a dog mate just cos you have a dog.

They also dont look at rescues/selling sites and see the sheer number of dogs/puppies and litters already available, getting older and older cos there are so many that the demand isnt there. They want a cute puppy for the right price on their doorstep and that is what they will get.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Seriously?! That's mental.


And it works both ways, I believe Sleeping Lion was also subjected to silly phone calls recently
I personally think the crossbreed rule should be lifted, it hasn't stopped new members starting threads about it & if anything I think it causes tension between some members, maybe if crossbreeding can be discussed without reprimand the bickering will give way to constructive disccussion on ways to move forward to more ethical crossbreeding


----------



## Sparkle (Jan 28, 2010)

All breeding should be discussed so people can be educated.

I personally don't like cross breeding, I don't like people playing god trying to create a new breed, you don't know what part of what dogyou are getting so don't know what to expect from the progeny. Each breed has breed traits and ifyou don't know whatyoure getting how do people know what to expect? 

I believe any breeding should only be don't to improve a breed. There has been a huge increase in my breed people throwing dogs together and they are a mess full of health problems (luxating patella mainly) because people have no clue.

Personally I'd like to see stricter breeding guidelines, breeders need licences, have to take exams etc and all breeding stock must be health tested and would like spaying and neutering to be a necessity unless they are show/breeding stock. 

Just my honest opinion


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sparkle said:


> would like spaying and neutering to be a necessity unless they are show/breeding stock.


But this then comes back to the very varied opinion on showing. It's not necessary and is just a hobby that a few people enjoy - so why does it justify breeding more than any other reason?

There is also the very,very varied opinion on what "improving" the breed means. I would put forward that breeding should only be done where the chance of health issue is minimised and that the sole purpose for breeding should be to reduce health issues.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But this then comes back to the very varied opinion on showing. It's not necessary and is just a hobby that a few people enjoy - so why does it justify breeding more than any other reason?
> 
> There is also the very,very varied opinion on what "improving" the breed means. I would put forward that breeding should only be done where the chance of health issue is minimised and that the sole purpose for breeding should be to reduce health issues.


A good example is the crossing of dallies with (I think) pointers to try & breed out LUA


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> And it works both ways, I believe Sleeping Lion was also subjected to silly phone calls recently


It shouldn't work "any" way to be quite honest with you. Anyone taking discussion on an internet forum to that level needs to have a word with themselves.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> It shouldn't work "any" way to be quite honest with you. Anyone taking discussion on an internet forum to that level needs to have a word with themselves.


Yep, but there's always a few who take things too far, must have sad lives if they feel the need to stalk people


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Sparkle said:


> Personally I'd like to see stricter breeding guidelines, breeders need licences, have to take exams etc and all breeding stock must be health tested and would like spaying and neutering to be a necessity unless they are *show/breeding stock. *
> 
> Just my honest opinion


You are entitled to them, but to me you talk about playing god, and that is precisely what any breeder does. Be it to produced a dog of a specific standard or look. YOu select the dogs with the best features and are breeding those with each other to produce good standard pups.
Wouldn't you think that was the same thing?

However, with regards to your quote above how do you regulate breeds like the JRT that are not recognised by the KC? I'm not sure what other breeds they don't recognise, I don't think the American Bulldog or the Klee Klai are (anyone know?). HOw do you determing therefore what show/breeding stock is? What guidelines do you use?


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> Yep, but there's always a few who take things too far, must have sad lives if they feel the need to stalk people


Yip, tell me about it. It got a bit heated on here last night, so I apologised on threads and via a PM and called it a day and went to bed.

Seriously more pressing issues in my life at the moment, I was rather ashamed of myself for reacting the way I did, normally whatever someone says tends to wash over me.  But phoning someone is just pathetic.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Yip, tell me about it. It got a bit heated on here last night, so I apologised on threads and via a PM and called it a day and went to bed.
> 
> Seriously more pressing issues in my life at the moment, I was rather ashamed of myself for reacting the way I did, normally whatever someone says tends to wash over me.


I can understand how it gets to you, I have dogs that are discriminated against for being 'status' dogs, I got really angry a few weeks ago when someone commented they hated my breeds, I replied very angrily & felt rotten afterwards but hey ho, it's a forum, we all have a choice with how much we let it affect us


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> I can understand how it gets to you, I have dogs that are discriminated against for being 'status' dogs, I got really angry a few weeks ago when someone commented they hated my breeds, I replied very angrily & felt rotten afterwards but hey ho, it's a forum, we all have a choice with how much we let it affect us


How you think I feel?

I have a cross breed, who is a small dog and a staffie who is a medium dog, crossed with godknows what! So I get the cross breed, small dog and status dog comments.Its enough to drive anyone insane.

And I have a sinus infection that is REALLY hurting. That didn't help my mood last night, or the ability to sleep. 

Considering robbing one of my OH's pain killers and just knocking myself out for an hour!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sparkle said:


> All breeding should be discussed so people can be educated.
> 
> I personally don't like cross breeding, I don't like people playing god trying to create a new breed, you don't know what part of what dogyou are getting so don't know what to expect from the progeny. Each breed has breed traits and ifyou don't know whatyoure getting how do people know what to expect?
> 
> ...


Interesting & I think you say above genuinely with the best of intentions but if I said "I personally don't like pedigree breeding as its playing god purely for looks/traits breeders want not for the good of the dog" (not saying that is what I actually think just illustrating the point) then is that an informed/valid comment. If someone doesn't agree with cross breeding then they are hardly likely to have done a great deal of research into the pros/cons just based their opinion on only the negative comment seen.

_you don't know what part of what dogyou are getting so don't know what to expect from the progeny_ you have chi's I think, more than one? If so are you saying they are all carbon copies tempremant/health wise?

_I believe any breeding should only be don't to improve a breed_ Maybe controversial but what if you don't believe the breeding to date has improved anything, but merely trying to get rid of issues created by the previous methods of breeding?

_Personally I'd like to see stricter breeding guidelines, breeders need licences, have to take exams etc and all breeding stock must be health tested and would like spaying and neutering to be a necessity unless they are show/breeding stock._ Tentatively agree up to your point that stock must be health test, but after that you then talk about spaying & neutering - how would you enforce this, unless you think this should be carried out on puppies before they leave the breeder? If not at what age, a mandatory age regardless of the breed and what age they mature, and how/who would police this? What about those who have no intention of breeding but do not think routine neutering is appropriate or required?

You think this should not apply if show/breeding stock - why do you think showing should be exempt, showing isn't really a necessity anyway and not everyone agrees with it, but why not simply change the show rules so they can be spayed/neutered?

Never realised until recently dog ownership was such a contentious issue, don't really come across it out in the real word hmy:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> A good example is... crossing... [Dalmatians] with... [English Pointers] to... *breed out LUA*.


it was not to *breed out Low Uric-Acid - * it was to REDUCE high uric-acid.

many Dalmatians are sensitive to purines, a particular form of protein; it produces the equivalent 
of gout, with many effects in the body. When fed purines, the affected dogs can become seriously ill - 
or more mildly, so that the owner may not recognize it. A low-purine or no purines diet is best 
for any Dalmatian, just in case they are affected.

and yes - LUA Dalmatians were a very successful outcross, high uric-acid was eliminated, *their progeny 
were backcrossed to Dals & are now indistinguishable visually from a HUA Dalmatian, but the breed club has 
utterly refused to recognize them or allow the dogs to be registered in the Dal Club of America studbook. 
as a matter of fact, the club took the extraordinary & extraordinarily asinine step of banning 
the discussion of LUA Dals at club-meetings, OR in the club magazine. *

it is only one of many instances in which a breed-club, supposedly devoted to the health & welfare of their breed, 
has supported stoopidities which actually *undermine* the health & future welfare of that breed. 
short-sighted, myopic fussiness over the 'purity' of a breed is pigheaded ignorance when it means that dogs 
of a particular breed must continue to carry a deleterious trait, *rather than get rid of it.* 'Purity' is not 
an altar worth worshipping at, if it means that breeds are weakened by persistent health issues, or bred 
so closely that gene-diversity shrinks; some popular breeds, due to matador breeding, have millions of dogs 
registered, but only thousands or even hundreds in their effective breeding-population.

they are not yet as inbred as cheetah - but they are very close to it.


----------



## Sparkle (Jan 28, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But this then comes back to the very varied opinion on showing. It's not necessary and is just a hobby that a few people enjoy - so why does it justify breeding more than any other reason?
> 
> There is also the very,very varied opinion on what "improving" the breed means. I would put forward that breeding should only be done where the chance of health issue is minimised and that the sole purpose for breeding should be to reduce health issues.


It's not a necessity no and whilst it's not for everyone But showing them compares them to their breed standard which is decided by the breed clubs NOT the KC. I'm not a judge but have been told by one that they sign papers agreeing to penalise certain things etc and in my breed they have to penalise a bitch who is too small to breed.

Any other reason?? Like what making a profit? Because you want a dog like yours or want to fufil your dogs need to breed are not valid reasons to breed IMHO!!

Most breeders want to correct their breed so it's the healthiest it can be. Would that not count as improving their breed?



Horse and Hound said:


> You are entitled to them, but to me you talk about playing god, and that is precisely what any breeder does. Be it to produced a dog of a specific standard or look. YOu select the dogs with the best features and are breeding those with each other to produce good standard pups.
> Wouldn't you think that was the same thing?
> 
> However, with regards to your quote above how do you regulate breeds like the JRT that are not recognised by the KC? I'm not sure what other breeds they don't recognise, I don't think the American Bulldog or the Klee Klai are (anyone know?). HOw do you determing therefore what show/breeding stock is? What guidelines do you use?


I'm sorry but how can breeding 2 completely different breeds and putting them together without any clue of what they are going to produce be compared to putting together two dogs (of the same breed) where they compliment each others strengths and weaknesses be compared?



DoodlesRule said:


> Interesting & I think you say above genuinely with the best of intentions but if I said "I personally don't like pedigree breeding as its playing god purely for looks/traits breeders want not for the good of the dog" (not saying that is what I actually think just illustrating the point) then is that an informed/valid comment. If someone doesn't agree with cross breeding then they are hardly likely to have done a great deal of research into the pros/cons just based their opinion on only the negative comment seen.
> 
> _ i maybe naive but I don't think that anyone with half a brain cell and a genuine interest in their breed breed for the 'look or trait' it's a whole package, health, soundness, temperament and type so therefore would be for the good of the breed!! Type would come last with any ethical breeders! _
> _you don't know what part of what dogyou are getting so don't know what to expect from the progeny_ you have chi's I think, more than one? If so are you saying they are all carbon copies tempremant/health wise?
> ...


I can't enforce it but unfortunately with the way thiscountry is the majority if people think it's ok to breed theirdogs. All breeders can do is endorse papers and give spay neuter contracts but as it's not legally binding there's not much that can be done...

Show rules don't state dogs have to be intact... Just the kc have to be informed of any alterations! Nit everyone agrees with it and each to their own but how else do people know their dog are a good example of a breed without it because everyone has Rose tinted glasses on with their pets! I know I do mine are perfect even though I know what their faults are


----------



## LolaBear (Jul 20, 2011)

Without dog owning becoming a dictatorship, I can see no way that such sanctions could be imposed. 

I think there are pros and cons to both pedigree and cross breeding. 

Just because a dog isn't KC registered, that doesn't stop it being a good if not a great example of the breed. For example, my Lola isn't KC (her mum was, but her dad wasn't) but that doesn't stop her being a wonderful dog. I expect lots of breeders breed dogs with bad temperaments/health etc just because it's KC reg and 'that's okay.'

As regards to not knowing what the outcomes of a cross will be, you could say the same about pedigrees. You can choose the right dog for your bitch until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't mean you will get the good qualities of both. IMO you could just as easily end up with the bad parts. There are many cross breeds that have the best of both, just as much as there are those that don't.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, as an example, I could quite easily say without any research, I had come across a litter of chocolate Lab pups that I thought were from dodgy breeders; however, if I said the same about a litter of purpose bred cross breed pups, then I'm on dodgy grounds, so what's the difference?


There is no differece tbh' is there? not for me. I would hold the same standards across the board, hence not agreeing with 'most' cross breeding - as one of my points is - Breeding for a 'vaild' reasons, not suppling a pet market.
All litters no matter the breed should be raised with the same care, and knowledge, the same effort should have gone into the planned mating to ensure bitch was in good condition and put to a suitable stud, and potential puppies were of good standard, health and tempermant, the same effort should go into homing the puppies, finding 5* homes ect'

Ethics for me dont change from breed to breed, in my eyes there is only ONE way to breed - and thats ethically, not cutting in corners in anyway - with the upmost importances being the bitch, closely followed by the puppies and the overall breed.

ALL breeding should be talked about, from ALL members points of views - its a key way to educate, and see the other side.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sparkle said:


> It's not a necessity no and whilst it's not for everyone But showing them compares them to their breed standard which is decided by the breed clubs NOT the KC. I'm not a judge but have been told by one that they sign papers agreeing to penalise certain things etc and in my breed they have to penalise a bitch who is too small to breed.
> 
> Any other reason?? Like what making a profit? Because you want a dog like yours or want to fufil your dogs need to breed are not valid reasons to breed IMHO!!
> 
> Most breeders want to correct their breed so it's the healthiest it can be. Would that not count as improving their breed?


Can you explain how breeding for a show which has no purpose other than to please the humans involved, differs from breeding a dog _"Because you want a dog like yours"_. You want a dog like yours and I want a dog like mine - showing is something you want, its not something I want. These are all just wants, not needs.

_" showing them compares them to their breed standard which is decided by the breed clubs"_ so a group of people decided what they want a dog to look like and (bearing in mind there was no DNA, no testing etc when most of the breed registered were started) and take a punt that mixing and matching different breeds will give them that result. Eventually they get what they want (no doubt standards are changed along the way) and they taker them to a show and say "this is the best example of what we wrote down on that piece of paper". People then judge which is the closest.

If that's what you enjoy then I'm in no position to say you shouldn't do it - but its no more a valid reason than me wanting a dog like mine... because they're both just 'wants'.

If most breeders want to improve the health of their breed that's great. I'd need to be convinced... haven't been yet.... not that convincing me is important, they need to convince more than that.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> _Excuse me -
> 
> what happened to my post about the heritable problems in Labs,
> the heritable problems in Poodles, & the traits where they double-up?
> ...


I think you may have got your threads mixed up and are referring to your own thread on labradoodles which is in breeding section???


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

bearcub said:


> I was asking a question. I figured if Labradoodles are not recognised by the KC then a Labradoodle with Labradoodle parents wouldn't be obliged to carry out any health tests. I'm just interested, that's all.





bearcub said:


> So if a Labradoodle is bred to a Labradoodle, there are no health tests?





bearcub said:


> My mistake. Just assumed it was as most of the breeders I have come across health test so thought it was mandatory to be KC registered breeder.


Hi there bearcub - just answering your questions about health testing and the Kennel Club, as up to now you have not been given the right information -just a load of twaddle by someone who does not know what he is talking about.

Breeders of cross breeds have no obligation to health test, no specifically required health tests, and no regulatory body to ensure that they do so. Hence some crossbreeders do health tests and some don't.

With regard to pedigrees, some breeders are not KC Accredited breeders and, like breeders of crossbreeds, they too have no obligation to health test and no regulatory body to ensure that they do so. They do, however, have access to information about which tests should be carried out for their breed.

Some pedigree breeders are Kennel Club Accredited Breeders. For these breeders, there are some health tests that are mandatory, and some that are recommended. These two lists differ for each dog - as per the attached link:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf

Hope that explains it properly for you.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, as an example, I could quite easily say without any research, I had come across a litter of chocolate Lab pups that I thought were from dodgy breeders; however, if I said the same about a litter of purpose bred cross breed pups, then I'm on dodgy grounds, so what's the difference?


i see no difference if they are breed "dodgy" they are breed dodgy whatever they may be... axl is my first cross, and i have had him health checked for hips and back legs neck spine, all seems fine, but i would have the same health check on a pure breed....
2 pure breeds and one cross in my house....... the only difference in my eyes is price.. unless if you want to show them or stud them of course then pure breeds are needed.........
anyone else feel like a harry potter movie
half blood mudbluds all that lol
all dogs are beautiful if cared for correctly


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I said:
> 
> "Sad to say that the KC does not require any health tests on any dogs and also (thankfully) the KC are not responsible for managing any health testing. This is left purely at the discretion of the breeder or (for KC) the breed clubs to 'recommend' but none insist (unless this has changed recently)."
> .


No, what you said was:



Elmo the Bear said:


> Unfortunately there are no required health tests for any dog.. which is sad. Good crossbreeders do a significant amount of testing... I've quoted some on the post above.





Elmo the Bear said:


> Sad to say that the KC does not require any health tests on any dogs and also (thankfully) the KC are not responsible for managing any health testing. This is left purely at the discretion of the breeder or (for KC) the breed clubs to 'recommend' but none insist (unless this has changed recently).


As KC Accredited Breeders have *mandatory* health tests the red bits are twaddle.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> No, what you said was:
> 
> As KC Accredited Breeders have *mandatory* health tests the red bits are twaddle.


Only those who sign up to that scheme. You can be a KC registered breeder and do no health tests. So there are no mandatory health tests on any dogs as the KC Accredited Breeder scheme is voluntary. Or is that twaddle?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Only those who sign up to that scheme. You can be a KC breeder and do no health tests. So there are no madaotrey ehalth test on any dogs as the KC Accredited Breeder scheme is voluntary. Or is that twaddle?


She said Accredited. What part of that is unclear? Therefore for at least some dogs, health tests are obligatory.

*Mandatory*


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

cinammontoast said:


> She said Accredited. What part of that is unclear? Therefore for at least some dogs, health tests are obligatory.
> 
> *Mandatory*


But to have a litter registered with the KC you don't have to be an accredited breeder, the scheme is voluntary - volunteering is not mandatory.

*Voluntary*


----------



## david howarth (Aug 13, 2011)

I have a Dogue De Bordeaux, approximeatly 2 years old. And i have been offered another male needing a good home, i was wondering has anyone have any experience about this, or any advice wether or not to take him? Thanks.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You can be a KC registered breeder and do no health tests.
> So there are no mandatory health tests on any dogs as the KC Accredited Breeder scheme is voluntary.


please don't be deliberately obtuse.

a *Kennel Club Accredited Breeder* is not any numpty with a registered dog or bitch, who has sired or whelped.

Yes, *Accredited is voluntary* - but to be *accredited*, *tests are mandatory.* 
if U do not test, U lose that accredited status; tests are not optional.

in the USA, breed-clubs may have specific tests they mandate for their breed.
the AKC does not have an overall requirement for tests in all breeds - altho anyone with a brain 
will at the very least, test for Brucella - a k9-STD which can cause miscarriage, stillbirth & sterility. 
it is also a zoonosis: contagious to humans.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> please don't be deliberately obtuse.
> 
> a *Kennel Club Accredited Breeder* is not any numpty with a registered dog or bitch, who has sired or whelped.
> 
> ...


The poster is being given false information. There is no mandatory requirement to join the "Assured Breeder Scheme" and therefore no mandatory requirement to test any dog. This is correct information, the poster was being misled. You can breed dogs, have them registered with the KC without any mandatory health tests - this was the point I made which is correct.

The point, you missed, was the issue about requiring health testing. If the scheme is voluntary it cannot be mandatory. This si the problem - people think, as you seem to, that KC registration gives them some sort of minimum guarantee when it gives nothing of the sort. I know people want to perpetuate this myth but they would be better off spending their time sorting out the problems instead of pretending everything has been sorted.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You can breed dogs, have them registered with the KC without any mandatory health tests...


in which case, the breeder is *not KC Accredited.*

this has been clearly pointed out several times. Stop being obtuse.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> in which case, the breeder is *not KC Accredited.*
> 
> this has been clearly pointed out several times. Stop being obtuse.


But *CAN REGISTER THEIR LITTER AS A KC REGISTERED LITTER*

a fact I keep repeating and you keep trying to mask.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Would it not be better if the KC required that any breeder who wishes to KC register their dogs have to be accredited breeders on their scheme?

That way people would know that all KC reg dogs have followed the same rules rather than this distinction of having accredited breeders and breeders who are not accredited but use the KC to register their dogs.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

cockerpoo lover said:


> would it not be better if the kc required that any breeder who wishes to kc register their dogs have to be accredited breeders on their scheme?
> 
> That way people would know that all kc reg dogs have followed the same rules rather than this distinction of having accredited breeders and breeders who are not accredited but use the kc to register their dogs.


*did you not want to shout..... Its the done thing now you know*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Only those who sign up to that scheme. You can be a KC registered breeder and do no health tests. So there are no mandatory health tests on any dogs as the KC Accredited Breeder scheme is voluntary. Or is that twaddle?


No, you *cannot* be a KC registered breeder and do no health tests. There is only ONE type of KC registered breeder - the KC Accredited Breeder (or Assured Breeder as it is now called) and *they have mandatory health tests*.

However, *as I said in my post *- some pedigree breeders do not sign up to this scheme, and for them the situation is exactly like breeders of crossbreeds.

I fail to see how that is trying to mislead anyone - unlike your replies which have more twists and turns than a double helix as you try to backtrack and pretend you said something you didn't say. You are fooling no-one - the posts are there for all to read.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The point, you missed, was the issue about requiring health testing. If the scheme is voluntary it cannot be mandatory.


i did not 'miss' anything; _i am well-aware that this is a voluntary OPT-IN program._

equally, it is *voluntary* for puppy-buyers to purchase thru an Accredited Breeder, or by from a whoops-litter, 
or buy from a petshop supplied by a puppy-farm or a puppy-mill, or buy from a box of puppies in a parking-lot.

those are *choices*. Puppy-buyers who are so ignorant that they cannot see that each of those pups 
represents an entirely-different potential will buy from whoever is cheapest, or simply on impulse: 
see the pup in the window of the shop, or see a box of cute pups, & they buy their choice.

puppy-buyers who are more educated realize that WHO they buy the pup from, & WHERE & HOW the pup 
was reared, make a big difference; education matters, but it is a forever repeated process, as new-buyers 
mature every minute: the high-school grad, the newly married couple, the college freshman, etc.

there's always a new & entirely-ignorant consumer, somewhere.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

You said there is no obligation for any dog to be health tested. Spellweaver said yes, there is _if_ the breeder is _accredited_. What are you not getting about that? I understand what you are saying in that the KC don't require health testing, but _accredited_ breeders DO need to health test. Therefore your definitive statement re no dog needs to be health tested is factually incorrect. Blimey!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

If you recall when you quoted me so eloquently - I said there and no mandatory health tests for dogs. I could breed and register without health tests. You brought the Accredited (sic) scheme into the conversation saying some breeders are registered and have to do some tests.

So my point is that there is no requirement to undertake any health tests on any dogs. I said dogs... not Accredited (sic) breeders. I can be a breeder, I can register my litter of any recognised breed with eh KC and they do not require me to undertake any health tests to do that. 

If (if) I volunteer to be an Accredited (sic) breeder, there are some tests I should do. But as the scheme says "you may wish to consider joining." but if I don't I do no tests and have my pups registered.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But *CAN REGISTER THEIR LITTER AS A KC REGISTERED LITTER*
> 
> a fact I keep repeating and you keep trying to mask.


i did not mask anything - U keep pretending there's no difference between a *registered* 
breeder, AKA *accredited*, & any gorm with an intact-male or intact-female who lets their dog produce a litter.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> i did not mask anything - U keep pretending there's no difference between a *registered*
> breeder, AKA *accredited*, & any gorm with an intact-male or intact-female who lets their dog produce a litter.


Where did I do that?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Would it not be better if the KC required that any breeder who wishes to KC register their dogs have to be accredited breeders on their scheme?
> 
> That way people would know that all KC reg dogs have followed the same rules rather than this distinction of having accredited breeders and breeders who are not accredited but use the KC to register their dogs.


No - because the two things exist for completely separate reasons.

The KC registration is merely a record of family trees and health testing - which is a very useful aid for any breeder (and which is something that a crossbreeder does not have access to unless they are breeding first crosses - ie they can look up the ancestry of their poodle and lab, but as yet there is nowhere for them to look of the ancestry of a third or fourth generation cross).

The KC Accredited Breeder Scheme is a way for people to buy from breeders who they know will be health testing as per the mandatory list.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

cinammontoast said:


> You said there is no obligation for any dog to be health tested. Spellweaver said yes, there is _if_ the breeder is _accredited_. What are you not getting about that? I understand what you are saying in that the KC don't require health testing, but _accredited_ breeders DO need to health test. Therefore your definitive statement re no dog needs to be health tested is factually incorrect. Blimey!


But accredited (assured) is voluntary so no dog _must_ be tested as no breeder _must_ join the scheme to have their pups registered with eh KC... Its not obtuse... its not complicated. "You" introduced the voluntary scheme into the argument... I was talking about 'all'


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> If you recall when you quoted me so eloquently - I said there and no mandatory health tests for dogs. .


No - you said there are no mandatory health tests for *ANY* dogs. As dogs bred by accredited breeders *do* have mandatory health tests, your statement is incorrect. * SOME* dogs do have mandatory health tests.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> ...if I don't [register], I do no tests and have my pups registered.


so? 
buyers *choose* whom they buy from.

if they want the pup from the litter born under the shed in a burrow dug by the bitch, that's what they buy. 
if they want the pup from the dam bred in the backyard on every heat, that's what they buy. 
if they want the petshop puppy with NO tests, which costs 2 to 3 times the price of a direct sale WITH tested parents 
& the support of a responsible breeder - they splash the ca$h on the petshop puppy.

buyers can be thoughtful & careful, or as ignorant & impulsive as the day is long. 
and it's THEIR money - & THEIR puppy.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> so?
> buyers *choose* whom they buy from.
> 
> if they want the pup from the litter born under the shed in a burrow dug by the bitch, that's what they buy.
> ...


you're missing the point again. I am saying their is no requirement for testing for any dog to be registered as part of a litter with he KC. This is not a moral obligation argument, it is simply a statement of fact. I can breed any dog I like and register it (assuming it has the appropriate pedigree papers) with the KC with no health tests - any dog of any recognised breed.

This point of debate is not about petshops and prices and thoughtful buyers, on which we would doubtless agree.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Unfortunately there are no required health tests for any dog.. which is sad. Good crossbreeders do a significant amount of testing... I've quoted some on the post above.


And allow me to quote this (again ). There are required health tests if the breeder is KC accredited, as Spellweaver and Leashedforlife and I keep saying. No, a breeder is not obliged to register as an accredited breeder, but this does not mean that 'there are no required health tests for any dog'. Wrong.

And (sic) is used for quoting ill-spelled words. You ill-spelled, I didn't.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> No - you said there are no mandatory health tests for *ANY* dogs. As dogs bred by accredited breeders *do* have mandatory health tests, your statement is incorrect. * SOME* dogs do have mandatory health tests.


I can breed any dog from any recognised breed and register it with the KC. I can choose to volunteer to join a scheme "if I wish" but that does not change the fact I can sell my litter as KC registered with no health tests.

Therefore, the KC does not apply mandatory tests "for any dog" only for the litters of some breeders who volunteer.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

let's walk away from the bridge & go play elsewhere... :001_smile:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Therefore, the KC does not apply mandatory tests "for any dog" only for the litters of some breeders who volunteer.


Your statement above about mandatory tests for *some *breeders is in diametric opposition to your earlier statement that there are no mandatory tests for ANY dog.

Why can you not see this?

Or is it that you can and you think by posting more and more twaddle you will convice people that you were right all along?

It ain't gonna happen!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I was talking about 'all'


Yet you wrote 'any'. Spade, hole, anyone?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

cinammontoast said:


> Yet you wrote 'any'. Spade, hole, anyone?


OK all. There are no mandatory tests for "all" dogs. That actually makes my argument easier.

My point is their are no mandatory tests for any dogs; only for those who volunteer (as in they don't have to)


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Your statement above about mandatory tests for *some *breeders is in diamatric opposition to your earlier statement that there are no mandatory tests for ANY dog.
> 
> Why can you not see this?
> 
> ...


No it isn't. You just have an issue accepting that you're wrong. By simply repeating the same flawed argument and trying to be patronising, you divert from the point. This is the issue the KC has. I genuinely believe its trying to do the right thing (about time to) but then it has people like you pretending everything is great already.

So my statement stands. There are no mandatory tests for any dog. If there are, please tell me the breed/s of dog that have mandatory (not voluntary if you "wish" to take part) but mandatory tests. Any breed that without such mandatory tests, I could not advertised as KC registered.


----------



## xshelly_stanliex (May 4, 2010)

I havn't read all posts but thought i would say what i think about breeding cross breeds and pure breds. 

Personally i think as long as the person who is breeding the dog weather that is a pure bred or cross bred dog has the parents have the neccisary health tests done then fair enough.
My problem comes from people who breed willy nilly and dont give 2 poops about the dog or the pups and are doing it purely for money or think they can charge silly amounts for them.
I do not however agree with crossing dogs for the look it should be for health reasons in my opinion.
I will say from a personal experience even having the parents done its not a garuntee that your puppy will not have any health issues, i had a german sheperd who was from kc registered parents good lines and the parents were health tested but he still had arthritus from the age of 6 months old. 
As long as the breeders are doing all they can too try and ensure the pups will be as healthy as possible cross breed or pure bred. 

Its not just cross breeds that are ending up in rescue centres pure breds are too and its a very sad situation. 

My boy is not from health tested parents or kc reg parents, i wouldnt change him for anything but from what i know now if i were too get another pup i would go to a reptable breeder which in my opinion is someone who health tests there dogs and if a cross breeding them for the right reasons. 

Michelle


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Your statement above about mandatory tests for *some *breeders is in diamatric opposition to your earlier statement that there are no mandatory tests for ANY dog.
> 
> Why can you not see this?
> 
> ...


Sorry I was quoting you. You said there are some mandatory tests but only for some breeders - the point is they volunteer to be that type of breeder ut the KC do not require them to in order to register a litter.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> My point is their are no mandatory tests for any dogs; only for those who volunteer (as in they don't have to)





Elmo the Bear said:


> So my statement stands. There are no mandatory tests for any dog.


This is like the CATS tests for Year 7! There ARE mandatory tests (for _some_ dogs.) The voluntary aspect is irrelevant in that _some_ dogs MUST have health tests, unlike your posts that state that there are no health tests for 'any' dogs.

I do not see how else I can convey this!

I fail to see how Spellweaver is trying to fudge the issue: she is saying exactly what I am. The KC, like any other large organisation, is imperfect. It needs radicalising and all KC registered breeders should have _mandatory_ health tests, IMO.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2011)

cinammontoast said:


> I do not see how else I can convey this!


There will always be folk who interpret things to suit their beliefs.

I have been reading the thread tonight but not posting and I do agree with yourself and Spellweaver but I dont think anything you post will make a slight bit of difference the term head meet wall runs into my mind.

I am off to bed. Its been an interesting read.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2011)

cinammontoast said:


> It needs radicalising and all KC registered breeders should have _mandatory_ health tests, IMO.


I agree with you....I do.
But I also agree with those who are worried such a rule would shrink their genepool drastically and be likely to cause a bigger issue with using stud dogs who are tested but may throw other conditions that are not testable for that breed for example or even cause in breeding as a last resort.

In my perfect world only health tested dogs with good results would be bred from, no bitch would be bred under 2 years of age and breeders would vet homes their pups go to before allowing the owners to take them home.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

cinammontoast said:


> This is like the CATS tests for Year 7! There ARE mandatory tests (for _some_ dogs.) The voluntary aspect is irrelevant in that _some_ dogs MUST have health tests, unlike your posts that state that there are no health tests for 'any' dogs.
> 
> I do not see how else I can convey this!


Sorry you're quoting someone else. I did not say there are no health tests for any dogs - I said (clearly) there are no _mandatory_ health tests for any dogs. There are no mandatory health tests for any dogs... there.. see... I said it again.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

cinammontoast said:


> The KC, like any other large organisation, is imperfect. It needs radicalising and all KC registered breeders should have _mandatory_ health tests, IMO.


I agree and by pretending that there are mandatory test, that radicalisation moves further and further away.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

WOW!! This has been an interesting read this morning!!

May I say I chose to be a Memberof the KC ABS Scheme, therefore I MUST abide by the Rules -

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2158

And also as member of several breed Clubs I must also abide by their Code Of Ethics.

I did not have to become an ABS member, but instead chose to do so, therefore the Rules do become mandatory for me, otherwise I would lose my ABS status.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> No it isn't. You just have an issue accepting that you're wrong. By simply repeating the same flawed argument and trying to be patronising, you divert from the point. This is the issue the KC has. I genuinely believe its trying to do the right thing (about time to) but then it has people like you pretending everything is great already.
> 
> So my statement stands. There are no mandatory tests for any dog. If there are, please tell me the breed/s of dog that have mandatory (not voluntary if you "wish" to take part) but mandatory tests. Any breed that without such mandatory tests, I could not advertised as KC registered.


You are either completely missing the point, or you are deliberately twisitng things to try to make your erroneous argument seem valid.

So let's recap:

You said:



Elmo the Bear said:


> Unfortunately there are no required health tests for any dog.. which is sad. .


In reply I wrote:



Spellweaver said:


> Hi there bearcub - just answering your questions about health testing and the Kennel Club, as up to now you have not been given the right information -just a load of twaddle by someone who does not know what he is talking about.
> 
> Breeders of cross breeds have no obligation to health test, no specifically required health tests, and no regulatory body to ensure that they do so. Hence some crossbreeders do health tests and some don't.
> 
> ...


which clearly explains that:

a) There are some pedigree breeders who are not KC Accredited Breeders and they have no mandatory health tests

but

b) For those breeders who are Accredited Breeders, there are mandatory health tests.

Ergo your statement that *NO* dog has mandatory health tests is wrong. Dogs bred by KC Accredited Breeders DO have mandatory health tests.

Now whether or not this scheme is voluntary is of no bearing on the validity of your statement, despite all your machinations to try to pretend it has. The fact is that some breeders of pedigrees are KC Accredited Breeders and because they are in that scheme they have mandatory health tests as per this list:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf

Now you have tried to weasel your way out of what you originally said by

a) Saying I gave wrong/misleading information to the poster (no, everything I wrote was factual, straightforward and correct - which is why I've quoted it above)
b) Pretending you didn't say there are no mandatory (or in your original words, "required" ) tests for "ANY" dog (yes you did, which is why I've quoted you again)
c) Pretending you meant "ALL" dogs (you didn't: you just think it makes your argument easier)
d) Trying to confuse KC Accredited Breeders with KC Registration (two entirely separate things with two entirely separate purposes)

Now why not hold your hand up and just say:

"Ok, I admit I got it wrong. What I should have said is that the only dogs who have mandatory health tests are dogs bred by KC Accredited Breeders". You can even add on the end "but this is a voluntary scheme", if it makes you feel better.

You wouldn't be making yourself look as silly then.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ceearott said:


> WOW!! This has been an interesting read this morning!!
> 
> May I say I chose to be a Memberof the KC ABS Scheme, therefore I MUST abide by the Rules -
> 
> ...


Which is great and I wish more would do that . . but . . as you say you _chose_ to. Anyone could still breed your type of dog (and '_any_' type of dog) and (if they were a KC breed) have the litter registered as KC with no mandatory health tests.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Which is great and I wish more would do that . . but . . as you say you _chose_ to. Anyone could still breed your type of dog (and '_any_' type of dog) and (if they were a KC breed) have the litter registered as KC with no mandatory health tests.


And many do........ :cursing:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> You are either completely missing the point, or you are deliberately twisitng things to try to make your erroneous argument seem valid.
> 
> So let's recap:
> 
> ...


No weasel's just dogs. You can dress it up to look like there are mandatory tests but a voluntary scheme does not yield a mandatory result. You keep on twisting but the English language (and the facts are against you).

The scheme is voluntary not mandatory.You introduced breeders to the conversation to try and divert people away from the fact that there is no mandatory testing for dogs. You mentioned the voluntary assured scheme, not me.

You want me to say there are mandatory tests for those who volunteer - if you wish to make up nonsense sentences that's your look out; doesn't hide anything though.

I would prefer to look silly than blatantly mislead people.

You said _"c) Pretending you meant "ALL" dogs (you didn't: you just think it makes your argument easier) " _- another poster accused me of that - I said any - there are no mandatory tests for any dog in the UK. The statement is correct - your voluntary scheme is not mandatory.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ceearott said:


> And many do........ :cursing:


Many do - but not all and its not mandatory. But we're diverting away from the point. I didn't raise a point abaout voluntary scheme - I made the point there are no mandatory tests which there are not; membership of something voluntary cannot be mandatory.

"If I'm member the tests are mandatory" - but you don't have to be a member so they're not.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Many do - but not all and its not mandatory.


I never said it was!!!!!!!!hmy:

Its only mandatory for me because I choose to be a member of the ABS, so dont drag me into ya argument!!!!!hmy::smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I would prefer to look silly than blatantly mislead people.
> 
> .


Good job - because you manage to make yourself look silly so very often.

OK, this is the second time you've accused me of misleading people. Please point out where I have mislead anyone - with actual quotes by me.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ceearott said:


> I never said it was!!!!!!!!hmy:
> 
> Its only mandatory for me because I choose to be a member of the ABS, so dont drag me into ya argument!!!!!hmy::smilewinkgrin:


Sorry didn't think I had. Its not my argument - I simply stated a fact which 1 or 2 members are having a problem with.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry didn't think I had. Its not my argument - I simply stated a fact which 1 or 2 members are having a problem with.


Because your fact was wrong.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

You said

"Ergo your statement that NO dog has mandatory health tests is wrong. Dogs bred by KC Accredited Breeders DO have mandatory health tests."

Dogs bred by breeders who CHOOSE to be members of a scheme have to comply with the rules of scheme and undertake some health testing. As the scheme is voluntary the tests cannot be mandatory - its really very simple.


BTW - you also misled in that same sentence - you said my statement was NO dog has mandatory health tests where my quote (again) was any.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Unfortunately there are no required health tests for any dog.. which is sad. Good crossbreeders do a significant amount of testing... I've quoted some on the post above.


There it is - "any"...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Because your fact was wrong.


Misleading again ? There are no required health tests for any dog in the UK... fact... sorry.

So which breeds of dogs have mandatory health testing? The question I answered was in response to a poster asking if there were tests for labradoodles ; I stated there were no mandatory tests for any dog which correct. It was only you who mentioned the voluntary scheme.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You said
> 
> "Ergo your statement that NO dog has mandatory health tests is wrong. Dogs bred by KC Accredited Breeders DO have mandatory health tests."
> 
> Dogs bred by breeders who CHOOSE to be members of a scheme have to comply with the rules of scheme and undertake some health testing. *As the scheme is voluntary the tests cannot be mandatory *- its really very simple.


I agree it is really simple, which is why I cannot for the life of me understand why you can't grasp it.

Sigh. Let's try again.

The fact is that for KC Accredited Breeders health testing is mandatory. They are not mandatory for every pedigree breeder (as I said in my post) , but they are mandatory for KC Accredited Breeders. That is *FACT*.

Irrespective of whether or not the scheme is voluntary, the tests are mandatory within the scheme. As this is all I said in that post, and as in the same post I also pointed out that there are pedigree breeders who are not members of the scheme and who do not have mandatory tests, I repeat: how is that misleading?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, as an example, I could quite easily say without any research, I had come across a litter of chocolate Lab pups that I thought were from dodgy breeders; however, if I said the same about a litter of purpose bred cross breed pups, then I'm on dodgy grounds, so what's the difference?


there isnt any!.... and where as most of us have no qualms slating ANY bad breeders, ive seen a handful of pro-cross breeders who slate even the most ethical pedigree breeders yet jump to the defence of cross breeders who treat their dogs appallingly and who use their bitches as breeding machines to churn out puppies....i would even go so far as to say one of the worst breeders ive come across is practically revered amongst those with a particular cross!....why is this


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Many do - but not all and its not mandatory. But we're diverting away from the point. I didn't raise a point abaout voluntary scheme - I made the point there are no mandatory tests which there are not; membership of something voluntary cannot be mandatory.
> 
> "If I'm member the tests are mandatory" - but you don't have to be a member so they're not.


I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. There is no mandatory health testing for all dogs in the UK because to do that it would require a law. I cannot see such thing happening. The only realistic way would be through defra, but controlling it would be impossible due to the high numbers of dog owners across the country.

That means that all mandatory health testing carried out is due to membership of a club or scheme (many breed clubs make health testing mandatory - it's not just KC Accredited breeders).


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> There is no differece tbh' is there? not for me. I would hold the same standards across the board, hence not agreeing with 'most' cross breeding - as one of my points is - Breeding for a 'vaild' reasons, not suppling a pet market.
> All litters no matter the breed should be raised with the same care, and knowledge, the same effort should have gone into the planned mating to ensure bitch was in good condition and put to a suitable stud, and potential puppies were of good standard, health and tempermant, the same effort should go into homing the puppies, finding 5* homes ect'
> 
> Ethics for me dont change from breed to breed, in my eyes there is only ONE way to breed - and thats ethically, not cutting in corners in anyway - with the upmost importances being the bitch, closely followed by the puppies and the overall breed.
> ...


What makes you think that supplying the pet market is not a valid reason for breeding. The majority of puppies, even from litters bred for other reasons, will go as pets. Maybe this could be turned round and we could say that as the majority of dogs are purely and simply pets then show dogs should not be bred as they are bred for looks which really do not matter to the average pet owner. that is just as bigoted a view of dog breeding.

As for the argument that has been going on for several pages - I have never heard anything so childish. 
But surely it is down to interpretation. You are both right. There are not mandatory tests for dogs - but if you choose to join a certain scheme then you do need to health test your dogs.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

You see this is it in a nutshell - far too many of the public think show dogs are bred purely for beauty. Therein lies the problem, the actual look of a dog is secondary to what it was originally bred for (in most breeds, not all, before someone jumps on that one, lol!). My own breed is the size it is and has the front construction it does and the rear construction it does and the deep chest it does and the feet it does for a reason other than pure beauty. The rottweiler is made the way it is to allow it to be an 'endurance trotter' to work on its feet all day and have the power to deal with cattle.

There is of course, more to the breed than that too, I am just trying to explain it simply.:wink:


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I've heard that some mandatory health testing is only required for 2 out of 209 breeds for the KC. Does anyone have more accurate numbers ? The reason given in an interview was if you make it mandatory you loose breeders due to "English mentality".



> You see this is it in a nutshell - far too many of the public think show dogs are bred purely for beauty.


And this is, despite what you say, still in my mind the case for many breeds. To be fair changes are happening slowly. As long ago as 2006, the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) produced a report which admitted the following


> Significant changes have been recently proposed and accepted for the Bulldog and Pekingese Breed Standards to minimise the perceived health issues resulting from these standards


The trouble is in the show circles you do have people who believe strongly that the "breed standards", which are looked based, are the be all and end all rather than the health of their dogs. These "die hards" are often "high up" in any established society like the KC and will oppose changes to their beloved standards which, in their viewpoint, have worked for years. I think at the grass roots the acceptance of problems with health and the desire to provide correction is far more widespread than many people give credit for.

I would suggest that any person wanting to buy a puppy get to know the breeder to determine what priority the health of the puppies was assigned.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> No - because the two things exist for completely separate reasons.
> 
> The KC registration is merely a record of family trees and health testing - which is a very useful aid for any breeder (and which is something that a crossbreeder does not have access to unless they are breeding first crosses - ie they can look up the ancestry of their poodle and lab, but as yet there is nowhere for them to look of the ancestry of a third or fourth generation cross).
> 
> The KC Accredited Breeder Scheme is a way for people to buy from breeders who they know will be health testing as per the mandatory list.


Exactly. - many breeders are not even required to test, but do so because they can and are trying their best to do all they can to protect their breed, and potential puppies from unwanted health issues. - our breed for example require no tests, even for mum whos a member of the ABS - she carries out three tests before breeding.



Blitz said:


> What makes you think that supplying the pet market is not a valid reason for breeding. The majority of puppies, even from litters bred for other reasons, will go as pets. Maybe this could be turned round and we could say that as the majority of dogs are purely and simply pets then show dogs should not be bred as they are bred for looks which really do not matter to the average pet owner. that is just as bigoted a view of dog breeding.


Oh for christ sake - you again!  anyone would think your stalking me! 
nothing *makes* me think that supplying a pet market isnt a vaild reason it ISNT a vaild reason in MY OPINION. - of course alot of dogs end up in pet homes, I dont see a problem with that.. But I like to think a litter has been bred for a reason other than to supply a demand of the pet market, which atm in MY OPINION is not ethical, at least atm. - I hold such opinions, because I can and because working with rescue I am fully aware of the over breeding of dogs for the pet market. - Three fosters we have in, all pet bred - one with allergies, unknown - full blood panal came back clear, one with possible cherry eye - dropped in late last night, and one thats having fits for an unknown reasons, vets report picked up nothing. - I am not naive enough to believe that there are not dodgy breeders that breed for showing, working ect' because I know there are - but them that ethically breed do so for a reason, with the up most care taken for the dogs involved and overall breed - there breeding for a reason, and most want them to succeed in the area choosen, so want healthy dogs!  - when breeding for the pet market most (notice I say most and not all) have only one concern and thats producing puppies to sell on, I dont just disagree with it, I dont understand it - therefore cant support it. - Thats my choice - agree or not, means little to me! - but as for your comment on show dogs being bred just for looks, well shows you clearly havent a clue about showing, or what a decent show breeder undertakes. - therefore cant even begin to reason with someone with such a backwards view.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Blitz said:


> What makes you think that supplying the pet market is not a valid reason for breeding. The majority of puppies, even from litters bred for other reasons, will go as pets. Maybe this could be turned round and we could say that as the majority of dogs are purely and simply pets then show dogs should not be bred as they are bred for looks which really do not matter to the average pet owner. that is just as bigoted a view of dog breeding.
> 
> As for the argument that has been going on for several pages - I have never heard anything so childish.
> But surely it is down to interpretation. You are both right. There are not mandatory tests for dogs - but if you choose to join a certain scheme then you do need to health test your dogs.


Nail on head. What a superb post!


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2011)

Many breeders even those not within the ABS health test. Its about how much you care about the breed, the only reason not to health test is money and as soon as it comes to money your breeding for the wrong reasons.

Breeding for money means your trying to breed as cheaply as possible so you get more money than you have spent, meaning you start to cut corners. That itself is a huge risk to mum and pups. 

ABS is far from perfect but what it does do is allow the KC to enforce health tests. Something which under normal KC register is not practical. 

When I took Alaska and Aiden for their eye test last month a lady and gent came into the waiting room with their two dogs (male and female sire and dam) and the dam had just had a litter.. 

We got talking and she asked if we were being forced to eye test our dogs, I stated no I am not yet a member of the ABS and was doing it off my own back. She proceeded to tell me how her bitch ahd just had a litter and when she went to register them they with held the registration and told her to get both sire and dam health tested (as she owned both), she was in shock because she was fairly new to the ABS and had never eye tested before on any litter so was in shock that she was asked to do it.

I sat smiling to myself because that's damn right! No dog should be bred without health tests and the ABS is a great start!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Many breeders even those not within the ABS health test. Its about how much you care about the breed, the only reason not to health test is money and as soon as it comes to money your breeding for the wrong reasons.
> 
> Breeding for money means your trying to breed as cheaply as possible so you get more money than you have spent, meaning you start to cut corners. That itself is a huge risk to mum and pups.
> 
> ...


Did you still have to test your dogs even though their parents were eye tested clear? ( I presume they were as I know you would have chosen your dogs breeders carefully and ensured they had health tests done)


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I sat smiling to myself because that's damn right! No dog should be bred without health tests and the ABS is a great start!


I think its a great start, checking houses ect is one thing that I think is a massive step forward, mum had her check last year - its abit scary, taking photos of your dogs, where they sleep, but the check is so in depth - and ours was also done by someone else that breeds - she collected all the information and then I believe it goes to others to check out.

- People will moan about the scheme, and other such things put in place, but there always got to be a starting point. and somethings better than nothing, things can only improve, and the scheme can only become more secure in ensuring breeders are being the best possible, giving buyers a better chance finding the breeder for them.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

And lets not forget, the decent breeders out there are not only breeding for health and welfare, but also for the dogs to be fit for function! :wink: Another important point I think gets glossed over far too much when 'Show' breeders are being discussed - it aint all about how 'pretty' the darn dog looks but about can it still perform the job it was originally bred for???? Nowt to do with aesthetics!!


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Did you still have to test your dogs even though their parents were eye tested clear? ( I presume they were as I know you would have chosen your dogs breeders carefully and ensured they had health tests done)


Yes you do have to still have the health tests.

Infact your wrong, all 3 of my dogs come from breeders who didnt fully health test. In my own breed breeders who fully health test are rare and litters bred by them are also rare.

Alaska's parents both eye exam clear but no other tests.
Aiden's mum was not eye tested but his dad was and is clear.
Kai's parents were both eye exam tested and his dad was hip scored.

Eye exams in shelties are for CEA and to keep an eye out for PRA (Although it doesnt affect our breed anymore really) Eye exams are fantastic way of keeping an eye on any other issues that may crop up!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Did you still have to test your dogs even though their parents were eye tested clear?


if both parents tested clear [neither is a carrier], then for That One trait, their pups don't need DNA-testing 
via bloodwork or a cheek-swab.

but that's one trait - PRA is not juvenile-cataracts, PPM, retinal dysplasia, micro-opthalmia, or any other 
eye problem; entropion, ectropion, cherry-eye, dystichias, etc.

dogs still must be examined annually for eye-issues by a k9-opthalmologist, so long as they are actively 
breeding; each eye-certificate is only valid for 12-months, then it expires. An eye-certificate on the stud 
says nothing whatever about the dam; it's only valid for ONE dog. to know carrier status, both parents 
must be tested - or the individual dog / pup must be tested.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> In [Shelties], breeders who fully health test are rare
> & litters bred by them are also rare.


AVAR's list of heritable conditions in Shelties: 
Shetland Sheepdog: 
5, 37, 42, 52, 52a, 58, 59, 65, 82, 86, 88, 108, 121, 122, 129, 147, 148, 149a, 151, 152, 157, 166, 
176a, 192, 220, 236, 245, 256, 270, 306, 312, 313a, 328, 329, 330

***5. Achondroplasia: 
abnormal development of cartilage leading to dwarfism (seen aberrantly in most breeds, but what makes 
a Basset Hound and other achondroplastic breeds long and low).

37. Cancer, bladder: 
transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the bladder is prevalent in the Scottish Terrier & West Highland White Terrier. 
Herbicide exposure increases the risk of TCC, whereas increased consumption of green leafy 
& yellow orange vegetables decreases the disease risk.

***42. Cataract: 
as in humans, a change in structure of the lens of the eye leading to cloudiness & usually to blindness.

***52. Choroidal hypoplasia: 
the technical name for collie eye anomaly (see #58), this autosomal recessive disorder causes improper 
development of the choroid vascular layer under the retina of the eye in young puppies. There is no treatment or cure.
*Collie, Border Collie, Shetland Sheepdog, Australian Shepherd and Lancashire Heeler.

52a. Chronic progressive hepatitis: 
an uncommon disease sometimes called chronic active hepatitis. 
*Doberman Pinscher, Dalmatian, Labrador Retriever, Golden Retriever, & Shetland Sheepdog (also see #2, 62.) 
*Google documents HTML copy of a PDF-article:* Powered by Google Docs

***58. Collie eye anomaly: 
detected by ophthalmologic examination between 5-8 weeks of age. This is seen worldwide in several breeds, 
as well as Rough and Smooth Collies.
In mild disease, vision may not be impaired, but mildly affected dogs can produce severely affected offspring. 
In severe form, colobomas and retinal detachment can occur by about 2 years of age, although total 
blindness is rarely seen. Genetic testing from a blood sample can distinguish normal, carrier, and affected dogs.

***59. Coloboma: 
abnormal development of the eye, usually seen in the Collie, which can lead to blindness. (See #58, 60, 203.)

***60. Colobomas with aphakia: 
same as above but with congenital absence of the lens.

***65. Corneal dystrophy: 
abnormality of the cornea, characterized by shallow pits in the surface.

82. Dermatomyositis: 
a disease affecting skin and muscles, usually in the Collie or Shetland Sheepdog 
Dx: Dermatomyositis: Tests and diagnosis - MayoClinic.com

86. Discoid lupus erythematosus: 
a form of autoimmune disease affecting the skin.
Dx: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus*Diagnosis - Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Health Information - NY Times Health

***88. Distichiasis: 
abnormally growing eyelashes.

***108. Epidermolysis bullosa: 
an abnormal looseness to the skin characterized by large, deep, blister-like lesions.
Gluck Center

121. Factor VIII deficiency or hemophilia A: 
the most common severe inherited clotting-disorder of humans and animals. The disorder is inherited 
as a sex-linked recessive trait (carried by females and manifested in males). Affects most dog breeds.
Factor VIII

122. Factor IX deficiency or hemophilia B: 
similar to hemophilia-A, but rarer and involves a different clotting factor.
Laboklin - Labor für Klinische Diagnostik

Hemophilia B in German Wirehaired Pointers

Deletion-mutation in Lhasa-Apsos - 
Powered by Google Docs

129. Folliculitis: 
an infection of the hair follicles.
Dog Folliculitis Symptoms, Causes, and Treatments

147. Hemophilia A [see #121]

148. Hemophilia B: 
lack of coagulation factor IX. (also see #122.)

149a. Hepatic lipidosis: 
abnormal accumulation of lipids in the liver which leads to liver failure. 
*Miniature Schnauzer & Shetland Sheepdog
Hepatic Lipidosis in Cats & Dogs | Natural Pet Remedies

151. Heterochromia, iris: 
the presence of different colors in the same or both irises. [*note* - unless there's a vision or other 
physical problem, i don't see this as 'disease'.]

***152. Hip dysplasia: 
a developmental malformation or subluxation of the hip joints.

157. Hypercholesterolemia: 
too much cholesterol in the blood circulatory-system; commonly associated with *hypothyroidism*.

***166. Hypothyroidism: 
a common endocrine disease where the body produces an abnormally-low amount of thyroid hormones. 
This is an autoimmune destruction of the thyroid gland which affects more than 50 dog breeds. (also see #192, 312.)

***176a. Ivermectin sensitivity: 
a prevalent condition of the Collie [*and many other breeds!*]where a mutation of the MDRI gene 
produces susceptibility to ivermectin toxicity. [*this results in sensitivity to many drugs, not only Ivermectin.*]

***192. Lymphocytic thyroiditis: 
an autoimmune disease causing inflammation & destruction of the thyroid gland, which becomes infiltrated 
with lymphocytes (white-blood cells) & leads to hypothyroidism. This is the most common endocrine disease 
of the dog and has an inherited predisposition. (also see #166, 312.)

220. Optic nerve hypoplasia: 
the optic nerve, from the eye to the brain, is too small.

236. Patent ductus arteriosus: 
failure of the vessel remnant joining the aorta & pulmonary artery of fetal life to close properly at birth, 
thereby shunting blood away from the lungs. [*PDA or blue-baby syndrome.*]

***245. Persistent pupillary membrane: 
a developmental abnormality; the membrane forming the iris does not form properly.

***256. Progressive retinal atrophy: 
the retina slowly deteriorates, producing first night blindness, then total blindness.

***270. Retinal dysplasia: 
the retina is malformed.

306. Systemic lupus erythematosus: 
an autoimmune disease where antibodies form against the nuclear protein of cells, characterized by skin lesions 
as well as other organ dysfunctions & blood abnormalities.

***312. Thyroiditis: (see #166, 192.)

313a. Transitional cell carcinoma: 
a form of bladder cancer (see #37.)

328. Vitiligo: 
a lack of pigment in the skin ('vitiligo' in man; 'hypopigmentation' in animals). 
*Rottweiler, Doberman Pinscher, Old English Sheepdog & Dachshund (see #161.)

329. Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada-like syndrome: 
an autoimmune disease common in the Akita & "sled-dog" breeds where the eyes, blood 
& other tissues are progressively destroyed, leading to blindness & death, AKA uveodermatologic syndrome.
01 Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada-Like Syndrome in Dogs - VeterinaryPartner.com - a VIN company!

***330. von Willebrand's disease: 
a bleeding disorder caused by defective blood-platelet function (an autosomal trait affecting both sexes). 
*Occurs in 59 dog breeds, but most often in the Doberman Pinscher 
[tests should be done no earlier than 18-MO & before breeding, ideally waiting until 24-MO to test, 
then breeding after the dog tests normal.]

*** marks those conditions which can be observed in a dog, 
or tested / screened for, in a prospective sire or dam.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> There are no mandatory health tests for any dogs... there.. see... I said it again.


Yes, there are, we have established this.



Elmo the Bear said:


> There it is - "any"...


And again, contradicting yourself. Again.



Elmo the Bear said:


> Misleading again ? There are no required health tests for any dog in the UK... fact... sorry.


Headdesk :cursing: There ARE required tests if the breeder is accredited. There are plenty of these breeders about.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

> Headdesk :cursing: There ARE required tests if the breeder is accredited. There are plenty of these breeders about.


I would give up now, sometimes people refuse to face *facts* as it doesnt sit well with their own views 

Breeders of breeds, who are registered on the ABS are required to test - just like certain breeders are required to test under their breed clubs code of ethics!

I am suprise that Elmo finds this such a problem and needs to keep going on stating untrue facts - I mean having brought first crosses from two pedigree parents with one atleast lacking testing - maybe its about time a scheme was put in place to ensure the health testing of crosses also. - neither pedigrees or crosses are exempt from suffering health issues.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Exactly. -
> 
> Oh for christ sake - you again!  anyone would think your stalking me!
> nothing *makes* me think that supplying a pet market isnt a vaild reason it ISNT a vaild reason in MY OPINION. - of course alot of dogs end up in pet homes, I dont see a problem with that.


How old are you!!!!!! As long as you make statements that do not sit well with me I will reply to you in the same way that I would anyone else who says something I dont agree with. We are all entitled to our opinions and we are all entitled to say when we do not agree with someone elses loudly shouted opinions. I very seldom even bother to look at who a post is from when I reply to it.

You also had a go at me for saying you were a breeder - when your signature intimates you are. Now I realise it is your mother who is the breeder, so you are still involved with breeding.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Blitz said:


> How old are you!!!!!! As long as you make statements that do not sit well with me I will reply to you in the same way that I would anyone else who says something I dont agree with. We are all entitled to our opinions and we are all entitled to say when we do not agree with someone elses loudly shouted opinions. I very seldom even bother to look at who a post is from when I reply to it.
> 
> You also had a go at me for saying you were a breeder - when your signature intimates you are. Now I realise it is your mother who is the breeder, so you are still involved with breeding.


Im 19 - and the comment was tongue in cheek  I have never said I wasnt involved in breeding  just simply that I am not a breeder - I dont hold an affix, no female of mine has been put in pup, no litter is registered in my name, I am not responsible for any litter born or planned! - I also never had a go at you for calling me a breeder, I wouldnt be ashamed to be one. I simply stated you were stating false facts about myself.


----------



## CarolineK (Aug 12, 2011)

I have sat here watching this thread for ages,but i feel i need to reply now.
I am sick and tired of "some" people getting personal about my "MY PETS".
Why dont you all just sing from the same hymn book and all do the same testing,and then there would not be this problem.
I have had dogs for many many years mostly collies some rescued and some bought from the local farmer,they all lived a healthly happy life the oldest being 18.5 when she passed away.
None of these dogs were health tested,i know folk who have had health tested dogs and they still have got very poorly.
I even had a friend who had all the tests when she was expecting and she ended up with a child with Down's.
So for those who want to act like children and throw insults and be rude,please get your heads out of the sand and show some RESPECT to others thank you.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I believe your a banned member? - Getting personal? no I stated a fact, you and your husband freely give this information across the net, someone also stated the situation in which I brought a dog, have I claimed people being rude, disrespectful? no 

- I do get a little confused when people go on and on about health testing, and that pedigree breeders have no rules to do such - and then say well I know this dog and that dog that were not tested and lived happy, healthy lives - ok - its not impossible, but its not a risk an ethical breeder will take. simple as.

Maybe you can point us in the direction to the insults, and rude'ness?


----------



## CarolineK (Aug 12, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I believe your a banned member? - Getting personal? no I stated a fact, you and your husband freely give this information across the net, someone also stated the situation in which I brought a dog, have I claimed people being rude, disrespectful? no
> 
> - I do get a little confused when people go on and on about health testing, and that pedigree breeders have no rules to do such - and then say we I know this dog and that dog that were not tested and lived happy, healthy lives - ok - its not impossible, but its not a risk an ethical breeder will take. simple as.
> 
> Maybe you can point us in the direction to the insults, and rude'ness?


So if we do put things on the net who are you a stalker ?
Its up to us if we want to put things on here about OUR PETS as they belong to us not you !!!
IWe do not put anything about your pets do we ?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I am suprise that Elmo finds this such a problem and needs to keep going on stating untrue facts - I mean having brought first crosses from two pedigree parents with one atleast lacking testing - maybe its about time a scheme was put in place to ensure the health testing of crosses also. - neither pedigrees or crosses are exempt from suffering health issues.


Ah, you have uncovered his secret! All his twists and convolutions make sense now! Because while ever he is stating untrue facts about tests on pedigrees, it's diverting attention away from this!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

CarolineK said:


> So if we do put things on the net who are you a stalker ?
> Its up to us if we want to put things on here about OUR PETS as they belong to us not you !!!
> IWe do not put anything about your pets do we ?


I am not a stalker, just never forget things posted...I have been on this forum since 2008 and have seen alot said by yourself and Elmo 
Of course its up to you, have I said different? and no you dont put stuff up about my pets, again have I said different?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

CarolineK said:


> I have sat here watching this thread for ages,but i feel i need to reply now.
> I am sick and tired of "some" people getting personal about my "MY PETS".
> Why dont you all just sing from the same hymn book and all do the same testing,and then there would not be this problem.
> I have had dogs for many many years mostly collies some rescued and some bought from the local farmer,they all lived a healthly happy life the oldest being 18.5 when she passed away.
> ...


ehh

why would all breeders do the same health tests? different breeds arnt all predisposed to the same conditions.

and trying to justify not health testing by saying some dogs still can go on to inherit an illness, while untested dogs can go on to live long lives is the sort of thing bybs spout!..


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> I've heard that some mandatory health testing is only required for 2 out of 209 breeds for the KC. Does anyone have more accurate numbers ?


I've posted the link twice on this thread already, but here it is again:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf



Goblin said:


> The trouble is in the show circles you do have people who believe strongly that the "breed standards", which are looked based, are the be all and end all rather than the health of their dogs.


Breed standards are not based on looks - whatever gave you that idea? Breed standards set out how a dog should be constructed in order to be healthy and fit for purpose. And you will find very few show people who are not concerned deeply about the health of their dogs.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Oh dear. wasted good hour or so catching up on this thread, but its gone no where just petty bickering/point scoring. Really is a wasted opportunity - suppose I was looking for a responsible breeder, whether pedigree or crossbreed, what could I learn from reading this, sweet F A really so what is every one trying to achieve?

Just in case there is anyone out there in cyber land trying to get some sensible information, purely from my own point of view & experience. 

Researched, found a breed that is suitable for you/family/lifestyle - assume you go for a pedigree after all get what you pay for. KC registered so must mean something - no not really its just a list of dogs & their parentage could be really really awful breeders don't even have to do any of the tests the KC recommends to get your litter registered. Whats the point then, no idea to be honest but I think means you can enter shows and if you breed then yours can be registered.

Ok, so ordinary KC registered litters can be as dodgy as the next man in the street - what about the accredited breeder ones can I rely on them more? Er, not really sure I think they agree to do various tests and agree to abide by certain rules but I am not sure if anyone actually checks up on them or if its just a tick box exercise. How do I find out the answers - well if you read all this thread maybe someone somewhere says something useful?

Right ok, KC/pedigree seems waste of time then if its so hard to get any info, think I will go for a crossbreed instead supposed to be healthier anyway aren't they. Well it all depends really. On what? Read this thread maybe can get something useful from it.

Neighbours dog is having pups think just have one of those instead less hassle, seems healthy enough what do you think. Well lets sit here for two or three nights & argue, leave it for a bit then do the same in another month have a break then can argue again for a week so by which time pup should be ready to go. Ace thanks. :crying:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> Oh dear. wasted good hour or so catching up on this thread, but its gone no where just petty bickering/point scoring. Really is a wasted opportunity - suppose I was looking for a responsible breeder, whether pedigree or crossbreed, what could I learn from reading this, sweet F A really so what is every one trying to achieve?
> 
> Just in case there is anyone out there in cyber land trying to get some sensible information, purely from my own point of view & experience.
> 
> ...


well why not rescue one? then you cant go wrong

look at all these little treasures at Many tears http://manytearsrescue.webs.com/dogslookingforhomes.htm


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Goblin said:


> I've heard that some mandatory health testing is only required for 2 out of 209 breeds for the KC.
> Does anyone have more accurate numbers ?


reading the webpage at the link provided would answer this question. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf

*pasted copy below - * *BOLD = required;* REC = recommended.


> _*Requirements for Health Screening of Breeding Stock*;
> Sire and dam of any litter registered by an Accredited Breeder should have been screened as specified below.
> Refer to the KEY on the front page regarding the official health screening schemes, DNA tests, breed club,
> & other schemes.
> ...


would U like more? :huh: *31 breeds have no required tests listed.* 
26 have no RECOMMENDED tests. 
that's of 120 breeds listed. If the KC recognizes 209 breeds, this list is 57.4% of all breeds recognized.

so 25.8% of 120 have no *required* tests; 21.6% of 120 have no RECOMMENDED tests. 
74.2% of 120 have *required tests;* 78.3% of 120 have RECOMMENDED tests.

there is NO breed of the 120 that has neither *required* nor RECOMMENDED tests - 
every breed listed has one or the other, or both.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

CarolineK said:


> I am sick and tired of "some" people getting personal about my "MY PETS".
> 
> None of these dogs were health tested,i know folk who have had health tested dogs and they still have got very poorly.


Your pets? Where did that happen cos I fail to see this at any point.

Are you for real? So we should forget about health testing and encourage indiscriminate breeding, thereby leading to potentially crippled animals, heartbreak and yet more dogs in rescue? No, not every dog that is not health tested gets sick and even if they are tested, they might still get sick but the risks can be lessened. Would you deliberately allow a dog with a known condition to breed?

Super.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Oh dear. wasted good hour or so catching up on this thread, but its gone no where just petty bickering/point scoring. Really is a wasted opportunity - suppose I was looking for a responsible breeder, whether pedigree or crossbreed, what could I learn from reading this, sweet F A really so what is every one trying to achieve?
> 
> Just in case there is anyone out there in cyber land trying to get some sensible information, purely from my own point of view & experience.
> 
> ...


If you had read the thread properly, you would have found answers to the questions you asked which I've highlighted in red.

I'll post it again for you.

KC registration is a useful tool for breeders and buyers because you can trace a dog's ancestry and also see what health tests the ancestors have had (or not had as the case may be)

KC Accredited Breeders have to adhere to the mandatory health tests on the list I've already posted three times on this thread. The scheme is policed and breeders are removed from it it if they do not adhere to the rules.

So the two schemes between them benefit both breeders and buyers - hardly the waste of time you're making it out to be 

It is not hard to get any info on the KC. A quick peruse of their website will furnish all this information and much much more. You do, however, need to open your eyes and read - which is something you've obviously not done on this thread.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sorry, just coming back to this after a weekend away, and (after a couple of glasses of wine) hope I'm coherent!! 

I have to admit, I've skipped a few pages, so forgive me, but there are a couple of perceptions coming out that really rankle. One, us pedigree breeders are playing God by breeding to type for a dog that is fit for a particular purpose, apologies, but that is simply rubbish. Breeding to type, and with a closed gene pool that gives us pedigrees, does not in itself create unhealthy dogs, its individuals within that system that make poor breeding choices that create unhealthy dogs. 

Also, I've owned a cross breed, I rescued her from being pts because the owners had handed her in to be pts, because they could no longer be bothered. She had a few fairly obnoxious behavioural issues, which I subjected myself and my dogs to, to ensure she had a nice retirement. She also had numerous health problems! If I'm anti cross breed, why on earth would I make such a shift in life style for one dog? 

And just for the record, showing is not only a hobby, it's there for a purpose, and anyone involved with breed clubs and the seminars surrounding health etc of different breeds, will realise why certain conformation is rewarded. It doesn't always run like clockwork, but that's down to people getting involved and making a stand for healthy breeding, which is what some of us do!! 

Horse and hound, I have responded to your pm, and I hope you can take what I post, and the direction of what I post as a genuine discussion, thank you, because it's not easy sometimes to discuss these issues and remain calm when it's something close to your heart. 

To be honest, where as many with cross breeds see these threads as a chance to bash cross breeding, there's an equal amount of pedigree bashing going on, and to me, the bashing should be the poor breeders of either, which is what the thread was really intended to highlight!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> If you had read the thread properly, you would have found answers to the questions you asked which I've highlighted in red.
> 
> I'll post it again for you.
> 
> ...


Oh yes I have read it all thanks, despite not actually needing to info wise. If someone popped by who knew nothing of all the issues involved though doubt they would!

Useful tool - for whom, Mr & Mrs average probably think KC registration actually means something and is more than a "useful tool" in which case it is highly misleading.

Policed - who by, how often?

Quote below from Leashedfor Life post:

No automated checks can be made to ensure that Accredited Breeders are following recommendations, 
but all Accredited Breeders are strongly encouraged to do so. Copies of relevant certificates may be 
held on file at the Kennel Club.
last updated July 2011:



noushka05 said:


> well why not rescue one? then you cant go wrong
> 
> look at all these little treasures at Many tears Dogs looking for homes - Many Tears Animal Rescue Homing dogs across the UK


Can't go wrong, really - suppose I am an inexperienced owner? I should take on a dog which may have issues that I am not capable of dealing with so very likely to bung it back into rescue again. Who does that help, me the dog, but because its a rescue all will be hunky dorey? Suppose its from puppy farm/really bad breeder got all sort of health and/or mental issues, does that not matter because I have been saintly & rescued then obviously will be able to deal with it. Yes fabulous if you can but its not the solution for everyone.

Please note the last bit above is not knocking rescues, I have the greatest respect & admiration for anyone who does just trying to say there are two sides to every point view


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Oh yes I have read it all thanks, despite not actually needing to info wise. If someone popped by who knew nothing of all the issues involved though doubt they would!
> 
> Useful tool - for whom, Mr & Mrs average probably think KC registration actually means something and is more than a "useful tool" in which case it is highly misleading.
> 
> ...


So what do you suggest, since the KC obviously doesn't do it for you?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

There are MANY dogs in rescue ALOT have no health or behavioural problems. If someones an in experienced owner, so cant have a rescued adult, then I would also be concerned about them having a puppy from a breeder, if research was lacking. - Many people dont rescue, but instead will buy from and support the very breeders that fill up the rescues.

There loads of plus sides to buying from a breeder that has registered the litter. If the breeder DNA profiles, even better!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> To be honest, where as many with cross breeds see these threads as a chance to bash cross breeding, there's an equal amount of pedigree bashing going on, and to me, the bashing should be the poor breeders of either, which is what the thread was really intended to highlight!


Agreed - why bash anyone's choice at all. Take bad breeding out of the equation & whether you choose to have a pedigree/cross/mongrel its a dog, don't we all like dogs? Everyone has their own preferences and reasons for choosing what they do can't we just respect that.

There are some breeds that don't float my boat so to speak, just not for me no other reason that that. I certainly would not criticise anyone one for choosing them though

I have a great big hairy cross breed he may not be everyones cup of tea but I love my dog to bits and would not change him for the world. Call him what you like, one of those Doodles, designer dog, overpriced, dog with a stupid name, mongrel, mutt etc etc I really really don't care it doesn't change how I feel about him & thats all that matters.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Agreed - why bash anyone's choice at all. Take bad breeding out of the equation & whether you choose to have a pedigree/cross/mongrel its a dog, don't we all like dogs? Everyone has their own preferences and reasons for choosing what they do can't we just respect that.


Of course respect it, but some feel cross breeding is 'bad' breeding - unless done for health or in some cases working purposes - which would be a vaild reason!! To me any breeding done without there being a vaild reason, is bad breeding so that also includes pedigree breeders, breeding for no reason.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Quote below from Leashedfor Life post:
> 
> *No automated checks can be made to ensure that Accredited Breeders are following recommendations,
> but all Accredited Breeders are strongly encouraged to do so. Copies of relevant certificates may be
> ...


_Yo, dudette or dude - 
U missed a significant chunk of QUOTE there. 
the header above that section is *RECOMMENDED tests.*

This one is the header for *required tests -*



*Requirements for Health Screening of Breeding Stock:* 
Sire & dam of any litter registered by an Accredited Breeder should have been screened 
as specified below. Refer to the KEY on the front page regarding the official health screening 
schemes, DNA tests, breed club, & other schemes.

Click to expand...

_if a KC Accredited Breeder is found *not* doing the required tests, they lose Accredited status. 
any puppy-buyer can look up what tests *should have been done* & if the documents are missing, 
report the seller - & don't buy the pup. :yesnod: Easy to do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_Dear KC, 
i tried to buy a Porcelain Periwinkle puppy from Mrs Priscilla Pearlybottom of TwinkleToes Kennels, 
located in Twittterham-on-Twee, Barnholtshire. Ms Pearlybottom is an Accredited Breeder, 
but she did not radiograph the dam & stud of her litter for hip & knee joints, had no eye-certificates 
on the dam at all, the sire's eye-certificate was 18-mos old, there were no 5-way thyroid panels, 
& neither sire nor dam had ultrasound records from a k9-cardiologist.

I was aghast at these slipshod practices, & will be reporting her under the Goods Act, also. 
sincerely, 
- Chloe Chitterton, Morley-Bungwump Farms, Bingsley._ 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

If a breeder registered as an AB has failed to test for something that is REQUIRED not ADVISED, then the KC WONT register the litter anyways - until the tests have been completed. - The KC will ask for conformation.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Of course respect it, but some feel cross breeding is 'bad' breeding - unless done for health or in some cases working purposes - which would be a vaild reason!! To me any breeding done without there being a vaild reason, is bad breeding so that also includes pedigree breeders, breeding for no reason.


Ah be careful what you wish for though, breeding for health - lots of breeds are not healthy so lets stop breeding them full stop so certain breeds would die out. Working, lets only allow those breeds who still work for the purpose they were originally created - only to be owned by people who actually work them not merely as pets. Lap dogs, not a valid reason let them die out too. So left with working dogs and those who show, showing is not what they were originally intended for so that is not a valid reason so stop those too. Not many left then really is there


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> ...many cross-breed owners] see these threads as [bashing] cross-breeding,
> [when] there's an equal amount of pedigree-bashing...
> to me, [*we] should [bash] poor breeders of either [purebreds or cross-breds], which is what the thread was really intended to highlight! *


*

precisely. 
industrial breeders with dogs who live on wire all their lives don't give a tinker's dam what breeds they sell; 
they buy, breed, & sell whatever's popular.

When the AKC blackmailed the JRTCA out of their studbook, our local petshop - which bought from BUNCHERS 
supplied by PUPPY-MILLS - had an 8-WO AKC-registered JRT-puppy for sale, just 2-weeks after the breed was 
approved for recognition. Think that was an accident?

if Bavarian Creams are the popular breed of the day, that's what they breed & sell. 
if it's Bearded Ents or Whistling Whoopdiddles next month, they'll buy breeding stock.*


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Not read through all of this thread but just wanted to point out that the KC Assured Breeders Scheme most definitely is 'policed' - 3 years ago I mated my bitch to a dog in France, I was a member of the ABS and, as has been said -health testing is mandatory for this scheme ( hips and eyes for my breed ) - the French stud dog had his A:A hip score but not a clear eye certificate because they do not test for eyes in France for my breed - never the less given the narrow gene pool, the need to breed away from epilepsy in my breed and the overall qualities of the stud dog, I stuck to my choice and did the mating - when I came to register the litter the KC contacted me and said I had not complied with their testing regulations and could no longer be a member of the scheme because I had broken the rules - to cut a long story short I succesfully argued my case and was reinstated - (and yes I was inspected again ! ) ) and I'm even more delighted that the Kc are now allowing a little 'wriggle room' so that we can use dogs from outside the UK and still remain part of the ABS. 

I firmly believe that all breeders (crossbreeds and pedigree ) should breed to the minimum standards set out in the ABS - if we have a clear benchmark for puppy buyers to look for when choosing a breeder then we're one step closer to forcing puppy farmers to change their ways or go out of business.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Not read through all of this thread but just wanted to point out that the KC Assured Breeders Scheme most definitely is 'policed' - 3 years ago I mated my bitch to a dog in France, I was a member of the ABS and, as has been said -health testing is mandatory for this scheme ( hips and eyes for my breed ) - the French stud dog had his A:A hip score but not a clear eye certificate because they do not test for eyes in France for my breed - never the less given the narrow gene pool, the need to breed away from epilepsy in my breed and the overall qualities of the stud dog, I stuck to my choice and did the mating - when I came to register the litter the KC contacted me and said I had not complied with their testing regulations and could no longer be a member of the scheme because I had broken the rules - to cut a long story short I succesfully argued my case and was reinstated - (and yes I was inspected again ! ) ) and I'm even more delighted that the Kc are now allowing a little 'wriggle room' so that we can use dogs from outside the UK and still remain part of the ABS.
> 
> I firmly believe that all breeders (crossbreeds and pedigree ) should breed to the minimum standards set out in the ABS - if we have a clear benchmark for puppy buyers to look for when choosing a breeder then we're one step closer to forcing puppy farmers to change their ways or go out of business.


Whilst that is good to hear, because there can't be any clear cut decisions regarding mandatory health testing because of the very nature of the health tests we have, ie they are a very small part of the dog in front of you, I don't believe breeding to the ABS minimum requirement should be pushed, I think there are some who are politically motivated in their reasons for pushing some health tests unfortunately, so breeders who choose not to use a particular test because they don't feel it's worthwhile (yet) may well fall short of that standard, but for a good reason, ie they don't believe in all of the tests that are being pushed by the ABS.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> Oh yes I have read it all thanks, despite not actually needing to info wise. If someone popped by who knew nothing of all the issues involved though doubt they would!
> 
> Useful tool - for whom, Mr & Mrs average probably think KC registration actually means something and is more than a "useful tool" in which case it is highly misleading.
> 
> ...


as DD has said many dogs in rescue dont have issues, infact a lot are assessed in foster homes so their temperaments and characters are well assessed... some would make perfect pets for the inexperienced dog owner:wink:..

Ive bought 4 pedigrees, my GSP and 3 of my sibes, from reputable breeders but my next dog will be a rescue... its time to give something back i'll probably rescue a sibe or sibe cross as and rescues are inundated with them! they are being churned out by all and sundry for the pet trade, and crossed with everything:cursing:.

How do people buying non kc registered pups know how many litters breeders had taken from their dogs?, and how many litters they bred in general?....things like this are important to me because i care about the dogs used for breeding aswell.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> Ah be careful what you wish for though, breeding for health - lots of breeds are not healthy so lets stop breeding them full stop so certain breeds would die out. Working, lets only allow those breeds who still work for the purpose they were originally created - only to be owned by people who actually work them not merely as pets. Lap dogs, not a valid reason let them die out too. So left with working dogs and those who show, showing is not what they were originally intended for so that is not a valid reason so stop those too. Not many left then really is there


without shows how do breeders know their dogs have say the correct conformation? dogs have to be fit for the job they were intended to do and are judged in accordance...so before someone breeds they need to know if their dog is a good example of the breed and this is why showing is so important, or we end up with only poor quality examples.

And just to add many breeds are healthy:wink:, i personally see no reason to produce more puppies simply to supply an already oversaturated pet market.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> without shows how do breeders know their dogs have say the correct conformation? dogs have to be fit for the job they were intended to do and are judged in accordance...so before someone breeds they need to know if their dog is a good example of the breed and this is why showing is so important, or we end up with only poor quality examples.
> 
> And just to add many breeds are healthy:wink:, i personally see no reason to produce more puppies simply to supply an already oversaturated pet market.


Can't get my head around this - thought it is stressed on here you should only be breeding if yours is an outstanding example of the breed so surely a "good breeder" would already know what is or isn't correct conformation etc and you wouldn't need a show to tell you? Not anti show by the way just don't understand what you are saying seems to contradict what has been said before!

Yes agree, many breeds are healthy but you haven't denied many are not. Oversaturated pet market mmm, does come across as though you think to have a dog merely as a pet is a bit disdainful? If the pet market went away ie became completely non-existant, what would you do with all the puppies that are not outstanding examples of the breed. Wouldn't it curtail breeding programmes if you had to keep all the puppies


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> Useful tool - for whom, Mr & Mrs average probably think KC registration actually means something and is more than a "useful tool" in which case it is highly misleading


Without meaning to put off anyone looking for info or any newbies, surely to God no-one comes onto an Internet forum for advice on the KC? There are no 'experts' on here, but there is a lot of misleading info from people who like to pull the semantics card and a lot of personal opinion. IMO, it would be a bit silly to purely use this place as the only source of info. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would verify facts and carry out correct research rather than rely on a forum. (I hope)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Useful tool - for whom, Mr & Mrs average probably think KC registration actually means something and is more than a "useful tool" in which case it is highly misleading.


Then that is purely the fault of Mr & Mrs Aversage. The information is there, and it is quite explicit and straightforward. If people want to believe something different (probably as a result of people like yourself and Elmo who continuously post erroneous things about KC registration on forums) then that is purely up to them. I used to believe the moon was made of green cheese - but then I read about it and learned differently.



DoodlesRule said:


> Policed - who by, how often?
> 
> Quote below from Leashedfor Life post:
> 
> ...


And here you give an excellent example of what I mean above. You have deliberately misquoted LFL's post and hence posted yet another wrong thing about the KC - as she has already pointed out.

As LFL and other have pointed out, the system is policed and policed often.

If people like you didn't post rubbish like this all over the place, Mr & Mrs Average would have a better chance of finding the correct information.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> as DD has said many dogs in rescue dont have issues, infact a lot are assessed in foster homes so their temperaments and characters are well assessed... some would make perfect pets for the inexperienced dog owner:wink:..
> 
> Ive bought 4 pedigrees, my GSP and 3 of my sibes, from reputable breeders but my next dog will be a rescue... its time to give something back i'll probably rescue a sibe or sibe cross as and rescues are inundated with them! they are being churned out by all and sundry for the pet trade, and crossed with everything:cursing:.
> 
> How do people buying non kc registered pups know how many litters breeders had taken from their dogs?, and how many litters they bred in general?....things like this are important to me because i care about the dogs used for breeding aswell.


Probably depends on where you live I suppose as to what is in the rescues. Local to me when I looked there were no puppies at all, youngish dogs were Rotties, staffy's and collieX nothing against those but if I researched and felt they were unsuitable to me/family/our lifestyle it would not change that fact simply because they were rescue dogs. You say there are a lot of sibes in rescue, as its a breed you like you will rescue next time. Well yes if there were dogs like mine in rescue then I probably would consider it. And before everyone starts finding me examples then yes I am sure there are some but in my experience not the hundreds & thousands as is suggested.

I too care about the dogs used for breeding, I know why my breeder had a GoldenDoodle in the first place and why they chose to breed her. I know whether she had a litter before or whether will have one again. I know that they hand reared the smallest girl and even though they could have sold her ten times over would not part with her after all the extra love & effort. I know they vetted buyers and turned down any they felt were unsuitable. I keep in touch with them and visit every now and then.

Thats the whole point - not all pedigree breeders are good / not all crossbreeders are bad :smile5:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Can't get my head around this - thought it is stressed on here you should only be breeding if yours is an outstanding example of the breed so surely a "good breeder" would already know what is or isn't correct conformation etc and you wouldn't need a show to tell you? Not anti show by the way just don't understand what you are saying seems to contradict what has been said before!
> 
> Yes agree, many breeds are healthy but you haven't denied many are not. Oversaturated pet market mmm, does come across as though you think to have a dog merely as a pet is a bit disdainful? If the pet market went away ie became completely non-existant, what would you do with all the puppies that are not outstanding examples of the breed. Wouldn't it curtail breeding programmes if you had to keep all the puppies


How can you tell if your dog, with good conformation, is as good as, better, or worse, than another dog of the same breed? Simple really, you line them up, and judge them accordingly against each other. No-one in their right mind would say that it can't go wrong, but done right, it does reward those with the correct conformation, and with a good temperament. I don't know that many judges would want to risk their fingers checking correct bite or running their hands over a dog that hasn't got a sound temperament.

So how many cross breeds are healthy? There simply is no in depth information out there to justify one against the other, it's a bit like saying because you know something it makes the situation worse. The fact is, there is a lot of information about pedigree breeds, unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand it and make assumptions about the information, which isn't helping the situation. There is very little information about cross breeds, which leads some people to the wrong conclusion that they must therefore be healthier.

PS you didn't answer my question about what you would like to see in place of the KC, although to be honest, I can't remember whether it was on this thread or not now, I'm easily confused


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

> dogs have to be fit for the job they were intended to do and are judged in accordance


Unfortunately for many people "fit for the job" frequently means "win at shows" otherwise you wouldn't have show breed and working breed variations. Could a "working german shepherd" win at crufts?

I think "conformation" is still too often used to simply hide the fact that the people using the term are talking about looks, not conformation for health purposes. Few people on this forum have really given examples of where "conformation" is for health and this should be pushed far more when providing reasoning. I'll try to give examples for and against conformation...

To give an example: The German Shepherd Dog Breed: The German Shepherd Dog Breed- Show Lines and Working Lines



> A mayor misconception among the German Shepherd dog enthusiasts and even some breeders and trainers is that German Shepherds from Show Lines are only bred for conformation and are unable to work as efficiently as German Shepherds from Working Lines. This is not entirely true.


Sounds good until you get to


> Working Line German Shepherds also have more drive than the average Show Line German Shepherd. They are normally more energetic than Show Line German Shepherds and have a stable though stronger temperament, solid nerves and great disposition. They are also generally healthier.


So here we have someone who likes the German Shepherd. They state that Show Line German Shepherds generally have a better temperament for being a "companion pet" but that working dogs are generally healthier. This isn't simply due to lifestyle. I have heard that the German Shepherd association (whatever it's called in the UK) are one of the more receptive towards criticism and are willing to listen and make improvements.

I've given a simply example of why conformation can be bad. On the flip side the only example I can immediately think of is the case of merle gene. The wiki has



> The merle gene is associated with congenital deafness, with merle dogs being more likely than other dogs to be born deaf. Dogs with two copies of the merle gene (homozygous merle) have an even higher chance of being born deaf...
> ....Dogs who are homozygous for the merle pattern gene often have visual and auditory deficits.[3] These dogs are sometimes referred to as 'double merle' and sometimes incorrectly referred to as 'lethal white.' Ocular defects include micropthalmia, conditions causing increased ocular pressure, and colobomas, among others.[5] Double merle dogs may be deaf or blind or both, and can carry ocular defects in blue or colored eyes...


The Merle gene is generally banned when talking about conformation for this reason. So, in this case, the "conformation" standard really is being health based. As someone not involved in breeding though you don't hear about things like this unless you run into problems with your own dog.

I know there are many other examples on both sides. The trouble is, for every instance where the breed standard is for health reasons, there is another instance where a breed standard is not and far more noticeable. A lot more work needs to go into informing people as to the health reasons for conformation before it can be put forward to the general population as justification for going to a specific breeder.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Goblin said:


> *Unfortunately for many people "fit for the job" frequently means "win at shows" otherwise you wouldn't have show breed and working breed variations.* Could a "working german shepherd" win at crufts?
> 
> I think "conformation" is still too often used to simply hide the fact that the people using the term are talking about looks, not conformation for health purposes. Few people on this forum have really given examples of where "conformation" is for health and this should be pushed far more when providing reasoning. I'll try to give examples for and against conformation...
> 
> ...


Whilst I agree with that statement to some extent, there are people who work incredibly hard to breed dogs according to the BS that are fit for function, and the continual criticism of pedigree dogs and breeding is incredibly wearing. Yes, there are definitely people who are out to win at all costs, and breed to do that, rather than to what their ideal interpretation of the BS is with much research into the breed and it's origins, so what would you do, throw the BS out of the window, give up on having pedigree breeds completely? That would be a sad day for me


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Can't get my head around this - thought it is stressed on here you should only be breeding if yours is an outstanding example of the breed so surely a "good breeder" would already know what is or isn't correct conformation etc and you wouldn't need a show to tell you? Not anti show by the way just don't understand what you are saying seems to contradict what has been said before!


Sadly, most people don't know what makes a good example. We talk of health tests, but there are health tests for good construction and confirmation - poor confirmation can lead to health problems too. A good breeder should have a good idea (although there is a huge amount to learn so it is an ongoing process), but showing enables others to give their opinion too - it is easy to become biased when they are your own dogs - look how many pet owners think their dogs are good examples of a breed!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Then that is purely the fault of Mr & Mrs Aversage. The information is there, and it is quite explicit and straightforward. If people want to believe something different (probably as a result of people like yourself and Elmo who continuously post erroneous things about KC registration on forums) then that is purely up to them. I used to believe the moon was made of green cheese - but then I read about it and learned differently.
> 
> And here you give an excellent example of what I mean above. You have deliberately misquoted LFL's post and hence posted yet another wrong thing about the KC - as she has already pointed out.
> 
> ...


I have not deliberately misquoted anyone and if I did that was not my intention, whereas you have taken the whole of what I said out of context. I was saying what a waste of time the thread had turned into as it had descended into arguing/point scoring.

I have not posted rubbish about the KC it was a question not a statement "was it policed?" LFL's comment that I saw indicated it wasn't, I did not read all the copious lists on LFL's reply just scanned it so obviously I missed whatever was said later and as you say, other people have confirmed it is policed and how. So now I know that the accredited scheme does involve more than just standard pedigree registration and due to another reply see there are reasons why some good breeders choose not to go that way.

"People like you & Elmo" what, people who do not agree with you or ask questions you do not like? I don't know Elmo I agree with some things he/she says here others I don't; I don't know you; you may or may not know Elmo I have no idea but you certainly do not know me. However once you have to resort to comments such as 'people like you' realise its because you have no valid point to make.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> "People like you & Elmo" what, people who do not agree with you or ask questions you do not like?


No, as I said in my post, people who post untrue and derogatory comments about the KC and thus make the job of Mr & Mrs Average harder when buying a pup.

I have no problem with people who do not agree with my views. I do, however, have a problem with people who post untruths as facts.



DoodlesRule said:


> I don't know Elmo I agree with some things he/she says here others I don't; I don't know you; you may or may not know Elmo I have no idea but you certainly do not know me. However once you have to resort to comments such as 'people like you' realise its because you have no valid point to make.


Yet again you have read something and taken it completely out of the context in which it was written. All I know about you and Elmo is what you post on here. And what both you post on here is frequently derogatory and untrue commments about the KC. So my comment about "people like you and Elmo" in that context are true and in no way, as you would like to make out, becaue I have no point to make. On the contrary, my point is a very valid one. I repeat, if people like you did not post as many derogatory and untrue comments about the KC. then Mr & Mrs Average would not have to wade through so much dross to get to the truth.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> How can you tell if your dog, with good conformation, is as good as, better, or worse, than another dog of the same breed? Simple really, you line them up, and judge them accordingly against each other. No-one in their right mind would say that it can't go wrong, but done right, it does reward those with the correct conformation, and with a good temperament. I don't know that many judges would want to risk their fingers checking correct bite or running their hands over a dog that hasn't got a sound temperament.
> 
> So how many cross breeds are healthy? There simply is no in depth information out there to justify one against the other, it's a bit like saying because you know something it makes the situation worse. The fact is, there is a lot of information about pedigree breeds, unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand it and make assumptions about the information, which isn't helping the situation. There is very little information about cross breeds, which leads some people to the wrong conclusion that they must therefore be healthier.
> 
> PS you didn't answer my question about what you would like to see in place of the KC, although to be honest, I can't remember whether it was on this thread or not now, I'm easily confused


Thank you very good points which I take on board, and you make your comments without attacking me or getting personal simply because I have a crossbreed so I really appreciate that. Seems we sit on opposite sides of the fence but can talk about it reasonably without verbal bashing. Maybe if I had been able to find someone like you with a sound reasoned point of view to have a sensible discussion with I could have reached a different decision.

Yes am confusing myself too! KC answer - I honestly don't know what the solution is but said somewhere else its such a vast database and could be made more useful than it is. I asked the KC directly why they did not use it to collate information about illnesses/reason & age at death, they replied that did not feel it would serve a useful purpose and many breeders may choose not to register with the KC if such detail was required & hence readily available in the public domain :huh:

Crosses - again I don't have an answer unless an alternative registration system was available, but unless it was compulsory that all dogs have to be registered any system would fail.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Thank you very good points which I take on board, and you make your comments without attacking me or getting personal simply because I have a crossbreed so I really appreciate that. Seems we sit on opposite sides of the fence but can talk about it reasonably without verbal bashing. Maybe if I had been able to find someone like you with a sound reasoned point of view to have a sensible discussion with I could have reached a different decision.
> 
> Yes am confusing myself too! KC answer - I honestly don't know what the solution is but said somewhere else its such a vast database and could be made more useful than it is. I asked the KC directly why they did not use it to collate information about illnesses/reason & age at death, they replied that did not feel it would serve a useful purpose and many breeders may choose not to register with the KC if such detail was required & hence readily available in the public domain :huh:
> 
> Crosses - again I don't have an answer unless an alternative registration system was available, but unless it was compulsory that all dogs have to be registered any system would fail.


What I would like to see, is every dog bred being identified, with the breeder being responsible, ultimately, for the life of every pup they breed, ensuring they are all found good homes, taking them back if the owner for whatever reason can't keep them on. So each pup/dog should be sold with a contract and the terms and conditions laid out, including any requirements for breeding on in the future.

All information on any dog could simply be entered into an information database, so things like health issues relating to poor conformation or breeding practices, can be tracked. That has to be good for anyone buying a pup, because they can then choose a breeder with that information in mind, ie those breeders that are doing their best to produce happy healthy pups.

There is an issue with people who breed Labs purely as pets, as they breed for colour (chocolate Labs being the most popular as pets) and without breeding for conformation, this can leave them prone to related injuries. Chocolate Labs have a high incidence of cruciate injuries, and this can be because of poor conformation of the knee joint or stifle, all of this is, I think, linked, and one reason why showing *should* work in favour of the dogs, because poor conformation shouldn't be rewarded in the show ring.

Unfortunately, with some breeds an aspect of the breed standard has been focussed on to the detriment of a breed, such as with GSD's where those who breed for the sloping back end, have produced dogs that struggle to even walk properly. Not all are like that, but certainly some are, and it's sad to see. There are regular seminars within breed clubs to discuss health issues, and this is where anyone pushing for ethical breeding needs to really shout loud about any aspect that causes problems and is of a detriment to the health of the dog. But this also needs to happen with cross breeds, the same health problems can and do occur, such as luxating patellas with toy breeds, it all needs to be looked at across the board, without a get out clause for people who wrongly promote their breed as healthy without actually knowing the health status of their dogs.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Whilst I agree with that statement to some extent, there are people who work incredibly hard to breed dogs according to the BS that are fit for function, and the continual criticism of pedigree dogs and breeding is incredibly wearing. Yes, there are definitely people who are out to win at all costs, and breed to do that, rather than to what their ideal interpretation of the BS is with much research into the breed and it's origins, so what would you do, throw the BS out of the window, give up on having pedigree breeds completely? That would be a sad day for me


I certainly agree that there are many people who work incredibly hard to breed to breed standards for the well being and health of the breed and I deliberately don't use the term "fit for function" there. It's always a case though that for the general public the bad examples are the ones which set the general tone.

I think one of the first steps about breed standards is that they should, as the first point define what the dog's function actually is. This should be the first point when looking at a breed standard. Easy for some dog breeds, a lot harder than others when the function used to be something like hunting lions  Looking at Retriever (Labrador) Breed Standard - The Kennel Club for example the first point is general appearance. Health and welfare don't get mentioned until the faults part. Bearing this is mind it is easy to understand why looks seem more important than other considerations.

The Kennel Club do have a campaign of "fit for function" but how well advertised is that to the general populace ? As part of this it's a good step that


> The Kennel Club has announced that all dogs of the fifteen high profile breeds which win Best of Breed at Crufts 2012 and at all Kennel Club licensed General and Group Championship Shows after that, will need to be given a clean bill of health by the show veterinary surgeon before their Best of Breed awards are confirmed


As much as it pains me to say it in some ways, the negativity of the idea "looks before health" will mean that the show vet will be seen as biased. If a dog is disqualified the KC will need to highlight the fact to get credibility. The vet needs to be seen as totally ignoring breed standard and looking only at overall health. Sad fact I know and I don't know how successfully it can be done.

I do believe the KC is a necessary force for good. I do believe pedigree dogs have their place. I do believe many breeders are doing everything they can to provide for a breeds quality of life. I do not believe that they do a good job at changing perceptions in the population at large and this is an area that needs a lot of work.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Goblin said:


> I certainly agree that there are many people who work incredibly hard to breed to breed standards for the well being and health of the breed and I deliberately don't use the term "fit for function" there. It's always a case though that for the general public the bad examples are the ones which set the general tone.
> 
> I think one of the first steps about breed standards is that they should, as the first point define what the dog's function actually is. This should be the first point when looking at a breed standard. Easy for some dog breeds, a lot harder than others when the function used to be something like hunting lions  Looking at Retriever (Labrador) Breed Standard - The Kennel Club for example the first point is general appearance. Health and welfare don't get mentioned until the faults part. Bearing this is mind it is easy to understand why looks seem more important than other considerations.
> 
> ...


One thing I'd like to see, which doesn't happen as much with showing, is places witheld more for dogs that aren't good examples. If only two or three dogs are entered into a show, and they're not the best the breed has to offer, why give them such an accolade as a first place? That person will then advertise that fact all over the place, to promote their dog, I've seen it done.

I do agree with you entirely, and I think that vets should clamp down on dogs that aren't healthy, whether that's a conformation issue, skin issue etc, or simply too much weight on the dog. But I think part of the problem is that the puppy buying public are simply lazy, the information is there if they just look for a short while, I always reply to emails with a load of information, and very rarely do I get thanked, or even taken up on the offer to help find a pup. People don't want to know if it means lifting a finger, I'm sure if they could buy a puppy online and have it delivered, they would, along with their weekly shop!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> Can't get my head around this - thought it is stressed on here you should only be breeding if yours is an outstanding example of the breed so surely a "good breeder" would already know what is or isn't correct conformation etc and you wouldn't need a show to tell you? Not anti show by the way just don't understand what you are saying seems to contradict what has been said before!
> 
> Yes agree, many breeds are healthy but you haven't denied many are not. Oversaturated pet market mmm, does come across as though you think to have a dog merely as a pet is a bit disdainful? If the pet market went away ie became completely non-existant, what would you do with all the puppies that are not outstanding examples of the breed. Wouldn't it curtail breeding programmes if you had to keep all the puppies


lol of course the more you go to shows the more knowledgable you become about the correct conformation of your breed, so those who have been in the breed a long enough know a quality dog when they see one yes, but its still important to get them assessed independantly by judges who know and understand the breed aswell and also against other dogs of the same breed , no dog is perfect so you should get to know your dogs strenghths and weaknesses before breeding.....Sleepinglion has said it all really, i dont believe the vast majority of pet breeders know anything much about conformation

i wasnt meaning to sound disdainful about people having dogs as pets most of my own dogs i dont show, all of them equally adored pets.....i was talking about people breeding merely to supply pets, look at the ad sites? theres zillions at it, the majority just chucking two random dogs together to make a bit of cash...and plenty of puppies from show breeders go to pet homes


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> Probably depends on where you live I suppose as to what is in the rescues. Local to me when I looked there were no puppies at all, youngish dogs were Rotties, staffy's and collieX nothing against those but if I researched and felt they were unsuitable to me/family/our lifestyle it would not change that fact simply because they were rescue dogs. You say there are a lot of sibes in rescue, as its a breed you like you will rescue next time. Well yes if there were dogs like mine in rescue then I probably would consider it. And before everyone starts finding me examples then yes I am sure there are some but in my experience not the hundreds & thousands as is suggested.
> 
> I too care about the dogs used for breeding, I know why my breeder had a GoldenDoodle in the first place and why they chose to breed her. I know whether she had a litter before or whether will have one again. I know that they hand reared the smallest girl and even though they could have sold her ten times over would not part with her after all the extra love & effort. I know they vetted buyers and turned down any they felt were unsuitable. I keep in touch with them and visit every now and then.
> 
> Thats the whole point - not all pedigree breeders are good / not all crossbreeders are bad :smile5:


Many tears have something for everyone i would think:wink:.you can adopt from them where ever you live

ive never said all pedigree breeders are good infact i'd go so far as to say the majority are quite the opposite, but finding a crossbreeder who comes anywhere close to the best pedigree breeders is like looking for a needle in a haystack im afraid.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I too care about the dogs used for breeding, I know why my breeder had a GoldenDoodle in the first place
> & why they chose to breed her. I know whether she had a litter before or whether will have one again.


so they chose to breed a cross-bred dam - which as i've already pointed out, only increases the random outcome 
in the progeny; F1 hybrids are relatively consistent in appearance, coat texture [tho not shed/non-shed], & etc, 
but breeding an F1 to a parent-breed [Golden or Poodle] emphasizes one or the other, yet randomizes some traits.

F1 x F1 makes for a complex assorting; it can result in dogs who resemble one parent-breed but are a funny color, 
have unusual markings from a masked trait, double-up on deleterious traits & rather than carry, are affected dogs, 
& so on. Goldens due to the pigment-trait they carry often throw black pups when crossed - not blondes.

hip-dysplasia is a risk in both breeds; an F1 bred for F2s raises the risk. 
UAP is a definite risk in Goldens - again, an F2 has enhanced risk.

IMO they made a bad breeding decision. Did they *health screen?* hip & elbow radiographs, SA skin-punch, 
vWD bloodwork, *wait till sire & dam were 2-YO to breed for the first time,* 5-way thyroid panels? 
eye-certificates from a k9-opthalmologist? DNA test for cataracts?

KC *required* & RECommended tests for Goldens & Poodles - 
Poodle, Miniature:__ *Eye testing* REC: DNA test - prcd-PRA 
Poodle, Standard:___ *1) Hip scoring 2) Eye testing* REC: Breed club - sebaceous adenitis testing 
Retriever, Golden:___ *1) Hip scoring 2) Eye testing* REC: Elbow grading

what tests were done - if any?

if not - why not?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I know whether she had a litter before or whether will have one again.


can you prove it though  - nope didnt think so, damn the KC that could prove both the above, if dogs were registered under them. 

- and as for dogs in rescue, dogs dont need to be in local shelters for there to be a problem. - There is an over breeding for most breeds at the moment, and most of the over breeding is done by them supplying a pet market from my expereince . . . . The breeders that are only breeding to 'sell' on puppies, I dont agree with that with pedigree or crosses, and cant agree with cross breeding because 'most' are only breeding to supply the pet markets demand (not that big of a demand with all the dogs PTS in rescues mind!!)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> can you prove it though  - nope didnt think so, damn the KC that could prove both the above, if dogs were registered under them.
> 
> - and as for dogs in rescue, dogs dont need to be in local shelters for there to be a problem. - There is an over breeding for most breeds at the moment, and most of the over breeding is done by them supplying a pet market from my expereince . . . . The breeders that are only breeding to 'sell' on puppies, I dont agree with that with pedigree or crosses, and cant agree with cross breeding because 'most' are only breeding to supply the pet markets demand (not that big of a demand with all the dogs PTS in rescues mind!!)


True DD, but unfortunately, there are unscrupulous breeders who don't register all the litters with the KC, or breed cross breeds inbetween registered litters. I know one guy with a bargain pedigree without papers, who's Labrador dog was out of the seventh litter from a bitch, and he wanted to use him on my bitch


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> True DD, but unfortunately, there are unscrupulous breeders who don't register all the litters with the KC, or breed cross breeds inbetween registered litters. I know one guy with a bargain pedigree without papers, who's Labrador dog was out of the seventh litter from a bitch, and he wanted to use him on my bitch


oh of course there are such breeders, but its something there to help buyers find a good breeder, which is better than nothing. - although to checking into a breeder shouldnt end there.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> oh of course there are such breeders, but its something there to help buyers find a good breeder, which is better than nothing. - although to checking into a breeder shouldnt end there.


Part of the problem is *some* puppy buyers, just don't want to make any effort when it comes to buying a pup, and if they're buying from someone who isn't ethical, they don't want to know, they'd rather be ignorant than feel guilty.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Part of the problem is *some* puppy buyers, just don't want to make any effort when it comes to buying a pup, and if they're buying from someone who isn't ethical, they don't want to know, they'd rather be ignorant than feel guilty.


Exactly and thats why so many BYB are still able to produce and sell puppies.  - & its a massive problem!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Exactly and thats why so many BYB are still able to produce and sell puppies.  - & its a massive problem!


Is it a massive problem, who for, where? Sure it probably is in some areas but not where I live - just wondered if you had personal experience of this or just quoting something you have read


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Is it a massive problem, who for, where? Sure it probably is in some areas but not where I live - just wondered if you had personal experience of this or just quoting something you have read


It's a massive problem everywhere in the UK unfortunately, take a peek in the small ads of your local paper, on places like epupz etc, the scale of the problem is enormous. I was at a friend's house this weekend, she's involved with staffy rescue, and over 50 at pts every day. So who's breeding them?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Is it a massive problem, who for, where? Sure it probably is in some areas but not where I live - just wondered if you had personal experience of this or just quoting something you have read


It a massive problems for rescues, the dogs that are being PTS daily becauses theres no room or funds to keep them 

- I still dont get your point, its not a problem near you? Think you will find the rescue problem is world wide, maybe time you take your head out the sand? - Yes personal experience, working with three rescues, transporting, home checking, fund rasing, fostering and any thing else - Ive seen it all...


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> Is it a massive problem, who for, where? Sure it probably is in some areas but not where I live - just wondered if you had personal experience of this or just quoting something you have read


Surely you have recue centres near you? There are two huge ones near me. Just look at Many Tears and see all the cross and 'pedigree' puppies advertised, as well as the ex breeding dogs who are ' no longer needed'. Nice.


----------



## DAVIDnCASS (Jul 19, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> You see this is it in a nutshell - far too many of the public think show dogs are bred purely for beauty. Therein lies the problem, the actual look of a dog is secondary to what it was originally bred for (in most breeds, not all, before someone jumps on that one, lol!). My own breed is the size it is and has the front construction it does and the rear construction it does and the deep chest it does and the feet it does for a reason other than pure beauty. The rottweiler is made the way it is to allow it to be an 'endurance trotter' to work on its feet all day and have the power to deal with cattle.
> 
> There is of course, more to the breed than that too, I am just trying to explain it simply.:wink:


Like this a lot!

Was telling someone recently that the Rottie was a cattle dog and he told me I was wrong.... tried to tell me they are guard dogs!!!:cursing:

Dick!:cursing:


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

cinammontoast said:


> Surely you have recue centres near you? There are two huge ones near me. Just look at Many Tears and see all the cross and 'pedigree' puppies advertised, as well as the ex breeding dogs who are ' no longer needed'. Nice.


One RSPCA & 2 independants - no there are no "Doodle" crosses. Other crosses yes but more pedigrees than crosses.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> One RSPCA & 2 independants - no there are no "Doodle" crosses. Other crosses yes but more pedigrees than crosses.


no doodle crosses? maybe its just that rescues dont put them down as doodles, and states what they are poodle cross X and Y!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> One RSPCA & 2 independants - no there are no "Doodle" crosses. Other crosses yes but more pedigrees than crosses.


Not sure why you mention that there are no doodles? I bet if you did a head count, there'd be more staffies than anything else.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

DAVIDnCASS said:


> [i told] someone recently that the Rottie was a cattle dog & he [said] they are guard dogs!


so? :huh: Rotts ARE guard-dogs. They've been used as guard-dogs for far, far longer than they were as drovers. 
they did not just drive cattle - they GUARDED the herd. Why is that so shocking? What's the problem?

they've been used as property-guardians for several centuries; they quit moving cattle to market 
by 1800 or earlier, as dogs who herd [rather than simply drive] became more popular worldwide.

what's wrong with being a guarding breed?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> One RSPCA & 2 independants - no there are no "Doodle" crosses. Other crosses yes but more pedigrees than crosses.


How do you know they're pedigrees? It may state 'Labrador', but I know someone with a dog they thought was a Labrador x JRT, had a dna test done, turned out to be a right old mix with no Labrador whatsoever in there, more like collie and terrier, but at first glance she looked *mostly* like a Labrador.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> - I still dont get your point, its not a problem near you? Think you will find the rescue problem is world wide, maybe time you take your head out the sand?


Not necessarily the case even within Europe. German shelters are, I believe no kill shelters as they generally do not have a problem. In fact a lot of people import rescue dogs from outside Germany to prevent them being put to sleep. Sites I know point to rescues in Spain and Hungary for example. Our American Bulldog came from Hungary.

You may find Carodog - National Legislation and Standards an interesting page and the site of may generally be of interest.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Not necessarily the case even within Europe. German shelters are, I believe no kill shelters as they generally do not have a problem. In fact a lot of people import rescue dogs from outside Germany to prevent them being put to sleep. Sites I know point to rescues in Spain and Hungary for example. Our American Bulldog came from Hungary.
> 
> You may find Carodog - National Legislation and Standards an interesting page and the site of may generally be of interest.


But then Germany also have a ban on certain breeds, like staffies for one 

Banned Dogs In Germany!! | Dog Groups.com Dog Groups.com


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Not necessarily the case even within Europe. German shelters are, I believe no kill shelters as they generally do not have a problem. In fact a lot of people import rescue dogs from outside Germany to prevent them being put to sleep. Sites I know point to rescues in Spain and Hungary for example. Our American Bulldog came from Hungary.
> 
> You may find Carodog - National Legislation and Standards an interesting page and the site of may generally be of interest.


Thank you - that is the exact point I was trying to make. It is very easy to have strong/fixed opinions, or to put it less politely be very opinionated, without your views actually having a strong basis in fact.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> no doodle crosses? maybe its just that rescues dont put them down as doodles, and states what they are poodle cross X and Y!


Well blow me down, I never thought of that how uneducated am I.

Actually I usually refer to my dog as a golden retriever cross but I know you like the Doodle names so much did not like to disappoint you :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2011)

Labradoodles do end up in rescues as do many cross breeds and pedigree's.

Dogs Trust - WOODY
Labradoodle Trust l Dogs Available for Adoption

In Shelties the amount ending up in rescue every year is low (the exact numbers for hte breed rescue who do aks other rescues to pass over any shelties) are on their site.

However it doesnt mean some idiots shouldnt stop breeding, I would rather the bad breeders who do pump out loads of litters for money stop breeding now than let the breed end up like staffies are...

Labradoodles or poodle crosses to be more exact do come into rescues quite frequently but will be marked as cross or poodle cross as its so hard to tell what they are sometimes (even more so if they have been mis-treated and their coats are matted or shaved off).

All breeds of dog end up in rescues and to look in rescues you can see there is a major problem with the amounts of dogs being bred to the homes that are there for them.

30% of folk out there want the latest must have breed....rather than a pet to love and look after for life. The second that dog gets older or another must have comes along they throw the dog out. Its pathetic and it makes me so angry.


----------



## DAVIDnCASS (Jul 19, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> so? :huh: Rotts ARE guard-dogs. They've been used as guard-dogs for far, far longer than they were as drovers.
> they did not just drive cattle - they GUARDED the herd. Why is that so shocking? What's the problem?
> 
> they've been used as property-guardians for several centuries; they quit moving cattle to market
> ...


I never said there was anything wrong with a dog being a guarding breed, the point was that the guy was saying they were never cattle dogs.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But then Germany also have a ban on certain breeds, like staffies for one


I know and I hate Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). My understanding of the BSL in germany is that it's a case for individual states to decide apart from the Pitbull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and bull terrier which are banned point blank. In Lower Saxony for instance there is no additional BSL which is why we can have an american bulldog. I've found Punish the Deed, not the Breed! more useful than the link you posted although the state names are in german.

But I digress.. from bad breeders and rescue situation.


----------



## Angels_Sin (Dec 16, 2008)

Personally I think there should be a lot less breeding all round (both crosses and pedigree) whilst there are so many unwanted beautiful dogs in desperate need of a home in shelters around the country.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Labradoodles do end up in rescues as do many cross breeds and pedigree's.
> 
> Dogs Trust - WOODY
> Labradoodle Trust l Dogs Available for Adoption
> ...


Agree with the majority of what you are saying and anyone with an interest in dogs welfare is aware that Staffys are sadly one of the biggest current issues in rescue - its been different breeds in the past. Surely the problem is in the owners who are willing to give up their dogs at the first sign of anything like hard work, and that is not breed specific its owner specific.

I am not disputing that some poodleX end in rescue but what I do strongly object to is that a lot here seem to think poodleX automatically = bad breeder / bad owner = ends in rescue. Thats just prejudiced tosh, unless you can back it up with facts not supposition

I can't agree that 30% merely want the latest must have breed and dump it for the next one that comes along, simply because I don't know that 30% is a fact or what its based on. There are a lot of stupid people out and about and yes probably a % of them are daft enough to pick a dog because its been in some film or won crufts. All I am saying is I don't know any. I personally don't know anyone who has dumped their dog at all - perhaps I only know nice people


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

DAVIDnCASS said:


> I never said there was anything wrong with a dog being a guarding breed,
> the point was that the guy was saying they were never cattle dogs.


Ah! :yesnod: now i see - i was very puzzled.  Gotcha.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Agree with the majority of what you are saying and anyone with an interest in dogs welfare is aware that Staffys are sadly one of the biggest current issues in rescue - its been different breeds in the past. Surely the problem is in the owners who are willing to give up their dogs at the first sign of anything like hard work, and that is not breed specific its owner specific.
> 
> *I am not disputing that some poodleX end in rescue but what I do strongly object to is that a lot here seem to think poodleX automatically = bad breeder / bad owner = ends in rescue. Thats just prejudiced tosh, unless you can back it up with facts not supposition*
> 
> I can't agree that 30% merely want the latest must have breed and dump it for the next one that comes along, simply because I don't know that 30% is a fact or what its based on. There are a lot of stupid people out and about and yes probably a % of them are daft enough to pick a dog because its been in some film or won crufts. All I am saying is I don't know any. I personally don't know anyone who has dumped their dog at all - perhaps I only know nice people


The problem is, the majority of cross breeders I've come across are cutting corners, and breeding at best commercially, so not the best breeders. Whereas yes, there are a lot of bad breeders of pedigree breeds, but it seems easier to find the good ones. I know I've looked before to satisfy my curiosity regarding different cross breeds, and there's a lot of them who do little or no health tests, possibly just the stud dog who's tested clear for whatever condition they think appropriate, and that's it. So when people talk about people who breed cross breeds who are unethical, they do mean those who are breeding badly, which does, to someone like me who would like to see all appropriate health tests being done for both breeds, pups sold under contract, and breeders able to take pups back if new owners can't cope (which has to be difficult to guarantee when you're breeding ten or more litters in one go) - seem to be the majority unfortunately, ethical cross breeders seem a bit like hens teeth. But that's down to supply and demand, people want them, but they aren't willing to wait, or hold out for someone who breeds ethically, our lifestyle means when we want something these days, we want it now, and when we don't want it, well, someone else can just pick up the pieces because everything (unfortunately) is disposable


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> ...Germany [has] a ban on certain breeds, like staffies for one
> 
> Banned Dogs In Germany!! | Dog Groups.com Dog Groups.com


they also ban Dobes - but not GSDs, who actually bit / bite far-more German citizens than did Dobes. 
weird. :crazy: Logic is not a part of BSL.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Originally Posted by DoodlesRule
> I too care about the dogs used for breeding, I know why my breeder had a GoldenDoodle in the first place
> & why they chose to breed her. I know whether she had a litter before or whether will have one again.


In your case that may be true, I certainly wouldn't comment on that, but the posts on this forum alone regarding people who have been duped by the breeder who seemed very 'nice', shows how easy it is to dupe buyers who take a breeders word for it.


----------



## DAVIDnCASS (Jul 19, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> Ah! :yesnod: now i see - i was very puzzled.  Gotcha.


Sorry, when I went back and read my post I realised I'd not made my point as clear as I should have.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

DAVIDnCASS said:


> Like this a lot!
> 
> Was telling someone recently that the Rottie was a cattle dog and he told me I was wrong.... tried to tell me they are guard dogs!!!:cursing:
> 
> Dick!:cursing:


LOL! yeah, some people dont realise just how versatile these dogs are, they not just for guarding, to many do just think that. :wink:



leashedForLife said:


> so? :huh: Rotts ARE guard-dogs. They've been used as guard-dogs for far, far longer than they were as drovers.
> they did not just drive cattle - they GUARDED the herd. Why is that so shocking? What's the problem?
> 
> they've been used as property-guardians for several centuries; they quit moving cattle to market
> ...


I think the problem with having the Guarding reputation in this day and age is not good for the general publics perception of the Rottweiler, or indeed, any breed with this 'tag'. As I said above, the Rottweiler is very versatile and can excell in many different canine sports/work, as it has in the past. :wink:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Well blow me down, I never thought of that how uneducated am I.
> 
> Actually I usually refer to my dog as a golden retriever cross but I know you like the Doodle names so much did not like to disappoint you :smilewinkgrin:


I hope you realise how silly you sound  the only thing I am disappointed with is the fact that people are not aware of the rescue situation in the UK, and the fact that 'adults' cant respect others opinions without resorting to childish remarks...The doodle name means little to me, its a made up word to make something sound better than it is  I mean why does a poodle cross JRT need to be a jackadoodle, sounds better doesnt it than stating the cross it is, and some what fools owners/buyers into believing their purchasing a new established breed...Ohh how so wrong they are.

I wonder if there is, or if there will be a doodle rescue? The people passionate about these crosses can then be apart of helping out them in need? or is that always going to be left to us working with the 'pedigree' breed rescues who pick up the pieces when their beloved breed is crossed to a poodle to make the lastest 'oodle'?? - You know the very pedigree breeders who are so bad, hence the crossing in the first place


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> How do people buying non kc registered pups know how many litters breeders had taken from their dogs?, and how many litters they bred in general?....things like this are important to me because i care about the dogs used for breeding aswell.


Neither of mine are KC registered. I would have preferred they were but it actually makes no difference at all. How will that prove how many litters the bitch has bred. As has been said a lot of poodle breeders breed doodles so they will not be registered. They could have had any number of unregistered pure litters too.

But I would not go to a breeder with a lot of bitches or buy from a saggy old brood bitch. One of mine was a sort of accidental mating and was the first litter the bloke had bred for years though it did actually get him keen and he is doing more breeding now - so possibly I would not want to buy a pup from him now. He put so much time and effort into the litter, he could not be faulted. The other one came from a friend and it was the bitch's first litter and was bred on purpose. So yes, I do know that the bitches were not being overbred.

Surely puppy farms are wrong whether the bitches are health tested and puppies registered or not - but nothing wrong with someone having the odd litter out of their nice bitch if they rear the pups well.

There is a huge call for small breed pups for the pet market. When I was looking vaguely for a pup I was phoning up about lots of different breeds mainly just to test the market - and 9 times out of ten the litter was all spoken for a few days after the free ads came out. It took quite a time to actually find a pup.

I look online at rescues and have yet to see anything I would want. I did contact both poodle rescue and the other small breed I have owned, sheltie rescue - but neither showed any interest in me and never got back. If you just want 'a dog' rescue is fine but if you know what you want it is not any good unless you hit very lucky and on the whole the 'nice' breeds are snapped up. Years ago there was a kennel of standard poodles rescued from the breeder of my standard. I was very upset to hear about it obviously and I offered to take one but they were all spoken for immediately. If you want a staffie, collie, lurcher or terrier type then I am sure you can get the rescue of your dreams but otherwise you have to go to the breeder.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> I am not disputing that some poodleX end in rescue but what I do strongly object to is that a lot here seem to think poodleX automatically = bad breeder / bad owner = ends in rescue. Thats just prejudiced tosh, unless you can back it up with facts not supposition


A lot here? Not this thread, unless you mean people query the health backgrounds of 'fashionable' dogs as Sleeping_lion mentions after your post. It's supply and demand. Education is essential, particularly as _some_ buyers believe the non-shedding element of some crosses to be 100% for all the puppies of such crosses.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Blitz said:


> As has been said a lot of poodle breeders breed doodles so they will not be registered. They could have had any number of unregistered pure litters too.


is this through experience? - I knows LOTS of Poodle breeders, none would even consider studding a Poodle out to another breed, let alone breed the crosses themselves


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blitz said:


> Neither of mine are KC registered. I would have preferred they were but it actually makes no difference at all. How will that prove how many litters the bitch has bred. As has been said a lot of poodle breeders breed doodles so they will not be registered. They could have had any number of unregistered pure litters too.
> 
> But I would not go to a breeder with a lot of bitches or buy from a saggy old brood bitch. One of mine was a sort of accidental mating and was the first litter the bloke had bred for years though it did actually get him keen and he is doing more breeding now - so possibly I would not want to buy a pup from him now. He put so much time and effort into the litter, he could not be faulted. The other one came from a friend and it was the bitch's first litter and was bred on purpose. So yes, I do know that the bitches were not being overbred.
> 
> ...


No but its one tool to use when researching breeders who kc register, i dont personally know any poodle breeders, but if they show than i dare say the majority are like the other show breeders i know and are strongly opposed to crossing their chosen breed with another breed, but i dare say there will be a few who care only about making money out of their dogs!..so thats why its crucial for people to do their research.

puppy farmers are most definately wrong whatever they do, same for commercial breeders.As for people taking a litter from their bitch i just dont agree with it for lots of reasons, one being most of them dont even know anything about breeding, you only have to look at the breeding section on here....its absolutely shocking

check out Many tears they always seems to have lots of poodles and small dogs available, if i wanted to buy a puppy i personally would rather wait if i had to and buy a puppy from a reputable breeder ...my friends next door neighbours waited quite a while for their miniature poodle...and hes a little cracker.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> no doodle crosses? maybe its just that rescues dont put them down as doodles, and states what they are poodle cross X and Y!





Devil-Dogz said:


> I hope you realise how silly you sound  the only thing I am disappointed with is the fact that people are not aware of the rescue situation in the UK, and the fact that 'adults' cant respect others opinions without resorting to childish remarks...The doodle name means little to me, its a made up word to make something sound better than it is  I mean why does a poodle cross JRT need to be a jackadoodle, sounds better doesnt it than stating the cross it is, and some what fools owners/buyers into believing their purchasing a new established breed...Ohh how so wrong they are.
> 
> I wonder if there is, or if there will be a doodle rescue? The people passionate about these crosses can then be apart of helping out them in need? or is that always going to be left to us working with the 'pedigree' breed rescues who pick up the pieces when their beloved breed is crossed to a poodle to make the lastest 'oodle'?? - You know the very pedigree breeders who are so bad, hence the crossing in the first place


Indeed, I was responding sarcasticly to your condescending post, I will endeavour to rise above your level.

What does it matter to you - if a name means so little why do you get yourself into such a frenzy over it. Find me one actual person who has bought such a dog because they have been fooled by a name into thinking its an established breed? This is why I appear to constantly disagree with your posts - they are full of such platitudes. Another example being "BYB breeders are a massive problem worldwide", believe you have since edited & removed worldwide once it was pointed out to you it is not worldwide. I was not doubting that it is a problem just your somewhat inflated claim - massive, worldwide?

Just because its in your head that all owners of a poodleX (whatever name they choose to use) are lacking in brain cells and that all breeders of such dogs are the scum of the earth does not make it true!

I am surprised you have to ask if there is a Doodle rescue, you seem to have all the facts on every other aspect.

In the adult world the majority of people do not attempt to force thier views on others, do not claim/believe something is fact simply because others in their circle believe it is a fact. Life is not black & white there are lots of shades of grey in between, being totally adamant that you are always in the right is usually the view of a teenager. I would hazard a guess you actually fit into that category and/or have had little life experience


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

What I have noticed about breeding in general is that people go into it without the knowledge to do it the right way. They haven't got the patience to find the right homes for their pups and this kind of thing causes the problem .


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Find me one actual person who has bought such a dog because they have been fooled by a name into thinking its an established breed? This is why I appear to constantly disagree with your posts - they are full of such platitudes.


I know several people who think it is an established breed. And when you get websites such as this one Dog Club - Labradoodles talking about labradoodles as a breed and having a breed standard (now THAT I would love to see!) it's hardly surprising that the Mr & Mrs Average you spoke about think they are an established breed.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

There was actually a rumour recently doing the rounds that Labradoodles would become a KC recognised breed, which is really confusing, because of course it just can't happen. And yes, I too know of people who have bought them for the name and because they are quirky or different, and yet I can think of a couple of breeds that resemble the shaggy Labradoodle type off the top of my head.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Indeed, I was responding sarcasticly to your condescending post, I will endeavour to rise above your level.
> 
> What does it matter to you - if a name means so little why do you get yourself into such a frenzy over it. Find me one actual person who has bought such a dog because they have been fooled by a name into thinking its an established breed? This is why I appear to constantly disagree with your posts - they are full of such platitudes. Another example being "BYB breeders are a massive problem worldwide", believe you have since edited & removed worldwide once it was pointed out to you it is not worldwide. I was not doubting that it is a problem just your somewhat inflated claim - massive, worldwide?
> 
> ...


erm I havent edited a post to remove world wide, the problem is world wide. 
There are BYB every where, thats a fact. I am still shocked that you cant accept this. - where else do all these rescue dogs in rescue come from? - all the dogs that are PTS at a young age because of health issues? ect' I have worked with rescues long enough to understand where the highest numnber of dogs come from. - and that is pet breeders, them that in my eyes are not ethical so BYB (to me).

I am not in a frenzy of the name 'Doodle'  I simply just cant understand the need to call something, other than what it is.

If you read through the forum you will surely come across a few that have been fooled into buying a DD dog, a dog they thought was 'pure' ect' I have spoken with a number of people that had the wool pulled over their eyes. - what a great shame it is.

whats with all the attitude, I wouldnt know if there is a Doodle rescue, hence asking 

so now because of age I cant have such views? :lol: wow well when you are actually aware of the true extent of the rescue situation, and are involved with rescue and experienced the same as me, come back and challange my experiences with such.

not all breeders are the scum of the earth, and I havent mentioned owners of Poodles crosses having no brain cells - dont put words in my mouth.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

lots of people have been duped into believing designer crosses are actually breeds ive seen it on here times many!, 

theres a breeder in wales who breeds tons of different poodle crosses they even claim on their website they are accredited breeders of labradoodles etc ....talk about deceiving folk


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Find me one actual person who has bought such a dog because they have been fooled
> by a name into thinking its an established breed?


here's a Google-search on the phrase, "labradoodles are a breed": 
LINK Google

note the very-first link, where they claim that *'Sixth generation dogs (& above) are breeding true to produce 
true pure-bred Labradoodle dogs. When a registered Labradoodle is bred to another registered ...'* 
in 2000 the kennel that first bred Doodles in Australia was still culling pups who did not meet their criteria, 
& they have been stringent in assaying coats [shed/non-shed & texture], temps, size, & structure, plus 
the usual health-tests: eyes, etc. So their dogs, multi-generation & well-tracked, still have pups who don't 
satisfy criteria. [BTW culling means S/N, not 'kill' - it refers to removing the dog as a potential sire or dam.]

i've had not ONE but many buyers of Lab x Poodles labeled as Doodles tell me point-blank that they're a *breed.*
they were not only adamant, but insulted when i pointed out that their dogs were crossbred: progeny of 2 known 
but different breeds. _'No, they're not - i have the papers...'_

the puppies are frequently 'registered' to one novelty dog-registry or another; Continental Kennel Club was only 
one such 'registry' & was the first, in 1991. The acronym CKC was no accident; ppl were easily misled 
into believing that a dog or pup was a CANADIAN Kennel Club registered purebred, with a legit pedigree. 
CONTINENTAL Kennel Club was registering 1st-generation crosses, dogs born in shelters of unknown sires, 
accidental litters from dams bred in the yard by who-knows-how-many sires, & wolf-hybrids, among others.

here ya go - register Ur new 'breed': 
Continental Kennel Club Puppy Registration and Free Litter Registration

Continental Kennel Club <-- defending their policies

there are now a dozen or more competing novelty-registries, *which maintain no studbooks, hold no shows, 
& offer nothing but official-looking 'pedigrees' to the breeder or puppy-owner.* they accept the data 
from legit registries, so any CKC, AKC, FCI, UKC, ARBA, Rarities, etc, registered parents are eligible, 
& UNregisterable pups - from dogs who are under a breeder's pet-quality limited registration - are suddenly 
perfectly acceptable. 
so are pups whose parents are not registered with any registry, & have no known pedigree; they 'look like', 
& so they *are* some breed or other. It's a miracle.  Everybody gets misled here - 
the owner of the dog with the new papers, any pups later born are sold to folks who assume it's real, etc.

*a well-written reference on novelty registries:* Registries 


> EXCERPT - *emphasis added:*
> 
> _ Since DNA became available for identifying the lineage of dogs, AKC has begun to do *random DNA testing*
> when inspecting kennels. In Missouri, where 1/3 of the country's puppies are produced, DNA testing & AKC inspections
> ...


note that the AKC has not achieved sainthood; they use DNA-testing only if there have been complaints, 
or some serious hanky-panky is already suspected. They don't just drop-in on a puppy-mill & whip out test-kits, 
start cheek-swabbing sires & cross-checking paperwork. They use it when they feel they're very likely to tag 
a repeat-offender or flagrant falsification.

I've had these papers waved at me more than once by some poor dweeb, excited by their first 'purebred'. 
often the pup was horrifically overpriced; only 2 dogs among dozens of buyers had ANY health-checks: that was 
the sire of 2 Doodles out of 2 different Poodle dams, bought from the same breeder by one married couple. 
the Lab stud is a show-dog with multiple litters, & has hip clearances. *the breeder did not even test for Brucella -
in a multi-litter sire, with first-time breeding bitches.* the Poodle-dams had no clearances whatever.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> is this through experience? - I knows LOTS of Poodle breeders, none would even consider studding a Poodle out to another breed, let alone breed the crosses themselves


Oddly enough someone has to be or the cross breeds would not exist  there is no way of telling if this has happened or not. Oddly I know a breeder who has stopped breeding standard poodles because of the risk of the pups being sold for labradoodle breeding but she breeds cockapoos using a poodle stud dog belonging to another breeder!



noushka05 said:


> puppy farmers are most definately wrong whatever they do, same for commercial breeders.As for people taking a litter from their bitch i just dont agree with it for lots of reasons, one being most of them dont even know anything about breeding, you only have to look at the breeding section on here....its absolutely shocking
> 
> check out Many tears they always seems to have lots of poodles and small dogs available, if i wanted to buy a puppy i personally would rather wait if i had to and buy a puppy from a reputable breeder ...my friends next door neighbours waited quite a while for their miniature poodle...and hes a little cracker.


I absolutely agree with you about some of the posts in the breeding section, but then again I am shocked at the ignorance of a lot of the pet owners on here. eg not knowing anything about a bitch being in season.

I do look at many tears sometimes and yes, they do have ex breeding bitches with awful conformation, health issues and always been kennelled so will have behaviour issues too. Not what I want.
My miniature poodles are little crackers too thank you. And I know exactly how they were reared and am have had no issues with them.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blitz said:


> Oddly enough someone has to be or the cross breeds would not exist  there is no way of telling if this has happened or not. Oddly I know a breeder who has stopped breeding standard poodles because of the risk of the pups being sold for labradoodle breeding but she breeds cockapoos using a poodle stud dog belonging to another breeder!
> 
> I absolutely agree with you about some of the posts in the breeding section, but then again I am shocked at the ignorance of a lot of the pet owners on here. eg not knowing anything about a bitch being in season.
> 
> ...


i wasnt implying your poodles arnt lovely Blitz


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Oddly enough someone has to be or the cross breeds would not exist  there is no way of telling if this has happened or not. Oddly I know a breeder who has stopped breeding standard poodles because of the risk of the pups being sold for labradoodle breeding but she breeds cockapoos using a poodle stud dog belonging to another breeder!


It seems to me that its alot of the pet people that own both the poodle and the breed their crossing to that are doing the breed, although I have no doubt that there will be the dodgy folk who also stud their show, or what ever poodles out to others. - not all within the showing world are ethical, I know that.
- Oh thats odd of the breeder  another case of people cant make money from her dogs, she will do it herself


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> [Doodle] puppies are frequently 'registered' to one novelty dog-registry or another; Continental Kennel Club was only
> one such 'registry' & was the first, in 1991. The acronym CKC was no accident; ppl were easily misled
> into believing that a dog or pup was a CANADIAN Kennel Club registered purebred, with a legit pedigree.
> CONTINENTAL Kennel Club was registering 1st-generation crosses, dogs born in shelters of unknown sires,
> ...


from this link Continental Kennel Club <-- defending their policies

i found this section particularly enlightening: 
EXCERPT - *emphasis added - *


> _ Does CKC stand for Continental Kennel Club or Canadian Kennel Club?
> 
> The answer is both. In the United States, the initials CKC represent Continental Kennel Club.
> *Canadian Kennel Club doesnt register dogs in the US*, &, therefore, has not established the use
> ...


 - the Canadian Kennel Club does, indeed, register USA-dogs - many of them, every year. 
USA dogs are often cross-registered from the AKC or UKC in order to show in Canada.

see CKC Forms On-line
EXCERPT: '07. Application for Registration of AKC Registered Dog Owned by a Resident of USA'

- there are many cases of confusion among the general public; *ads selling pups use CKC, 
they do not stipulate the registry in full.* it can be a Canadian-KC registered litter, 
or a Continental-KC registered litter - & many buyers won't realize there's a difference, nor will the seller 
necessarily feel compelled to enlighten their customer, the puppy-buyer.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

for a real trip down the rabbit-hole, check the CONTINENTAL Kennel Club's listing for mixed / non-purebreds: 
Non-Purebred - Mixed Breeds - Continental Kennel Club

i was especially intrigued by the offer of 'hypoallergenic' pups from ROWDEN'S SMALL BREEDS of Bogart, GA.

EDIT: 
there's a Texas ad for LabraDoodle pups which states they are 'hypo-allergenic' & 'non-shedding'. 
since the F1s are 50/50 shed & non-shed, & any one pup cannot be ID'ed until they're 6 to 7-MO & lose 
their puppy-fuzz, i wonder how they can say that? 
plus, only salivary & dander testing can determine allergenic status.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Continental Kennel Club

interestingly, the USA-ckc has added 'events' to their repertoire of ways to make $$, 
beginning apparently in 2006. Some of these are dry-land races for sled-dogs; there may be 
snow-country sledding events, too, but i found none when i scanned 8 months.

there is nothing listed for Aug-2011; this was July-2011: 
EXCERPT - 
_July 24-29

Vocational Agriculture Teachers Association of Texas Conference
Booth#420
Workshop on July 28th
Arlington, TX
For more information, contact
Barbara Stevenson, 1-800-952-3376 ext 103 
Canine Care and Training Program - Home - Contiental Kennel Club_

this is what they're offering: Canine Care and Training Program - Home - Contiental Kennel Club 
QUOTE,
'the CKC Canine Care and Training Program... for the purpose of teaching students about the proper, responsible, 
& ethical treatment, handling, and training of dogs.' 
note there's nothing in that description about breeding.

in their sample-curriculum there is an error of fact - 
CCTP - Online Canine Care and Training Program

they state categorically that all dogs are descendants of _Canis lupus_, the grey-wolf. 
this is one of the many subspecies of wolves worldwide; actually, domestic-dogs appear to be descendants 
of the Arabian wolf, a smaller subspecies which is not a pack-hunter, but a solitary hunter which rears 
a single litter co-operatively: many adults feeding one litter. This is probably an adaptation to the environment, 
which does not have much large-game in the form of herbivores in herds, but many smaller animals, scattered 
over a wide area. Adult wolves & subadults still with their parents can scatter, eat what they can find, 
& regroup to feed the pups at the den, or at a rendezvous area.

but no *modern-day wolves* of any subspecies are the ancestors of domestic-dogs; rather, domestic dogs 
*shared a common ancestor* with modern-day wolves, just as modern-day primates of all species 
shared a common ancestor, millennia ago. Chimps or gorillas are not human-ancestors; they are distant cousins, 
with a mutual distant [in time] ancestor common to humans, orangs, gorilla, bonobo, & other primates.

the sample goes on to claim that 'hybrids' refers only to inter-species progeny, who are sterile. 
this is also *not true - * hybrid-corn does not cross wheat or catfish with corn, it crosses STRAINS of corn. 
ergo a fertile pup born of a wolf x dog is, indeed, a hybrid. So is a coy-dog or jackal-dog cross.

they go on to condemn the wolf as a 'generalist' & poorly-adapted evolutionarily, listing 'weak jaws, 
poor vision, incapable of adapting to change, low kill rates on hunts', *and * 'lack of speed' as the wolves' 
flaws, & stating that they are an *indicator species* because they cannot adapt [implying they're fragile].

actually, the wolf is an extremely-successful predator, has a number of specialist subspecies, & is widespread 
globally *because the species is an evolutionarily-fit species, which adapts well to local conditions.* 
wolves are failing now not because they're a poor example of genetic fitness, but because humans kill them, 
kill their prey, alter landscapes, & otherwise interfere with what had been a very healthy global species.

then they laud the domestic-dog as successful because they are specialists: sighthounds, sled-dogs, 
scenthounds... They also claim that dogs are smarter than wolves; i'd say more trainable, not 'smarter'.

they are however correct in attributing the major diffs between dom-dog & wolf-species to phenotype - 
which can be *seen * in behavior & appearance; not genotype, which must be assayed.

they also claim that wolves are not trainable, & learn differently than dogs: wolves learn by observation. 
dogs learn via association, repetition, & cause-&-effect. 
- wolves are capable of being trained, but are also less co-operative & controllable than dogs. 
- wolves can & do learn by association, repetition, or cause-&-effect.

they also claim that _Canis lupus_ lives in multi-generational packs with aunts, uncles, cousins, 
parents, grandparents, & offspring. This is not true, either; a pack can be one pair & their first litter, one pair 
& their surviving subadults plus this year's puppies, & may or may not include other relatives - or nonrelatives. 
unrelated wolves can enter other packs - tho this can also be risky, as unrelated wolves may be attacked, too. 
pack-size & relatedness vary widely; a small pack of 2 is more likely to welcome an unrelated subadult 
vs a large pack, who don't particularly need another hunter. *pups* OTOH are eagerly adopted, related or not.

another error: 
'red foxes' are not SOLITARY animals: they pair-bond & rear their pups together. 
males do everything short of breastfeed their pups, minding the litter, feeding them & the dam, etc. 
they have plenty of communicative strategies, altho they may be less elaborate than wolves'.

they also allege that the Balyaev experiment & its outcome were unintentional; that's wrong. 
he WANTED tameness: less aggro, less escaping / defensive behavior, by intention. He selected for it. 
it was not an accident - it was purposeful. The ACCIDENTS were pied coats, drop ears, curled tails, 
& other changes in appearance; he wanted to keep the appearance of wild-fox, but have a tamer fox.
the course uses what may be a photo of a red-fox, but is DEFINITELY not an Arctic blue-fox, to illustrate 
the Balyaev bit. [it's impossible to be sure of the species, as pelage varies enormously in color & the tail-tip 
cannot be seen. Red-foxes have white tail-tips; greys do not.]


----------

