# Pedigree dogs exposed



## gayle38 (Jul 16, 2012)

Pedigree dogs are suffering from genetic diseases following years of inbreeding, an investigation has found. A BBC documentary says they are suffering acute problems because looks are emphasised over health when breeding dogs for shows. The programme shows spaniels with brains too big for their skulls and boxers suffering from epilepsy. The Kennel Club says it works tirelessly to improve the health of pedigree dogs.

Pedigree animals make up 75% of the seven million dogs in the UK and cost their owners over £10m in vets fees each week. The programme, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, says dogs suffering from genetic illness are not prevented from competing in dog shows and have gone on to win best in breed, despite their poor health. It says physical traits required by the Kennel Clubs breed standards, such as short faces, wrinkling, screw-tails and dwarfism, have inherent health problems.

Other problems occur because of exaggerations bred into dogs by breeders trying to win rosettes, it adds. The programme shows a prize-winning cavalier King Charles spaniel suffering from syringomyelia, a condition which occurs when a dogs skull is too small for its brain. It also features boxers suffering from epilepsy, pugs with breathing problems and bulldogs who are unable to mate or give birth unassisted.

It says deliberate mating of dogs which are close relatives is common practice and the Kennel Club registers dogs bred from mother-to-son and brother-to-sister matings. Scientists at Imperial College, London, recently found that pugs in the UK are so inbred that although there are 10,000 of them, it is the equivalent of just 50 distinct individuals. Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, said: People are carrying out breeding which would be first of all entirely illegal in humans and secondly is absolutely insane from the point of view of the health of the animals. In some breeds they are paying a terrible price in genetic disease.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Where did you copy that from?

Do you know how much hassle you may get from other posters for posting that?


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

yeah , yeah , all pedigrees are mutants , blah blah blah

Bored now !


----------



## GSDAndHuskyOwner (Aug 31, 2012)

Its a very sad documentry IMO. The owners of some of the dogs on it are ridiculous, they do not care for their dogs at all, its all about breed standards and winning competitions for them. 

Dogs which have any health problems should 100% not be allowed to enter competetions such as crufts and win. They should also not be bred from, its cruel and neglect to breed a dog with known health problems which could pass on to others. 

IMO its the breed standards which have made people in this mind set though. All the owners care about is do they meet the breed standards and all this, but most of the dogs do look abnormal as the breeds have changed a ridiculous amount over time from breeding. 

Breeders need to stop breeding dogs with health problems and get them back to how they originally were. 

Its a very interesting programme.


----------



## Doll (Jan 21, 2012)

Someone needs to do their homework me thinks. Also this has been done to death.


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

So for example a female lab whose Mum and Dad were Mum and son was crossed with a male spaniel with similar 'dodgy' parents the puppies would be unhealthy cross breeds. Therefore all dogs are potentially unhealthy not just pedigrees. 
Decent breeders breed for health.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Doll said:


> Someone needs to do their homework me thinks. Also this has been done to death.


I was just wondering if we had gone back in a time warp - perhaps gayle38 and GSDAndHuskyOwner would like to get themselves up to date with everything that has happened in the world of dogs and dog showing in the five or so years since PDE and then we can have a proper discussion about the issues as they are now, not as they were then. There is absolutely no point in discussing the things they write about when things have moved on from what they are saying. It's like trying to open a discussion on why people think the earth is flat


----------



## GermanShepardOwner (Aug 20, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I was just wondering if we had gone back in a time warp - perhaps gayle38 and GSDAndHuskyOwner would like to get themselves up to date with everything that has happened in the world of dogs and dog showing in the five or so years since PDE and then we can have a proper discussion about the issues as they are now, not as they were then. There is absolutely no point in discussing the things they write about when things have moved on from what they are saying. It's like trying to open a discussion on why people think the earth is flat


Unfortuntely not enough has happened for the better though. And with bad breeders it never will!


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

GSDAndHuskyOwner said:


> I The owners of some of the dogs on it are ridiculous, they do not care for their dogs at all, its all about breed standards and winning competitions for them.


Yawn. As it happens the biggest group of dogs that deviate from the breed standard and are shown are GSDs. The GSD dogs in PDE are not 'bred to standard'.


----------



## Izzysmummy (Oct 12, 2011)

I think this thread has stemmed from a previous thread from the OP with some cav x jack russel x shih tzu puppies which has gone sour.

Unfortunately just as a pedigree does not guarantee health neither does crossing different breeds. The advantage of a pedigree is a documented lineage which you can trace which is not always the case with current crosses as there is no overiding body (equivalent to the kennel club for pedigrees) who registers the litters of crosses.

If you cross a lab with hip dysplasia to a poodle with PRA you could end up with pups who need a hip replacement at the age of 1 and go blind by the time they are 4! I have nothing against crosses or pedigrees but I think with crosses then even more health tests should be done so in my above example BOTH dam and sire should be tested (genetic and x-rays etc) for ALL the diseases recommended for labs and poodles. ie; if there are 5 tests for labs and 5 different tests for poodles then both parents should have all 10 tests !


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Not all pedigree dog breeders breed for the exaggerations that are making some breeds quite unhealthy.

There is no doubt that due to irresponsible breeding many breeds are suffering but those breeders that care would NEVER breed a dog if they knew it was suffering with or the carrier of an illness...condition.

Any breeder. ...whether show...working...pet or any other kind...can only do their very best. Many dont and will just breed purely for pounds....then there are few show people that have inbred and also bred not the healthiest dogs....purely to breed the "best" but to believe that the majority of pedigree dogs are unhealthy is plain wrong. I have multiple pedigree Chis and NONE have any health issues. In fact my pet insurance has been a complete waste of money. Sure we have had the odd dicky tummy...anal gland abcess....stuff that can happen to a purebred or crossbred dog but nothing problematic that isnt sorted with a vet visit and some meds...short term (antibiotic course).

I understand why this thread has been started but to slate pedigree dogs as being largely unhealthy is narrow minded.

No offence intended in this post but a balance needed to be shown


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

GermanShepardOwner said:


> Unfortuntely not enough has happened for the better though. And with bad breeders it never will!


Still does not mean we should be discussing what the situation was back then. We should be discussing what the situation is now, what needs to be done and what can be done.

For example, since then breed standards have been altered to positively discriminate against exaggerations, regulations have been made on close matings, the number of litters able to be registered from one bitch has been reduced, breeds that can't whelp naturally can only register two C-section litters, the breeds deemed to be at risk from exaggerations have to pass a vet exam if they win before they can go on to compete in the group, there have been outcrosses in dalmations to reduce a specific illness, and (in the dog papers this weekend) crosses are now going to be allowed between irish red and white setters and irish setters. There's probably more things that have happened, but these are the few that sprung straight to mind. What other things would you like to see being done?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

"Pedigree" just means the dog is from a restricted gene pool. That, in itself, is problematic. To ensure you have healthy dogs you have to have the widest possible gene pool. In other words mongrels.


However, I'm as guilty as any other restricted-gene-pool-owning owner, so I'm not critisising anyone. We are all guilty of buying into the "perdigree" thing. As long as we do, we have to accept that there will be problems. After all, there is a reason humans are not allowed (in most countries) to mate with their cousins/half siblings/nephews/neices.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

GermanShepardOwner said:


> Unfortuntely not enough has happened for the better though. And with bad breeders it never will!


i can smell your hypocricy from here germanSHEPHERDowner

you must be living in your own little world. There are bad breeders of every animal in the world and MANY changes have been made.

Why dont we just do what PETA wants, Im sure you love them. We'll PTS all the dogs or better let them run wild full of disease, despair, overbreeding and miserable deaths, us humans should not intervene after all.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I am seriously limiting my time on here following a few posts, but let me pose this question, name one person that produces cross bred dogs that tests for all appropriate health tests for both pedigree breeds, who also takes into account conformation issues, and that's without querying the basic temperament/biddability. 

The dogs featured on PDE were not all show bred for a start, and Labradors were very nearly included to show the problem with HD, and yet if you look at those involved with the breed who are passionate about wanting to produce healthy individuals, they are all making use of the BVA hip scheme, do Jo Public always make sure they buy from hip scored parents? No. So who is to blame, the responsible breeders, or those who can't be bothered to do their research and just want a puppy?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I am seriously limiting my time on here following a few posts, but let me pose this question, name one person that produces cross bred dogs that tests for all appropriate health tests for both pedigree breeds, who also takes into account conformation issues, and that's without querying the basic temperament/biddability.
> 
> The dogs featured on PDE were not all show bred for a start, and Labradors were very nearly included to show the problem with HD, and yet if you look at those involved with the breed who are passionate about wanting to produce healthy individuals, they are all making use of the BVA hip scheme, do Jo Public always make sure they buy from hip scored parents? No. So who is to blame, the responsible breeders, or those who can't be bothered to do their research and just want a puppy?


Yes, it's well documented that the poor boxer was pet bred from brother and sister and not KC registered.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> Yes, it's well documented that the poor boxer was pet bred from brother and sister and not KC registered.


It may be well documented, but as much as trying to ensure people buy from health tested parents when purchasing a puppy is 'well documented', I don't think Jo Public bother to research this sort of info, so I doubt many would know this sort of information about the boxer featured in PDE1.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Snoringbear said:


> Yes, it's well documented that the poor boxer was pet bred from brother and sister and not KC registered.


I think the [point was that (at the time) the KC couldn't give a flying f*ck if they were brother and sister. i also have absloutly no doubts that without PDE they would have changed their stance.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> I think the [point was that (at the time) the KC couldn't give a flying f*ck if they were brother and sister. i also have absloutly no doubts that without PDE they would have changed their stance.


I agree, they were already changing things without the influence of JH and PDE, and have had the AHT working behind the scenes or many years. PDE did nothing except push people away from pedigrees, in the wrong belief that all pedigrees are unhealthy, and cross breeds are less likely to be unhealthy without any evidence to prove that in individual cases.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I've sent the OP a link to few old threads.
Just so she can catch up and wise up


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Sorry, I have not been clear. I don't think the KC would have changed anything without the bad press generated by PDE.

How were they "changing things" before PDE and what is AHT?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

The AHT is the Animal Health Trust, who have been working since well before JH and her acolytes dreamed up hte PDE programmes. The only thing PDE did was perhaps make a few things happen more quickly, not necessarily in the best interests of dogs, such as changes to the assured breeders scheme.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The AHT is the Animal Health Trust, who have been working since well before JH and her acolytes dreamed up hte PDE programmes. The only thing PDE did was perhaps make a few things happen more quickly, not necessarily in the best interests of dogs, such as changes to the assured breeders scheme.


What, like this?
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1333/summaryresults.pdf

Hardly anyone bothered to answer and why would a breeder of say Pugs want to tell someone they can't breath? 
Hell, even now half the breeders are denying there's a problem


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> What, like this?
> http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1333/summaryresults.pdf
> 
> Hardly anyone bothered to answer and why would a breeder of say Pugs want to tell someone they can't breath?
> Hell, even now half the breeders are denying there's a problem


I don't own pugs or have anything to do with the breed as you most likely know Rona, what I do know is that JH did plan on including Labradors in the original PDE, and there is brief footage showing a Labrador with HD, but considering the amount of work done within the breed, albeit by a minority overall, it was left out. Let's face it, there's no point including accusations against people who actually give a damn, unless that is you're a member of this forum


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It may be well documented, but as much as trying to ensure people buy from health tested parents when purchasing a puppy is 'well documented', I don't think Jo Public bother to research this sort of info, so I doubt many would know this sort of information about the boxer featured in PDE1.


I was validating your post, although not the answer I expected.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> I was validating your post, although not the answer I expected.


I know you were, I'm only posting quickly and b*ggaring off these days


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't own pugs or have anything to do with the breed as you most likely know Rona, what I do know is that JH did plan on including Labradors in the original PDE, and there is brief footage showing a Labrador with HD, but considering the amount of work done within the breed, albeit by a minority overall, it was left out. Let's face it, there's no point including accusations against people who actually give a damn, unless that is you're a member of this forum


Surely this was about conformation faults not genetic faults? 
The breeders who bury their head in the sand saying everything is fine within their breed. Some still do it now 
You only have to look at some of the breeds to know what is happening to them is not improving the breed, and still they bleat


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Surely this was about conformation faults not genetic faults?
> The breeders who bury their head in the sand saying everything is fine within their breed. Some still do it now
> You only have to look at some of the breeds to know what is happening to them is not improving the breed, and still they bleat


Conformation is genetic, that's why you use a dog to improve conformation points No-one is saying there aren't breeders who do not acknowledge what's happening within their own breed, but to promote that as a priority makes it seem like the work that many do, to try and promote good breeders, is really pretty much worthless.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

If the breed standards don't change more radically, there won't be any meaningful change. You only ned to look in the show ring at labs and springers to see how abnormal they have become. I have never seen these types working (in shoots). I cannot understand why there are 2 distinct types of some dogs "working" and "show". It doesn't make sense. If dogs are bred for a purpose then that is that. Why on earth should a springer have a ridiculously domed head and low set pendulous ears? What advantage does that have when working? All that happens is the ears are more likely to get damaged and the the excessivly-domed head looks deformed!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Conformation is genetic, that's why you use a dog to improve conformation points No-one is saying there aren't breeders who do not acknowledge what's happening within their own breed, but to promote that as a priority makes it seem like the work that many do, to try and promote good breeders, is really pretty much worthless.


No it doesn't 
It demeans them when they will not stand up and be counted when they know full well there is something going on within their breed.


Good breeders have nothing to worry about do they?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

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


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I am seriously limiting my time on here following a few posts, but let me pose this question, *name one person that produces cross bred dogs that tests for all appropriate health tests for both pedigree breeds, who also takes into account conformation issues, and that's without querying the basic temperament/biddability*.
> 
> The dogs featured on PDE were not all show bred for a start, and Labradors were very nearly included to show the problem with HD, and yet if you look at those involved with the breed who are passionate about wanting to produce healthy individuals, they are all making use of the BVA hip scheme, do Jo Public always make sure they buy from hip scored parents? No. So who is to blame, the responsible breeders, or those who can't be bothered to do their research and just want a puppy?


Bruce Cattanach - Boxer/Corgi crosses
Dr. Robert Schaible - Dalmation/Pointer cross

Both men received grief beyond imagination for their efforts and BOTH have suggested that no single person ever try to accomplish what they did due to the toll the mistreatment aimed their way took on their family and their pshyche.

Jess Ruffner-Booth is another that puts her name out there - breeds Afghans and Halfghans as well. These interesting blog posts address some of the treatment given her for her 'crime' of crossbreeding. - http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/today-on-as-the-dog-world-turns/ - http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/welcome-saluki-people/



> . . . I did receive a rather disturbing e-mail. I won't reproduce it because it was a private e-mail and that would be rude, not to mention a violating of statutory copyright, but the basic gist was this:
> ■We're watching you, because we've assumed you're an idiot that has no clue what they're doing in regards to whelping and raising a litter, even though we know nothing about you and didn't actually confirm our suspicions. We'll be waiting patiently for you to screw up.
> ■We don't like the breeders you got some of your dogs from. They aren't on the Cool People list.
> ■We don't approve of cross-breeding. Cross-breeding is bad, bad, bad. People who crossbreed aren't on the Cool People list.
> ...


http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/...try-of-love-or-welcome-saluki-people-part-ii/

Another for those interested in understanding her program and aims - http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/...ss-how-to-make-a-purebred-in-four-easy-steps/

. . . and this one is just too beautiful to leave out. - http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/unintended-consequences-or-why-i-wont-just-shut-up/

http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/

I could name other crossbreeders but I keep those names under wraps as I understand what happened to the two men above and to others along the way that put themselves forward positively speaking about similar projects.

Organized email campaigns which include threats . . . Who needs that?

Yet when these threads get going there is always the 'name one' request skating past the mention that there is a reason crossbreeders who care keep themselves out of the limelight and don't share the names of the breeders who might allow them stock. I would think those involved in dogs in the tiniest way would understand that without it having to be stated on a post.

Take the time to speak to Carol Fowler one day about what she endured for putting the outcross idea forward in Cavaliers. I received threats to my CHILDREN for putting my hand up as a willing participant.

I'll end with a cartoon from the blog I posted a link to above. I hope all enjoy . . . it is quite funny.










http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/a-little-funny-for-the-dog-fancy/

CC


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

rona said:


> Where did you copy that from?
> 
> Do you know how much hassle you may get from other posters for posting that?


lol - have found several links stemming back to 2008 it could have been copied from 

Plagiarism at its best :mad2:


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

well we all know why the poster has done this thread, because she wants to validate herself for intentionally breeding mongrels for no reason other then she wanted to.


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> well we all know why the poster has done this thread, because she wants to validate herself for intentionally breeding mongrels for no reason other then she wanted to.


You've got to try


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I'm still feeling scrappy, obviously.

So, for the sarcastic posters who are deliberately prodding here, what is the valid reason for the breeding and the purchasing of the purebreds that you have done?

How do those reasons trump a breeder 'wanting to' breed mongrels and a buyer 'wanting' to purchase a wonderful mongrel?

I can't think of anyway they might, myself.

CC


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

comfortcreature said:


> I'm still feeling scrappy, obviously.
> 
> So, for the sarcastic posters who are deliberately prodding here, what is the valid reason for the breeding and the purchasing of the purebreds that you have done?
> 
> ...


The only valid reason I'd ever have for having a purebred is if it was for work purposes. Most people don't work or show their dogs, they're purely as pets so I see no need to be so snobby about pedigree or cross or anything else.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I happen to agree. Two of my wonderful pet bred mongrel girls sitting here validate my breeders decision for me. That I'm sure of. 

CC


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

i dont' think there has been research done with regards to health but here's one vets opinion I found on google:



> The Great Debate: Are Mutts Healthier Than Purebreds?
> 
> There's an unspoken assumption amid the mutt-loving set that mixed breeds are inherently healthier than purebreds.
> 
> ...


The Great Debate: Are Mutts Healthier Than Purebreds?


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

All the dogs i have had have been pets, never showed or worked.but, all have been pure breeds.. i like to have an idea where my dogs came from ..lines 

I would not buy a mongrel.. I would rescue one, but I would certainly never buy one from a breeder..call me a snob or whatever , don't care


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

Mongrel owners will obviously back up mongrel breeders!

I to would never give a mongrel breeder money.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I find these threads so funny.
All the pedigree breeders slapping each other on the back when one of your own that you hold in high esteem on here has been party to a cover up of a deformity within their breed.  

How many more deformed and sick pups will be born in that breed line? 

At least 3 people know within this breed but they are all keeping their mouths shut


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> Mongrel owners will obviously back up mongrel breeders!
> 
> I to would never give a mongrel breeder money.


I have purchased mongrels and rescued mongrels as well as rescued purebred dogs. I currently keep an older purebred dog for a friend that I helped to pick out for her, as she has faced some difficulties with the economic downturn and has to work abroad.

I will back up BREEDERS who care . . . of mongrels and of purebred dogs.

I cannot abide the bullying tactics and the elitism, however, of those who breed or buy purebred dogs and want to promote their own way as 'superior' by pointing out at others as unethical . . . especially when these same people often have not done their own homework on the dogs they have bred or bought.

If you SO like what you do then get on with it and brag about it and support it. Promotion should not include the habit of running at others at every chance. You would think that would have been learned in grade school.

Why some breeders are so inclined to have a go at other breeders I'll never know, but AR counts on it, I do know that.

CC


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> I find these threads so funny.
> All the pedigree breeders slapping each other on the back when one of your own that you hold in high esteem on here has been party to a cover up of a deformity within their breed.
> 
> How many more deformed and sick pups will be born in that breed line?
> ...


Really? What have I missed? Do tell details - I'm intrigued to know what deformity, what breed and who is covering it up.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Really? What have I missed? Do tell details - I'm intrigued to know what deformity, what breed and who is covering it up.


Well you know it's not you so that's fine isn't it? 

I'm not getting myself banned for that low life


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

MaisyMoomin said:


> Mongrel owners will obviously back up mongrel breeders!
> 
> I to would never give a mongrel breeder money.


Well aren't you angelic. So you'd prefer people giving money to a bad breeder just because a dog is 'pure'? :lol: Of course breeding mongrels doesn't cost anything at all, it's completely free when they get their vacc and the worming and the whelping kit and food etc, why would anyone bother to give the breeder money? My god.


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Well aren't you angelic. So you'd prefer people giving money to a bad breeder just because a dog is 'pure'? :lol: Of course breeding mongrels doesn't cost anything at all, it's completely free when they get their vacc and the worming and the whelping kit and food etc, why would anyone bother to give the breeder money? My god.


I would go to a rescue centre  as my parents have twice, fab dogs but not my thing!

And thank you yes I am rather...angelic 

As for mongrel breeders worming, vaccinating & buying a welping kit! Don't make me laugh! Don't see many doing that on these Facebook sites, free adds etc. I see the mums being kept on manky old duvets in a cage! Rehoming to young not giving a dam about the bitch or pups. My own experience and view on mongrel breeders (obviously not all)


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

MaisyMoomin said:


> I would go to a rescue centre


Perhaps if responsible people brought the mongrels instead of being scared away by the 'ethical' brigade the poor mite wouldn't be in the rescue to begin with, which would be quite preferable.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Perhaps if responsible people brought the mongrels instead of being scared away by the 'ethical' brigade the poor mite wouldn't be in the rescue to begin with, which would be quite preferable.


I don't think that's true 

Many of the people who breed these crossbreeds don't give a toss about the dogs, just the dosh. By buying from these, no matter how responsible you are about your own dog, you are still supporting bad and sometimes cruel breeding practices

Gayle however does not seem to be in this bracket at all


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

rona said:


> I don't think that's true
> 
> Many of the people who breed these crossbreeds don't give a toss about the dogs, just the dosh. By buying from these, no matter how responsible you are about your own dog, you are still supporting bad and sometimes cruel breeding practices
> 
> Gayle however does not seem to be in this bracket at all


Agreed - don't think that having ethics is a bad thing at all. By not having any regard at all for the ethics of a breeder (of any breed or cross) and encouraging folk to buy pups through sympathy for them then these folk will continue churning out dogs for money.


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Perhaps if responsible people brought the mongrels instead of being scared away by the 'ethical' brigade the poor mite wouldn't be in the rescue to begin with, which would be quite preferable.


Or maybe mongrel breeders shouldn't breed in the first place, I tar them with the same brush as staffy breeders if you can call them that. Rightly or wrongly.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> Perhaps if responsible people brought the mongrels instead of being scared away by the 'ethical' brigade the poor mite wouldn't be in the rescue to begin with, which would be quite preferable.


What a load of rubbish.

The large majority of cross-breeders pay no attention to health-tests for genetic conditions.

All good pedigree breeders worm and get their pups health-checked and provide puppy packs with copies of the parents health certificates (what health-tests did the parents of your pup have?) - I also microchip my pups before they leave - this is also increasing and could soon become mandatory in some UK countries.

In addition, far too many cross-breeders simply want to home the pups without paying too much attention to who the owners are and this is WHY so many end up in rescue (the situation is similar for poor pedigree breeders as well).

Many breeders will be very explicit on the reasons why pups shouldn't be vaccinated before they go to their new homes - firstly - they shouldn't be done before 8 weeks old, and frequently, it is discovered that the owners vet uses a different product - hence - the vaccinations have to be started again - giving the pups too much vaccine and delaying their ability to be able to socialise by around 2 weeks + at propably one of the most critical stages of their development


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> Many of the people who breed these crossbreeds don't give a toss about the dogs, just the dosh. By buying from these, no matter how responsible you are about your own dog, you are still supporting bad and sometimes cruel breeding practices


I'll re-word that another way as well.

Many of the people who breed these* purebreds* don't give a toss about the dogs, just the dosh. By buying from these, no matter how responsible you are about your own dog, you are still supporting bad and sometimes cruel breeding practices.

And I'll add:

The large majority of *pure-breeders *pay no attention to health-tests for genetic conditions..

It goes that way as well. In both factions there will be gems but the majority of breeders across the board do not have a clue.

Its about the breeder and their ethics, not what they have decided to match.

By the way, for all those who keep suggesting they'd get their mutts from rescue, you can get purebred dogs there too.

Fact is that our rescues support about 25% of the demand for new dogs yearly . . . just looking at the recivity rate. Where I live we do not euthanise healthy and adoptable, and haven't for a decade at least.

75% of people looking for a new dog will be buying a dog. Their choice of which type is theirs to make.

CC


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

MaisyMoomin said:


> Or maybe mongrel breeders shouldn't breed in the first place, I tar them with the same brush as staffy breeders if you can call them that. Rightly or wrongly.


I think you tar so much I'm surprised everyone around you isn't running around with feathers over their body.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

swarthy said:


> What a load of rubbish.
> 
> The large majority of cross-breeders pay no attention to health-tests for genetic conditions.
> 
> ...


Far too many pedigree breeders simply want money and don't do health tests either, there is no good or bad depending on whether you cross or don't cross, there is just people who care about dogs and those who don't, breeds have jack to do with it, and thank god for cross breeds or we wouldn't have many of the breed I'm sure you love. If pedigree breeders cared all that much why are there so many being sold on the internet to their second, third or fourth home? Surely such good breeders would have contracts in place.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> I'll re-word that another way as well.
> 
> Many of the people who breed these* purebreds* don't give a toss about the dogs, just the dosh. By buying from these, no matter how responsible you are about your own dog, you are still supporting bad and sometimes cruel breeding practices.
> 
> ...


Yes sorry my mistake, I was just using the words used in the post I quoted


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

I breed pedigree dogs but I dont judge breeders of crossbreeds. I would judge any breeder that didnt put the health and wellbeing of their bitches and their pups first....whether the dogs are crosses or purebreds...they are living creatures and all should be respected....all deserve first class vet attention and care....including when finding homes for pups...their breeding doesnt affect any of that...a dog is a dog is a dog........

People will always judge....its what some humans do best....there will always be something for people to pick apart.

I have only ever owned pedigree dogs in my life...some from rescue....but I am in no way snobby about it. I just like certain breeds so wouldnt consider a cross at this time. If ever I liked a particular cross.... I may change my mind.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I'll re-word that another way as well.
> 
> Many of the people who breed these* purebreds* don't give a toss about the dogs, just the dosh. By buying from these, no matter how responsible you are about your own dog, you are still supporting bad and sometimes cruel breeding practices.
> 
> ...


I agree totally with your purple points ..:lol:

I still don't get why they have to purposely cross..on our local FB selling page ..staffi and bull terrier ..why? reason being so the don't have the nose of a bull terrier ...:mad2:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Well you know it's not you so that's fine isn't it?
> 
> I'm not getting myself banned for that low life


No - I want to know who it is (ok so I'm a nosy cow!) It's not fair teasing us with a tasty tit-bit and then not telling everything (sulk)


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

paddyjulie said:


> I agree totally with your purple points ..:lol:
> 
> I still don't get why they have to purposely cross..on our local FB selling page ..staffi and bull terrier ..why? reason being so the don't have the nose of a bull terrier ...:mad2:


I don't get it either, but I don't have to as I wouldn't be one to want to own a Staffy, a Bull Terrier or a cross of either. I'm firmly committed to dogs under 30 pounds.

I'm content with 'not getting it' though. There are lots of motivations that people have that I don't get. My OH, as an example, likes to hit a little white ball with a club and chase it around 18 holes. Who'd think anyone would like such a thing? It just cannot be explained . . . but that does not make it wrong.

CC


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> I don't get it either, but I don't have to as I wouldn't be one to want to own a Staffy, a Bull Terrier or a cross of either. I'm firmly committed to dogs under 30 pounds.
> 
> I'm content with 'not getting it' though. There are lots of motivations that people have that I don't get. My OH, as an example, likes to hit a little white ball with a club and chase it around 18 holes. Who'd think anyone would like such a thing? It just cannot be explained . . . but that does not make it wrong.
> 
> CC


I've never got my head around that one either!!


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

> Its about the breeder and their ethics, not what they have decided to match.


Probably the most sensibe statement I have read on this thread.


----------



## SpicyBulldog (Jun 30, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> "Pedigree" just means the dog is from a restricted gene pool. That, in itself, is problematic. To ensure you have healthy dogs you have to have the widest possible gene pool. In other words mongrels.
> 
> However, I'm as guilty as any other restricted-gene-pool-owning owner, so I'm not critisising anyone. We are all guilty of buying into the "perdigree" thing. As long as we do, we have to accept that there will be problems. After all, there is a reason humans are not allowed (in most countries) to mate with their cousins/half siblings/nephews/neices.


Pedigree just means the dog has a pedigree. Not necessarily a restricted gene pool.

I have a pedigree on my working cross and you could continue to mix breeds for numerous generations never using the same breed twice and keep the pedigree records. You'd have a very diverse gene pool.

Although you are within a restricted gene pool when breeding pure bred dogs not everyone is breeding close relatives.

I'd not get a dog pure or crossed/mixed *WITHOUT* a pedigree because the lineage is very important in making my decision to obtain a dog from a breeder.

I agree that most cross breeders only care about money. Just the same I agree that most pure bred breeders only care about money. At minimum if they don't they want to produce just one cute litter...blah blah
They are not doing health test, truly understanding good appropriate temperament, finding proper homes (even loving owners don't always realize where the pups will end up).


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

SpicyBulldog said:


> Pedigree just means the dog has a pedigree. Not necessarily a restricted gene pool.
> 
> I have a pedigree on my working cross and you could continue to mix breeds for numerous generations never using the same breed twice and keep the pedigree records. You'd have a very diverse gene pool.
> 
> ...


So basically....you think the majority of breeders just care about making money. I can think of far simpler ways of making money than breeding dogs. Its hard work...lots of worry...takes your life over for several months per litter...sometimes breaks your heart when you fight to save a poorly pup and fail and if youre really lucky you may have a small profit that will help recover losses on another litter........


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> Far too many pedigree breeders simply want money and don't do health tests either, there is no good or bad depending on whether you cross or don't cross, there is just people who care about dogs and those who don't, breeds have jack to do with it, and thank god for cross breeds or we wouldn't have many of the breed I'm sure you love. If pedigree breeders cared all that much why are there so many being sold on the internet to their second, third or fourth home? Surely such good breeders would have contracts in place.


I did say you will find poorly bred pedigrees in the same situation (which you would have noted had you read my post properly).

It is FACT that there are far more irresponsible deliberate cross-breeders than pedigree breeders - only yesterday someone listed all dogs currently in their local rescue - pretty much all crosses.

How you can say there is "no good or bad dependent on whether you breed pedigrees or cross-breeds - again it is FACT that far fewer cross-breed breeders using the relevant health-tests for the breeds they are crossing.

*Still curious what health-tests the parents of your pup had? *

The large majority of show and working folk (and many agility people) health-test their dogs who might be used in their breeding programmes and there is a growing band of ethical pet breeders doing the same.

Yes, my contracts have a requirement that if a dog needs to be rehomed, the owners come to me first - and you hope that the majority will.

You only have to trawl through the free-ads to see that many "pedigrees" are not well bred, when they are, they stand out a mile - only a few years ago a sibling of one of my bought in dogs was found on such a site - a couple of phonecalls and emails later, the dog was re-homed through the breed club - the owner felt they were letting the breeder down - the breeder was devastated at what happened - but thanks to a sharp eyed browser and me having contact with the owner, we were able to help them deal with the situation properly - they still get regular updates from the new owner and the dog is like a "pig in sh*t"

Those with an eye for a dog will spot the well-bred adult dogs - and they remain very few and far between compared to cross-breeds and poorly bred pedigrees.

========================

Health-tests in isolation don't make for a good breeder - but they are a very large component of it - if they are not using the relevant health-tests for the breeds, they can't be considered a good breeder.

=========================



chichi said:


> So basically....you think the majority of breeders just care about making money. I can think of far simpler ways of making money than breeding dogs. Its hard work...lots of worry...takes your life over for several months per litter...sometimes breaks your heart when you fight to save a poorly pup and fail and if youre really lucky you may have a small profit that will help recover losses on another litter........


You are not kidding - it is a thousand times easier to work to earn money as opposed to breeding - with the "hourly rate" (not considering costs layouts) are less than a 10th of what I can make working


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I knew the making money thing would rear its head. Of course most breeders make money. There are a few fanatics that are not bothered but most need, want and expect to make money. It might not be a lot but unless something goes wrong it ends up on the right side. And why on earth should that be wrong.
Some breeders will make a fortune too. I am sure the puppy farms are not there for love. I am sure the breeders with 2 or 3 bitches having fairly regular pups do not do it for the sake of it.
Most breeders do not stay with their bitches for weeks or give up their life. Plenty of people breed from a bitch just because they want to. Have 6 pups and sell them for well over £2000 with the majority being profit. If something goes wrong with the first litter they breed they probably do not try again but usually all will be well.
Try telling the people that manage to rear a lovely healthy litter that they are wrong to keep the bitch and pups outside in a shed, that they are wrong to go to work, that they are wrong to sell the pups and make a bit of money.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

swarthy said:


> I did say you will find poorly bred pedigrees in the same situation (which you would have noted had you read my post properly).
> 
> It is FACT that there are far more irresponsible deliberate cross-breeders than pedigree breeders - only yesterday someone listed all dogs currently in their local rescue - pretty much all crosses.
> 
> ...


To the part in bold - what does that have to do with anything? So more cross breed or mongrel breeders (or people who breed once) don't do health tests? So what? How many mongrel puppy farms are out there with no health testing? I'm struggling to think of any because there's no damn money in trying to shift 10 or 12 mongrels. The point still remains that there's nothing inherently wrong with crossbreeding.

As for my pup her parents had no health tests, they're from a very healthy family of inbred crosses and she's happy and healthy as larry just like every other mutt I know. I know her parents,her grand parents, her aunts and uncles in the canine family tree and all are a picture of health. I'd be interested to see all these crossbreeds and mongrels you talk about that have terrible medical issue, and no I don't mean designer crosses, I'd like to see the plethora of mongrels out there with genetic medical diseases you seem to think they have, because I certainly haven't come across any that I recall.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I knew the making money thing would rear its head. Of course most breeders make money. There are a few fanatics that are not bothered but most need, want and expect to make money. It might not be a lot but unless something goes wrong it ends up on the right side. And why on earth should that be wrong.
> Some breeders will make a fortune too. I am sure the puppy farms are not there for love. I am sure the breeders with 2 or 3 bitches having fairly regular pups do not do it for the sake of it.
> Most breeders do not stay with their bitches for weeks or give up their life. Plenty of people breed from a bitch just because they want to. Have 6 pups and sell them for well over £2000 with the majority being profit. If something goes wrong with the first litter they breed they probably do not try again but usually all will be well.
> Try telling the people that manage to rear a lovely healthy litter that they are wrong to keep the bitch and pups outside in a shed, that they are wrong to go to work, that they are wrong to sell the pups and make a bit of money.


I truly object to being referred to as a fanatic! A genuine breed enthusiastic perhaps. someone who does not see her dogs as a means to make money definitely, but not a fanatic ...


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

swarthy said:


> . . . How you can say there is "no good or bad dependent on whether you breed pedigrees or cross-breeds - again it is FACT that far fewer cross-breed breeders using the relevant health-tests for the breeds they are crossing. :


I'll say it too, and it is easy to say.

As long as ONE crossbreeder uses care and relevent health testing then it is wrong to sweep the full lot up and claim they are all BAD.

We do not need to categorize and group breeders like this.

Why do you want to do so?



swarthy said:


> Health-tests in isolation don't make for a good breeder - but they are a very large component of it - if they are not using the relevant health-tests for the breeds, they can't be considered a good breeder.:


It still has to be acknowledged that the health testing required, for pure and mixed dogs, depends upon the PREVALENCE of conditions known in their breed or lines. Some breeders can still be very good breeders whilst 'testing' is minimal (their observations of non-testible ailments would be more important in many breeds).

You are in Labradors and I understand do a lot of testing but there are still pure breeds bred without health testing required and I KNOW that the lack of testing is often overlooked as long as the breeders are involved in the fancy. An example would be going down the Tibetan Spaniel entries and looking them up on the KC database (as I have) to find health testing often completely remiss.

To then read the question 'what health testing did the parents of your dog have' as IF health testing happens with all breeds . . . seems a bit odd to me.



swarthy said:


> You are not kidding - it is a thousand times easier to work to earn money as opposed to breeding - with the "hourly rate" (not considering costs layouts) are less than a 10th of what I can make working


Absolute truth . . . for those that put time into a litter.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Bruce Cattanach - Boxer/Corgi crosses
> Dr. Robert Schaible - Dalmation/Pointer cross
> 
> Both men received grief beyond imagination for their efforts and BOTH have suggested that no single person ever try to accomplish what they did due to the toll the mistreatment aimed their way took on their family and their pshyche.
> ...


I knew you'd come up with some links, but in the case of the OP's post, and all the similar 'I am having a litter from my bichon x jackapoo, they are very unlikely to have done any health tests, or have knowledge about possible conformation issues that might affect progeny. I could be wrong, but I'll eat my flatcoat if I am!

I applaud people who are working towards improving the health of any pedigree breed or cross breed, I think it's awful the way the LUA dalamtion was received over in the UK by some of the show of the show folk, breed type is not about being pure, it's about being proven a good example of a breed and if a working dog, then it should show the working ability as well.



comfortcreature said:


> I'll re-word that another way as well.
> 
> Many of the people who breed these* purebreds* don't give a toss about the dogs, just the dosh. By buying from these, no matter how responsible you are about your own dog, you are still supporting bad and sometimes cruel breeding practices.
> 
> ...


I think most people on here know the majority of pedigree breeders, not just cross breeders are simply churning pups out without any real consideration, pedigree does not guarantee a good quality pup from a well thought out mating. Anyone who believes KC registration assures that needs their head examining. In the same way that anyone believing a bichon x jackapoo is a healthy dog that wont have any health issues, so no need to test


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I knew you'd come up with some links, but in the case of the OP's post, and all the similar 'I am having a litter from my bichon x jackapoo, they are very unlikely to have done any health tests, or have knowledge about possible conformation issues that might affect progeny. I could be wrong, but I'll eat my flatcoat if I am!


Yes, it is unlikely, JUST AS it is almost as unlikely when someone announcing a purebred litter has done the research. Someone announcing a Cocker litter or a Shih Tzu litter would NOT get the same barage of nasty questions and comments. I can provide example threads if anyone cares to pmail. I have a problem with that bigotry and I will state so when I see it happening.

I will also still will give the benefit of the doubt UNLESS it has been confirmed that I shouldn't. I do that for purebred litters announced and I will do the same for crossbred litters announced. I have no reason to automatically be suspect of breeders who care enough to announce litters on a forum. I have no incentive to want to be suspect. I can't imagine what good being that way might accomplish. I CAN imagine the harm that is done when caring breeders find themselves attacked. WE NEED MORE OF THEM, NOT LESS.

The BEST that can be done at that point of a litter announcement is to steer the breeder in the direction of backing pups for life and to continue in their learning.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I applaud people who are working towards improving the health of any pedigree breed or cross breed, I think it's awful the way the LUA dalamtion was received over in the UK by some of the show of the show folk, breed type is not about being pure, it's about being proven a good example of a breed and if a working dog, then it should show the working ability as well.


I know you do and thank you for doing so.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think most people on here know the majority of pedigree breeders, not just cross breeders are simply churning pups out without any real consideration, pedigree does not guarantee a good quality pup from a well thought out mating. Anyone who believes KC registration assures that needs their head examining. In the same way that anyone believing a bichon x jackapoo is a healthy dog that wont have any health issues, so no need to test


If most know that quality pups come from quality breeders, and to avoid those that breed to churn out pups, then why the constant barage by breeders against other breeders solely through assumptions made up by what has been put together? Why do breeders divide by WHAT they are breeding and have a go at each other? What is to be accomplished by this?

Why not promote the message of 'avoiding breeders that don't care' instead of slamming crossbreeders - as if they are all the same - at every chance? The 'avoid crossbreeders' message here sends well intentioned people straight into the arms of commercial kennels churning out registered dogs It is a LOUSY STUPID message that IS HARMING dogs overall.

A Bichon x Jackapoo from a careful breeder that has ANY amount of knowledge in dogs has every bit as good a chance at coming out with good health as a purebred of any of those breeds.

Do you know what testing is COMMONLY done on Bichons, or Jacks, or Toy/Miniature Poodles by those campaigning them? I do, and it is jack-squat and tells nothing of the thousands of risk conditions that each and every puppy produced might face. Check the 2012 CRUFTS winners in Bichons, Parsons and Min and Toy Poodles. Add the Shih Tzu and Cavalier to that list for the sake of curiousity as those breeds were involved with the OPs litter.

http://crufts.fossedata.co.uk/ ----- Health Test Results Finder

I have done so and we go from NO TESTING DONE (Bichon, Shih Tzu) to eye screening (Cavalier) to dna eye testing for PLL (an eye condition) in Terriers and for prcd-PRA (another eye condition) in Poodles. Both of these are of raised prevalence BECUZ of the gene pools involved and both are simple recessive in inheritance mode.

Patellas are done at a vets as is done for every single dog that enters a vets office. Paperwork filled out is what makes the difference for those wanting 'good' patellas shown on a scheme.

Please do not tell me that because there has been this very miniscule amount of testing done and recorded as being done on the eyes of these purebred dogs in the breeds mentioned that ANYONE imagines they have a heightened chance of good health over a Bichon x Jackapoo that is bred with even the tiniest amount of knowledge and care!

It is absurd to think this would be the case. The chances are about the same the full way round especially when the MAJORITY of small breeds do NOT have generations of testing or in depth health knowledge behind them. Some (Shih Tzus, Pugs, Pekingese, Papillons, Bichons etc.) don't commonly have even a single generation of testing recorded.

It has to be acknowledged that gambles are being made for every single litter produced, and that some will gamble one thing while others will gamble another. As much as those into breeds don't want to be condemned for continuing on with breeds with high prevalence rates of many illnesses and bred in conformation deformities - as they have reasons close to their heart for doing so, those crossbreeding with care also do not deserve AUTOMATIC condemnation dealt their way.

Setting up camps and deciding *one type* of breeders gambles are of better merit than those breeding other *types *and then shooting out poison darts is what divides . . . and this is all too often happening.

We are not speaking of commercially bred puppyfarmed dogs here where we KNOW the breeders involved don't care and will happily breed crippled dogs.

CC


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Not much to say on the subject other than glad the programme was aired. At the end of the day if it benefits DOGS then it's 
got to be good. I am a dog lover and therefore they come before any show or breed standard regardless who has set them.

Whilst we all bang on about irresponsible breeding we should also bang on about irresponsible breed standards and put dogs health of paramount importance before it's looks, some of which are hideously repulsive to most people while being quite acceptable in the show ring. Very hypocritical to say the least!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

For me the most important tool any breeder has is knowledge of what their breeding stock is likely to produce there is frankly no point in doing one off health testing if you don't know the health status of previous generations and do not track and health test subsequent ones too - and of course for non testable conditions and traits such as epilepsy, monorchidism or poor temperament then this knowledge is vital. Anyone who breeds without this kind of knowledge is simply irresponsible and at the moment it's overwhelmingly pedigree dog breeders who have collected and maintained data on their breeds and individual lines.

If we all agree that we should only be buying from and supporting responsible breeders then surely anyone who uses the kind of leap in the dark, fingers crossed attitude that cross breeding inevitably is MUST be avoided - that there are some pedigree breeders who also do not breed responsibly is true but there are many who do -and at least the pedigree world is collating and using data on the dogs behind their lines I cannot think of A single producer of random cross breeds who uses this kind of data base Database - XOOPS Site - times have changed and there is no excuse for breeding without knowledge ..and no excuse for continuing to support breeders who breed in ignorance of what they are producing.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> For me the most important tool any breeder has is knowledge of what their breeding stock is likely to produce there is frankly no point in doing one off health testing if you don't know the health status of previous generations and do not track and health test subsequent ones too - and of course for non testable conditions and traits such as epilepsy, monorchidism or poor temperament then this knowledge is vital. Anyone who breeds without this kind of knowledge is simply irresponsible and at the moment it's overwhelmingly pedigree dog breeders who have collected and maintained data on their breeds and individual lines.
> 
> If we all agree that we should only be buying from and supporting responsible breeders then surely anyone who uses the kind of leap in the dark, fingers crossed attitude that cross breeding inevitably is MUST be avoided - that there are some pedigree breeders who also do not breed responsibly is true but there are many who do -and at least the pedigree world is collating and using data on the dogs behind their lines I cannot think of A single producer of random cross breeds who uses this kind of data base Database - XOOPS Site - times have changed and there is no excuse for breeding without knowledge ..and no excuse for continuing to support breeders who breed in ignorance of what they are producing.


You can have all the testing in the world, and think you have all the info, but while breeders cover up deformaties/sickness so that they can still have accolades then pedigree breeding is almost as much a lottery as any other breeding.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

The problem with that is that there is FAR more to dog genetics than can be tested for by the most dedicated breeder or discovered by the most accurate and searching pedigree. Close breeding from a small gene pool causes well documented problems. Eliminating dogs - which fail health testing - from breeding further reduces the gene pool. Eliminating dogs which fail to reach breed standards also reduces genetic diversity.

If it were possible to breed to the absolute pinnacle of breed standard from dogs with multi-generational pedigrees who have all passed every health test that we can devise it would be a disaster -of unimaginable proportions- for the pedigree dogs which have become virtual clones AND the dog population as a whole. It's the genetic DIVERSITY of the dog population that is its guarantee of survival.

I have nothing against pedigree dogs, please don't think that I have. I _do_ think that they should exist and that the world would be hideously poorer if they all ceased to exist. However, without a big gene pool of mongrels, pedigrees are at risk of extinction.

A decent infectious disease to which the majority of dogs are susceptible could devastate the dog population. The best hope for survival is from a diverse gene pool aka the mongrel majority.

Breeding or permitting random breeding _may_ be bad for individual dogs but it IS good for the overall dog population.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think most people on here know the majority of pedigree breeders, not just cross breeders are simply churning pups out without any real consideration.....


And I think that's possibly the most deluded sentence I've ever read on this forum.

You are making assumptions with no basis in fact whatsoever. The vast majority of breeders that I know take great pains to produce healthy pups from health tested parents. They don't 'churn out' pups. In fact, if you took the trouble to actually find out, rather than spouting such inanities, you'd know that pedigree dog registration is dropping by about 10% per year. The main reason is that people can't afford to buy pedigree dogs so there's little point in "churning out" puppies.

The only people that produce large numbers of puppies are puppy farms - and they'll produce anything that sells, especially 'designer dogs' e.g. crossbreeds. BTW - they don't health check and they don't care.


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

Don't all dog breeds ori originate from cross breeding? Even they are dogs of similar characteristics? Just a thought.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> without a big gene pool of mongrels, pedigrees are at risk of extinction.


....and the quickest way of guaranteeing pedigree breed extinction is to randomly cross breed !!

One outcross is not sufficient to guarantee genetic diversity - Bruce Cattanach has said for this to be maintained it would need to be repeated at every 4th generation - tell me how I would maintain my Groenendaels if they were outcrossed to GSD or Rough Collies with this kind of frequency ?...and tell me how I would avoid introducing things such as CEA or Haemophillia ( which my bred does not currently have ) if I cross breed to other pastoral breeds ...?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> And I think that's possibly the most deluded sentence I've ever read on this forum.
> 
> You are making assumptions with no basis in fact whatsoever. The vast majority of breeders that I know take great pains to produce healthy pups from health tested parents. They don't 'churn out' pups. In fact, if you took the trouble to actually find out, rather than spouting such inanities, you'd know that pedigree dog registration is dropping by about 10% per year. The main reason is that people can't afford to buy pedigree dogs so there's little point in "churning out" puppies.
> 
> The only people that produce large numbers of puppies are puppy farms - and they'll produce anything that sells, especially 'designer dogs' e.g. crossbreeds. BTW - they don't health check and they don't care.


I cannot agree with any of this. There is loads of anecdotal evidence that SL is correct. Choose virtually any breed you like (not the ones of very low numbers) and look in all the free ads, free internet sites etc and count up all the litters for sale, phone a percentage of them and see if they are health tested, then look on the KC site, champ dogs etc and see how many are advertised on there and maybe phone up a percentage of them too. I think you will find that there are far far more puppies produced without health testing than with and far more puppies that are produced because it would be nice to have a litter or it would be good to have some extra money.

Also how can you say that pedigree pups are not being produced because people cannot afford to buy them! How many cross breed litters are advertised at far more than either parent would cost to buy. People, on the whole, have far greater disposable incomes than they used to and are quite happy to spend it on a dog. I live in an area where, 10 years ago, the majority of dogs were collies or springers that cost between £5 and £150. Now there are huge numbers of expensive pedigree dogs that are bought, with vast travelling expenses, from 100s of miles away. And many people breeding the odd litter too and having no problem getting rid of them whether expensive pedigrees or £200 crossbreeds. And I doubt if many of them have any health tests.

At least two people I know fairly well are regularly producing lurchers and mixed breed terriers and they sell the pups with no problem at all. They do not stay at home with the bitch or spend loads of money on them yet they produce well balanced puppies that make great pets.

I am not particularly arguing on either side, but am trying to be realistic and see what truly does go on, not what I would like to happen or what happens among true dog enthusiasts.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Blitz said:


> There is loads of anecdotal evidence that SL is correct.


Anecdotal evidence isn't worth the paper it's written on.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> Anecdotal evidence isn't worth the paper it's written on.


Neither are surveys or scientific evidence as that changes from study to study. Just open your eyes and look and you will see that what SL and I have said is true.

If you want something simple go into your local park and do a quick survey.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

AlbertRoss said:


> Anecdotal evidence isn't worth the paper it's written on.



It is something you could check yourself quite easily.
I'm another that thinks SLs statement was correct, haven't collected the figures but just opening my eyes and looking gives enough evidence for me.

Yes there are more pedigree dogs with health tests than mongrels, but there are also a huge number of pedigree dogs without tests. Mostly those little pedigree dogs.
have a look at how many poor Bichons are in rescue after coming from a puppy farm. Virtually all pedigree and most likely not a health test between them


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Just had a quick look on one site of litters in my area.

4 mixed breeds 

3 untested pedigrees

I tested pedigree


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

alan g a said:


> Don't all dog breeds ori originate from cross breeding? Even they are dogs of similar characteristics? Just a thought.


I see this argument regularly, usually given in support of crossbreeding. However, the people who use it do not realise what a circular argument they are actually putting forward. It goes something like this:

Pedigrees are suffering from genetic illnesses and deformities because of small gene pools.

We should crossbreed more to get rid of the genetic illnesses and deformities.

Pedigrees originally started out as crossbreeds so the logical progression of crossbreeding means that we will have crossbreeds turning into new pedigres breeds - ie labradoodles, cockerpoos, jackapoos etc.

We can then contnue to breed within these new pedigrees.

But pedigrees suffer from genetic illnesses and deformities caused by small gene pools ...........

In other word, arguing that pedigrees started out as crossbreeds means that crossbreeding is responsible for the situation we have today. And if you think that the situation we have today is not good enough, then why argue for starting the same thing over again?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rona said:


> Just had a quick look on one site of litters in my area.
> 
> 4 mixed breeds
> 
> ...


I had to go & have a look in my area, just to see

3 pedigree litters, KC reg, no mention of health tests

1 pedigree litter, no KC reg, dad health tested

1 pedigree litter, option to KC reg, no mention of health tests

1 pedigree litter, no KC reg, no health tests, from a known local PF

1 three way crossbreed, from the same PF already mentioned

2 crossbreed litters, from the same advertiser, grandparents of one of the litters both health tested


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I see this argument regularly, usually given in support of crossbreeding. However, the people who use it do not realise what a circular argument they are actually putting forward. It goes something like this:
> 
> Pedigrees are suffering from genetic illnesses and deformities because of small gene pools.
> 
> ...


No, it doesn't.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> No, it doesn't.


Yes it does. If the breeds were not created in the first place by crossbreeding then there would be no breed, no breed standard created, no people breeding to the breed standard (ie not crossbreeding any longer), no gene pool becoming more and more limited, no having to have close matings that lead to genetic deformities ........... and so it goes on. All starting with the initial crossbreeding.

Why advocate starting the whole process again?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes it does. If the breeds were not created in the first place by crossbreeding then there would be no breed, no breed standard created, no people breeding to the breed standard (ie not crossbreeding any longer), no gene pool becoming more and more limited, no having to have close matings that lead to genetic deformities ........... and so it goes on. All starting with the initial crossbreeding.
> 
> Why advocate starting the whole process again?


By that logic the big bang caused every single problem we currently face.  The issue with predigree genes is the breed standards and inbreeding, it has nothing to do with crosses. If people kept on crossbreeding instead of going down the breed standard route then we wouldn't have this problem at all, ergo crossbreeding did not cause this problem at all, STOPPING crossbreeding did.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Neither are surveys or scientific evidence as that changes from study to study. Just open your eyes and look and you will see that what SL and I have said is true.
> 
> If you want something simple go into your local park and do a quick survey.


Dictionary definition of anecdote: An account regarded as unreliable or hearsay. My aunt's gardener's nephew's girlfriend's brother said he'd been bitten by a terrier. I wouldn't go near a terrier now, they're dangerous.

Scientific evidence may well change - but it changes over time, not by daily chit chat. And it's based on definite evidence - not someone's perception.

My eyes are wide open thanks. In the pedigree breed that I'm interested in there are a number of 'types' of breeder:


Amateurs - who breed one litter from their one pet bitch
Show breeders - who spend loads of money on their dogs, make sure they get the best veterinary attention and health check everything possible before breeding. Of the breeders I know, each of whom has at least 2 bitches, they average one litter every 18 months from their kennel. That's one litter every 3 years per bitch (or less).
'Professional breeders' - in our breed these people breed for specific markets, largely Asia/China and will be selling a dog for over £50,000 a time. I hate the practice but I'm 100% certain that every puppy they produce has had the very, very best in its 'production'. You won't see these dogs on the UK streets.
Puppy farms - who'll produce anything they can at cheap prices. They'll certainly register their dogs as pedigree but the dogs they produce undergo no health checks and no-one who produces them gives a toss about health.

There are a number of points this raises:

The Kennel Club will register any dog, in most breeds, without any health evidence.
There will be a number of people who won't health check (1&4 above)
There has been, in 'my' breed, a long running campaign both for breeders to health check and to force the KC to only register dogs from health checked parents. The KC won't do it. That's not the breeders' fault. Most breed clubs require members to health check.
Health checks have NOTHING to do with the conformation of many dogs. And many problems are conformation.
Nobody that I've ever heard of has done any health checks on parents of crossbreeds. That doesn't mean all crossbreeds are unhealthy - it just means that any such breeding is a leap in the dark.

To address some of your other statements:

People don't have more disposable income to spend on dogs. They don't have more disposable income to spend on anything. Heard of the current recession/austerity? Pet shelters are overflowing with dogs that people can't afford to feed anymore. Do try and stick to facts and not something out of your fevered imagination - no matter how well-intentioned it is.

I would certainly travel hundreds of miles to get a dog - if I knew the breeder, knew the parentage, knew the 'type' of dog, etc. Indeed I have done so. But that way I know that I'm getting a well socialised, healthy dog.

It may be the case that you know people who can sell puppies at will - it's certainly not true for most people. I know of several cases where puppies aren't being sold, despite the prices being dropped right down, and I see the same ads appear for weeks in local papers (not puppy farms either).

I'm also bemused by the fact that you don't agree that puppy farms are a problem.

I know emotions run high on these issues - and I think PDE did a good job in exposing the fact that there are problems. But the bald facts are that what PDE showed was a tiny, tiny minority and doesn't represent the vast majority of the pedigree dog world. Even the follow up programme grudgingly admitted that things had changed - although it went out of its way to avoid mentioning those things that were already in existence.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> If people kept on crossbreeding instead of going down the breed standard route then we wouldn't have this problem at all, ergo crossbreeding did not cause this problem at all, STOPPING crossbreeding did.


So to argue that today's pedigrees started off as crossbreeds is an argument that goes nowhere and serves no purpose - a circular argument, in other words (which was my original point!)


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> So to argue that today's pedigrees started off as crossbreeds is an argument that goes nowhere and serves no purpose - a circular argument, in other words (which was my original point!)


I think the purpose of bringing up past crossbreeding is for those who like to think there's something wrong with crossing these days.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> Dictionary definition of anecdote: An account regarded as unreliable or hearsay. My aunt's gardener's nephew's girlfriend's brother said he'd been bitten by a terrier. I wouldn't go near a terrier now, they're dangerous.
> 
> Scientific evidence may well change - but it changes over time, not by daily chit chat. And it's based on definite evidence - not someone's perception.
> 
> ...


I cannot quote all of your post as it is so long

Anecdotal evidence is a commonly used term and I am sure you know as well as I do what it means so stop being obtuse - or will that have a different meaning too.

As far as the recession goes, some people have less money, a lot have more money. Round here all the eating places are busier than they have ever been and they are sprouting up everywhere. Nearly every car I see in car parks is less than 5 years old, tourists are abounding. We have cruise ships visiting and there was a record number this year, all appeared to be fairly full too. As I said there are a LOT of expensive dogs and there are also a lot of expensive horses. All the locals are travelling and having holidays whereas 10 years ago that just did not happen.
Odd but true and nothing to do with my 'fevered imagination'.

And do you know, I have lived a long time and every winter there are cheap horses for sale because 'in the current economic climate we cant afford to keep them'. Dogs have always been disposable but it was more often done at the vets surgery rather than into a rescue. More dogs are being bred, more people own dogs therefore more ending up in rescue with various excuses.

As for puppy farms, you have totally lost me with that remark!

Something I did not quote was something about 'your' breed trying to get dogs only registered if health tested. But that is only a very very few breeders in 'your' breed. The everyday breeders will not be fighting to change anything.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Anecdotal evidence is a commonly used term and I am sure you know as well as I do what it means so stop being obtuse - or will that have a different meaning too.


Yes, it's a commonly used term for "I don't actually have evidence but my opinion is...." Or, putting it another way, there is no reliable evidence.



> As far as the recession goes, some people have less money, a lot have more money.


I guess there's 2 million unemployed (up from about 1.2 million a couple of years ago) who might disagree with that. Most people have smaller disposable incomes - pay has risen very slightly and everyday prices have increased greatly over the past 3 or so years.



> We have cruise ships visiting and there was a record number this year, all appeared to be fairly full too.


Yes, I'm meeting one tomorrow morning. And, the cruise ship business has drastically cut prices to put bums on seats because they have way over capacity.



> As for puppy farms, you have totally lost me with that remark!


I wrote: "The only people that produce large numbers of puppies are puppy farms - and they'll produce anything that sells, especially 'designer dogs' e.g. crossbreeds. BTW - they don't health check and they don't care"

You responded: "I cannot agree with any of this."



> Something I did not quote was something about 'your' breed trying to get dogs only registered if health tested. But that is only a very very few breeders in 'your' breed. The everyday breeders will not be fighting to change anything.


No, it's not. It's pretty much all 'breeders' where 'breeders' means people who show and breed and, to a greater extent now, to amateur breeders. The people who don't health check are few and far between, largely because people won't let their stud dogs be used on non-health tested bitches as any 'problem' offspring would reflect badly on them. These are people who pay money into the Kennel Club and help keep it going but are hamstrung by the composition of an organisation that still runs on Victorian lines.

It's sad that people are still so blinded by PDE years after it was made. A bit more digging will show exactly how biased JH was/is and how she twists an awful lot of things to suit herself.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> I think the purpose of bringing up past crossbreeding is for those who like to think there's something wrong with crossing these days.


I know that  - but unless you want crossbreeding today to end up 20/30/40/50 etc years down the line with the same problems pedigrees have today, it is not a valid argument.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> Yes, it's a commonly used term for "I don't actually have evidence but my opinion is...." Or, putting it another way, there is no reliable evidence.
> 
> It's sad that people are still so blinded by PDE years after it was made. A bit more digging will show exactly how biased JH was/is and how she twists an awful lot of things to suit herself.


oh dear oh dear to the first bit!
And if the second bit is aimed at me you are way off course. I did not even bother watching the stupid programme till years after it was made and when I eventually succumbed (mainly because of the hype on here as I had certainly never heard it mentioned anywhere else) it was just as much a load of tosh as I had expected.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blitz said:


> oh dear oh dear to the first bit!
> And if the second bit is aimed at me you are way off course. I did not even bother watching the stupid programme till years after it was made and when I eventually succumbed (mainly because of the hype on here as I had certainly never heard it mentioned anywhere else) it was just as much a load of tosh as I had expected.


Odd isn't it, I still haven't watched the programme but if I say anything slightly supporting crossbreeds I've been brainwashed by that programme?  :lol:

All I know is that it's done so much to open the eyes to the suffering of dogs in general. The only unfortunate thing is it was aimed specifically at pedigrees. Would have been far more helpful to have been bad verses good breeders.

By good, I don't mean those that get champions at Crufts, cos a few of them suffer dreadfully for their owners vanity


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Bijou said:


> . . . - times have changed and there is no excuse for breeding without knowledge ..and no excuse for continuing to support breeders who breed in ignorance of what they are producing.


Some crossbreed and some purebred breeders have more knowledge behind than others. The most knowledgeable I've met have been sled dog breeders . . . and they breed types without a registry, probably similarly to lurcher breeders in the UK from my understanding. However there is not one breeder. . . even you, that has enough knowledge to proclaim they have even barely diminished the risk of the multiple illnesses the pups they produce can face.

EVERY breeder is breeding in ignorance . . . so your statement tars every single one as having 'no excuse for breeding'.

WE DO NOT HAVE the ability to have the knowledge necessary to even minisculy reduce the THOUSANDS of disease risks that are faced by every animal born.

Do you TRULY think that we do?



rona said:


> You can have all the testing in the world, and think you have all the info, but while breeders cover up deformaties/sickness so that they can still have accolades then pedigree breeding is almost as much a lottery as any other breeding.


Yes.



ozrex said:


> . . . without a big gene pool of mongrels, pedigrees are at risk of extinction.


Absolutely the truth. It is the gene pool of types and mongrels that refining breeders went to through the centuries to invigorate their inbred gene pools when things started to go south.

That has been documented in history.



Bijou said:


> ....and the quickest way of guaranteeing pedigree breed extinction is to randomly cross breed !!


No it is not. Crossbred and mongrel gene pools have ALWAYS been bred beside purebred gene pools . . . even in the hayday of breed development. There is enough room for breeders of all kinds to continue as long as people want the dogs produced and support them.

There is not a single VALID reason to fear-monger over crossbreeding and mutt gene pools being maintained.



Bijou said:


> ....One outcross is not sufficient to guarantee genetic diversity - *Bruce Cattanach has said *for this to be maintained *it would need to be repeated at every 4th generation*... - tell me how I would maintain my Groenendaels if they were outcrossed to GSD or Rough Collies with this kind of frequency ...?


Your question is ridiculous on its premise as a cross-in every four generations has never been stated as necessary and it is easily proven as not necessary through the understanding of genetics.

This is the quote from Bruce Cattanach.



> I had great difficulty achieving what I did with just the one gene to be transferred. It really needed more than one individual to succeed fully. I am therefore quite sceptical about this effort to increase the diversity across the whole genome. I think this needs to be done at a scale only possible at KC level with several crosses perhaps involving several breeds, and then there would be the yet trickier part of keeping the diversity while somehow getting back to breed type. That numbers of people might independently attempt this is frightening; it could result in no more than a mongrel mix-up.


Sourced here: Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: Will this Toller x litter save the breed?

Bruce Cattanach in this statement is addressing the need for *backcross projects* to be done in a cooperative manner. He suggests that individually taken on they are too much for a breeder and leave more room for error.

These are YOUR words when discussing this previously.



> ..so how often would you need to outcross in order to keep genetic diversity within breeds - I'm guessing once every 4-5 generations ?


Nov. 2010 on this forum - http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/132245-breeding-line-breeding-po-tay-po-tah-c-o-i-8.html



> *granted he does not mention the frequency of outcrossing* in this quote but his views are clear on the difficulties in maintaining breed type when using out crosses for genetic diversity . . .


sourced here: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 2 - Your Views - Page 35

So you already have recognized Bruce Cattanach made no statement about crossing back every fourth generation . . . just guesswork that that is the case then.



> . . . and tell me how I would avoid introducing things such as CEA or Haemophillia ( which my bred does not currently have ) if I cross breed to other pastoral breeds ...?


CEA can be prevented from introduction by using DNA tested stock. If it is introduced it can be managed, as well, through the same test. - http://www.optigen.com/opt9_test_cea_ch.html

You DO NOT KNOW that your breed does not have haemophillia. Why are you making the assumption it does not? You also avoid haemophillia, as best as possible in crossbreeding the same way you do it in pure breeding . . . by gleaning as much knowledge as possible from the lines behind. . . and realizing that information can never be 100% accurate.



> . . . 1. How frequent is hemophilia in the Belgian Shepherds Malinois?
> 
> Nobody knows it; therefore, a screening test must absolutely be carried out to prevent the uncontrolled spread of the disorder. *Few are the cases identified until now, but they belong to families with a high reproductive potential.*
> 
> ...


source - http://www.malinemo.net/?q=en/node/23



Phoolf said:


> I think the purpose of bringing up past crossbreeding is for those who like to think there's something wrong with crossing these days.





Spellweaver said:


> I know that - but unless you want crossbreeding today to end up 20/30/40/50 etc years down the line with the same problems pedigrees have today, it is not a valid argument.


How does this reply follow Phoolf's statement? Please explain what is meant here as it makes no sense.

CC


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

rona said:


> All I know is that it's done so much to open the eyes to the suffering of dogs in general.


Incorrect. It addressed solely a few breeds of dogs - not 'dogs in general'. It's precisely that sort of inference that I, and many, many others, object to. It was a biased, selective documentary during which Harrison appeared to misrepresent herself to people she interviewed. Not surprisingly the programme the Kennel Club made never got to be shown on TV. Funny that. But then it wasn't full of sensationalism - just plain, simple, factual information about what was really happening in the pedigree dog breeding world.

There's an awful lot of supposition and an awful lot of conjecture but there's very, very little hard evidence to show any sort of general problems with pedigree dogs. I have seen none in this thread - merely a load of parrotting of opinion. And while anyone has the right to an opinion pushing that opinion on others as some sort of 'truth' is a highly reprehensible tactic.

But, if you like, I'll give you some anecdotal evidence about the cross breed my sister bought. A collie cross. Lovely little dog as a pup. Within 6 months however she started developing myriad problems. She wasn't insured and my sister spent thousands of pounds on that dog trying to give her the quality of life she ought to have. I think the dog spent more time in the vets than the house. On that evidence every crossbreed has problems. It's exactly the same anecdotal evidence that has been used here about pedigree dogs. :mad2:


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

AlbertRoss said:


> . . . There's an awful lot of supposition and an awful lot of conjecture but there's very, very little hard evidence to show any sort of general problems with pedigree dogs. I have seen none in this thread - merely a load of parrotting of opinion. And while anyone has the right to an opinion pushing that opinion on others as some sort of 'truth' is a highly reprehensible tactic.:


So not enough hard evidence of suffereing of problems in pedigree dogs?

You are kidding right?

How about the 100% MVD rate in Cavaliers, 50% early age, and the incredibly high affected rate of CM/SM -70% with syrinxes by the age of seven.

YOU LIVE with a dog with SM for a while, watch a relatively young dog die of MVD, and then tell me that there are not general problems in pedigree dogs.

That is such absolute TOSH.

Are Cavaliers NOT a numerous and popular breed in the UK, or have I been misled on that?



AlbertRoss said:


> . . . But, if you like, I'll give you some anecdotal evidence about the cross breed my sister bought. A collie cross. Lovely little dog as a pup. Within 6 months however she started developing myriad problems. She wasn't insured and my sister spent thousands of pounds on that dog trying to give her the quality of life she ought to have. I think the dog spent more time in the vets than the house. On that evidence every crossbreed has problems. It's exactly the same anecdotal evidence that has been used here about pedigree dogs. :mad2:


And I'll give you some anecdotal evidense. My Husky - a sled dog - never insured and to the vets only ever for shots and look-sees. She lived past 18 years of age and we ended her days as her mind gave out before her body did. I have a seven year old mixed breed here (that I bought) and a seven year old purebred here (that I've taken in but known for his life) and he requires daily medications and his health expenditures, lifetime, are many times hers.

I had a rescued/foster Cavalier 10 years ago, an ex-breeding girl at a commercial kennel (CKC inspected) of a show involved breeder that is in MANY pedigrees here to this day, and that lived to the age of only 8 and then suffered as her heart gave out.

How about a Cavalier I know named Levis. He was purchased from TOP lines by a retired school teacher for a TON of cash, in hopes that those top breeders (American, but quickly back to the UK) would be able to better predict the risk of SM. By two years of age $8000 had already been spent - SM it is.

How about Bella, another Cavalier owned by an acquaintance here, purchase from Top lines again (Canadian, but quickly back to the UK) . . . and the same story has happened.

How about recognizing that breeders in the UK were shipping progeny out all over the world from top dogs that they KNEW were risky, and THAT needed a spotlight put on it, as ALL other measures had failed to make an impact on these idiots at the TOP of the Cavalier breed, and who JUDGE the Cavalier breed, and CLAIM they have its best interest at heart.


__
https://flic.kr/p/405967680
 -----

__
https://flic.kr/p/2853756302
 ----- http://www.caninehealthregistry.org/dog-names/dogdetails/28144/

Not enough hard evidense, my arse. I could name names and show pedigrees if you insist on hard evidense. . . . or would you rather studies which show the heightened prevalence of MANY conditions in MANY breeds?

Anecdotes will go both ways as some dogs of all kinds do well and some do poorly.

The point being, however, that there is risk in all breeding, both crossbreeding, muttbreeding and pedigree breeding. All breeders breed with a good amount of risk sitting before them. There are going to be scum breeders at all levels, and then those that do their best as well attempting to manage risks - of all types of dogs. Do you deny this?

CC


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I saw two sad examples just 40 mins ago when I was out with my dog.

A poor little sharp pei with so many wrinkles it's eyes wouldn't open  and what was described to me as a miniature  Labradoodle 

With that label you can imagine what that looked like :cryin: 

Just heartbreaking.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> So not enough hard evidence of suffereing of problems in pedigree dogs?
> 
> You are kidding right?
> 
> ...


And are not Cavaliers just ONE breed? Or have I been misled on that? I agree Cavaliers have problems - but there's no comparison between a Cavalier and a Doberman for example. To say one breed has a problem and therefore all others must is ludicrous.

I'll repeat - it's not all breeds - it's a select few. The KV has already published their 14 'at risk' list. I see nothing for the other 200 breeds.



> I had a rescued/foster Cavalier 10 years ago, an ex-breeding girl at a commercial kennel (CKC inspected) of a show involved breeder that is in MANY pedigrees here to this day, and that lived to the age of only 8 and then suffered as her heart gave out.


That sort of negates the bit you posted above. Make your mind up.



> How about recognizing that breeders in the UK were shipping progeny out all over the world from top dogs that they KNEW were risky, and THAT needed a spotlight put on it, as ALL other measures had failed to make an impact on these idiots at the TOP of the Cavalier breed, and who JUDGE the Cavalier breed, and CLAIM they have its best interest at heart.
> 
> Puppy Appeal | Flickr - Photo Sharing! ----- A Sad Cavalier Tale | Flickr - Photo Sharing! -----


Once again - one (the same) breed.



> or would you rather studies which show the heightened prevalence of MANY conditions in MANY breeds?


Yes, I'd like you to provide evidence that shows that the majority of pedigree dog breeds have problems. I know Cavaliers have problems - and I know about a minority of other breeds - and that really isn't the point. What is being claimed is that ALL pedigree breeds have problems. And that is just out and out rubbish.



> The point being, however, that there is risk in all breeding, both crossbreeding, muttbreeding and pedigree breeding. All breeders breed with a good amount of risk sitting before them. There are going to be scum breeders at all levels, and then those that do their best as well attempting to manage risks - of all types of dogs. Do you deny this?


Of course there's a risk in any breeding - human as well as animal. There will always be genetic abnormalities. It's just one of those things that happens. However, as a matter of fact (not conjecture) careful, selective breeding can reduce the incidence of health problems. There is a library full of hard evidence to support that. That certain breeds/breeders disregard those problems is certainly the case. But it's a very, very small number. And the vast majority of dogs with health problems don't come from reputable breeders.

Trying to tar all breeds with one brush is exactly what PDE was about. It was a lie then and it's a lie now.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

AlbertRoss said:


> Of course there's a risk in any breeding - human as well as animal. There will always be genetic abnormalities. It's just one of those things that happens. However, as a matter of fact (not conjecture) careful, selective breeding can reduce the incidence of health problems. There is a library full of hard evidence to support that. That certain breeds/breeders disregard those problems is certainly the case. But it's a very, very small number. And the vast majority of dogs with health problems don't come from reputable breeders.
> 
> Trying to tar all breeds with one brush is exactly what PDE was about. It was a lie then and it's a lie now.


Err I thought this started with SL statement that the vast majority of pedigree dogs aren't health tested, not that a few reputable breeders actually do it right?

However I beg to differ that all that profess to be reputable actually are.
I've known breeders in Labs, Poodles, Papillons, Afghan Hounds and Goldies that have been held in high esteem and have been very far from it


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

AlbertRoss said:


> And are not Cavaliers just ONE breed? Or have I been misled on that? I agree Cavaliers have problems - but there's no comparison between a Cavalier and a Doberman for example. To say one breed has a problem and therefore all others must is ludicrous.
> 
> I'll repeat - it's not all breeds - it's a select few. The KV has already published their 14 'at risk' list. I see nothing for the other 200 breeds..


Cavaliers are ONE breed that are POPULAR in the UK and make up a good number of pedigrees that are purchased.

They are in trouble, as are MANY other breeds.

Using your Doberman example, are you not aware of the problems in that breed? I know a prominant judge and breeder here in Alberta that QUIT Dobes and went to Cavaliers . . . because of the prevalent problems faced by Dobermans.

Cardiomyopathy - risk - High 
Chronic Inflammatory Hepatic Disease - risk - high 
Gastic Dilatation Volvulus (Bloat) - risk - high
Mitral Valve Disease - risk - Medium 
Copper Hepatopathy - risk - medium 
Lick Granuloma - risk - high
IVDD (Wobbler's Disease) - risk - high
Pemphigus - risk - High

source - Finding a Healthy Doberman Pinscher by Embrace Pet Insurance



> In the Past We Bred Dobermans
> 
> Although no longer breeding Dobermans, they will always be in our home and heart. Breeders of one of the most performance titled Dobermans in Canada as well as the dam of the only Doberman to go top dog all breeds. We have been devastated by the short lives of our wonderful dogs and hope those who carry on breeding are able to make great improvements in this area.


- Dawnaquinn Cavaliers



> Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a common genetic heart disease in Doberman pinschers . . . . Because of the high incidence of DCM in this breed, annual screening is cost-effective. Echocardiograms and Holter recordings beginning at approximately three years of age are recommended


Heart disease in the Doberman pinscher breed: Is there a screening test that can be performed?



> I had a rescued/foster Cavalier 10 years ago, an ex-breeding girl at a commercial kennel (CKC inspected) of a show involved breeder that is in MANY pedigrees here to this day, and that lived to the age of only 8 and then suffered as her heart gave out.





AlbertRoss said:


> That sort of negates the bit you posted above. Make your mind up.


What negates what? Explain.



AlbertRoss said:


> Yes, I'd like you to provide evidence that shows that the majority of pedigree dog breeds have problems. I know Cavaliers have problems - and I know about a minority of other breeds - and that really isn't the point. What is being claimed is that ALL pedigree breeds have problems. And that is just out and out rubbish..


ALL pedigree breeds do have problems, just as ALL dogs have problems. Many pedigree breeds have HEIGHTENED risks of specific problems.

This library linked here is a start if you want to have a look at what specific breeds are prone to. I'll go through a few of the 'A's (there are common mixes listed as well if you'd like to compare breeds to their crossbred counterparts) - Dog Breeds

Affenpinscher: Legg Calve Perthes - risk - high, Patella Luxation - risk - medium, Hip Dysplasia - risk - medium

Afghan Hound: Hip Dysplasia - risk - medium, Cataracts - risk - high, Demodectic Mange - risk - medium, hypothyroidism - risk - medium

Airedale Terrier: Hip Dysplasia - risk - medium, Bloat - medium, Corneal Dystrophy - risk - high, Hypothyroidism - risk - high

----

More specifically I will follow this post with another that has listed studies.

----



AlbertRoss said:


> Of course there's a risk in any breeding - human as well as animal. There will always be genetic abnormalities. It's just one of those things that happens.
> 
> However, as a matter of fact (not conjecture) careful, selective breeding can reduce the incidence of health problems. There is a library full of hard evidence to support that...


It is a matter of fact that SPECIFIC targetted problems can be reduced through selective breeding and knowledge. That does not in any way address the OTHER problems that crop up and that are increased through this selection. Reducing one or two of THOUSANDS of possibilities cannot be considered 'reducing' the risk of health problems.



AlbertRoss said:


> That certain breeds/breeders disregard those problems is certainly the case. But it's a very, very small number. And the vast majority of dogs with health problems don't come from reputable breeders.
> 
> Trying to tar all breeds with one brush is exactly what PDE was about. It was a lie then and it's a lie now.


IT IS NOT A SMALL NUMBER of breeders that disregard problems. A SMALL number of knowledgeable invested breeders disregard problems, but there are a helluva lot of breeders that are not either knowledgeable or caring. Many disregard problems in ignorance of the fact that the problems might even be there, as is exemplified by thoughts on this thread.

And we will agree to disagree that tarring all breeds with one brush was what PDE was about.

It was not for me and many others. PDE specifically pointed out some unethical breeders high up in Cavaliers but that would not prevent a watcher, like myself, from still adoring other wonderful Cavalier breeders.

CC


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Many of these links were gathered by Jess Ruffner-Booth. I've added since:

-Cancer - ". . . Through a telephone survey, the estimates of canine and feline populations of the catchment area turned out to be of 296,318 (CI +/- 30,201) and 214,683 (CI +/- 21,755) subjects, respectively. During the first three years, overall 2,509 canine and 494 feline cases of neoplasia were diagnosed. In dogs, the estimated annual incidence rate (IR) per 100,000 dogs for all tumours was 282 in all the catchment area, whereas in cats the IR was much lower (IR = 77). Malignant and benign tumours were equally distributed in male and female dogs, whereas cats had a 4.6-fold higher incidence of malignant tumours than benign. *In both dogs and cats, purebreds had an almost 2-fold higher incidence of malignant tumours than mixed breeds.* Tumour incidence increased with age in both dog and cat populations. . ." BMC Veterinary Research | Abstract | Animal tumour registry of two provinces in northern Italy: incidence of spontaneous tumours in dogs and cats

-Mammary Tumours - "A considerably higher predisposition to mammary tumours was found in purebred dogs as compared to mongrels" http://actavet.vfu.cz/pdf/200574010103.pdf

-". . .Factors affecting the occurrence, duration of hospitalization and final outcome in canine parvovirus infection. . . . The odds to develop CPV enteritis were higher in purebreds compared to mixed-breed puppies". . . Factors affecting the occurrence, duration of ho... [Res Vet Sci. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

-". . .Rottweilers, American Pit Bull Terriers, Doberman Pinschers, and German Shepherd Dogs were at increased risk and Toy Poodles and Cocker Spaniels were at decreased risk for developing CPV enteritis, compared with that for mixed-breed dogs. . ." Risk factors associated with parvovirus e... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

-Fungal infection - ". . . Sporting dogs and hounds, as defined by the American Kennel Club, were at increased risk for blastomycosis. At highest risk were Bluetick Coonhounds, Treeing-walker Coonhounds, Pointers, and Weimaraners, compared with mixed-breed dogs. . ." Evaluation of risk factors for blastomyco... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1992] - PubMed - NCBI

". . .Our results indicated that both Miniature Schnauzers and Shetland sheepdogs in Japan exhibited remarkably high concentrations of plasma TG and total cholesterol, which are considered to be signs of hyperlipidemia, as compared to other purebred and mixed (Mongrel) canine breeds. . ." Predisposition for primary hyperlipidemia in Min... [Res Vet Sci. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

-Legg-Perthes - ". . . Some small-breed dogs such as the Pug and the West Highland White Terrier have a very high risk of Legg-Perthes disease relative to a mixed breed dog." - Breed Susceptibility for Developmental Orthopedic Diseases in Dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2002;38:467-477 - Breeds confirmed at high risk as compared to mongrels are - Australian Shepherd, Cairn Terrier, Chihuahua, Dachshund, Lhasa Apso, Miniature Pinscher, Miniature Poodle, Pug, Toy Poodle, West Highland White Terrier, Yorkshire Terrier - http://www.gopetsamerica.com/dog-health/lcp_breed_predisposition.aspxhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12220032

-Osteosarcoma - ". . .Results of the present study suggested that Greyhounds, Rottweilers, and Great Danes had an increased risk of developing OSA, compared with mixed-breed dogs.. . ." Prevalence of and intrinsic risk factors ... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

-Congenital portosystemic shunts - ". . .Thirty-three breeds were significantly more likely to have a diagnosis of CPSS, compared with mixed-breed dogs. . ." Association of breed with the diagnosis o... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

-Myasthenia gravis (neuromuscular disorder of the skull) ". . .In comparison with mixed-breed dogs, dogs with the highest risk of acquired MG were Akitas, terrier group, Scottish Terriers, German Shorthaired Pointers, and Chihuahuas. Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, Dalmatians, and Jack Russell Terriers had low relative risks. Sexually intact males and dogs less than 1 year old had some protection from risk . . ." 
Risk factors for acquired myasthenia grav... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI

-". . . Most dogs with amyloidosis were greater than 6 years old, and females were affected more often than males. Beagles, Collies, and Walker Hounds were at increased risk, whereas German Shepherd Dogs and mixed-breed dogs were at decreased risk. . ." Clinicopathologic findings in dogs with r... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1989] - PubMed - NCBI

-Glaucoma - ". . .Compared with mixed-breed dogs, 8 breeds were at higher risk (P less than 0.01) of developing glaucoma: Basset Hound, Beagle, Boston Terrier, Cocker Spaniel, Dalmatian, Miniature Poodle, Norwegian Elkhound, and Siberian Husky. . ."

The reference hospital population consisted of 3006 dogs. The base line used was mixed breed dogs. 6 of1053 mixed breeds were diagnosed with glaucoma - 0.57%. Amongst the purebred population 57 of 1953 were diagnosed with glaucoma - 2.91%. Of the 26 breeds examined *18 had too small of a sample size to determine if the incidence rate was greater or less because of the margin of error increase that occurs as sample size diminishes.* Larger populations of these breeds would need to be studied if a determination was to be made. Effects of risk factors and prophylactic ... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1986] - PubMed - NCBI

Related: The prevalence of the primary breed-related glaucomas has gradually increased from 0.29% (1964-1973); 0.46% (1974-1983); 0.76% (1984-1993); to 0.89% (1994-2002). . . . The highest prevalence of glaucomas in 1994-2002 by breed included: American Cocker Spaniel (5.52%); Basset Hound (5.44%); Chow Chow (4.70%); Shar-Pei (4.40%); Boston Terrier (2.88%); Wire Fox Terrier (2.28%); Norwegian ElkHound (1.98%); Siberian Husky (1.88%); Cairn Terrier (1.82%); and Miniature Poodle (1.68%). Prevalence of the breed-related glauc... [Vet Ophthalmol. 2004 Mar-Apr] - PubMed - NCBI

-(After cataract surgery) - Mixed-breed dogs were at a significantly lower risk for glaucoma, compared with other breeds. Development of glaucoma after cataract su... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI

-Hypothyroidism - ". . .This study investigates the epidemiologic features of 3,206 dogs diagnosed with hypothyroidism (including myxedema) from 1.1 million dogs seen at 15 veterinary teaching hospitals between March, 1964 and June, 1978. Nine breeds found to be at high-risk for hypothyroidism were: golden retrievers, Doberman pinschers, dachshunds, Shetland sheepdogs, Irish setters, Pomeranians, miniature schnauzers, cocker spaniels, and Airedales. Two breed with a significant deficit of risk were German shepherds and mixed breed (mongrel) dogs. . ." Epidemiologic features of canine hypothyroidism. [Cornell Vet. 1981] - PubMed - NCBI

-". . .Among 331 animals with cleft palate in a veterinary clinic-hospital population, cats, mixed breed dogs and German Shepherd Dogs had low risk for cleft palate; high rates were seen in English Bulldogs, some small purebred dogs and Charolais cattle, where cleft palate occurred as part of a syndrome of multiple malformations. . ." Cleft palate in domestic animals: epidemiologic f... [Teratology. 1980] - PubMed - NCBI

Here is another list that originated through the original Cangen list, and my memory tells me it came from Dr. Hellmuth Wachtell.

1) B.N. Bonnett, A. Egenvall, P. Olson, . Hedhammar, Mortality in Swedish dogs: rates and causes of death in various breeds, The Veterinary Record, 12/7/1997, S. 40 - 44)
"Mongrels were consistently in the low risk category" (S. 41)

2) P.D. McGreevy & W.F. Nicholas, Some Practical Solutions to Welfare Problems in Pedigree Dog Breeding, Animal Welfare, 1999, Vol 8, 329-331
"Hybrids have a far lower chance of exhibiting the disorders that are common with the parental breeds. Their genetic health will be substantially higher." (P338)

3) A. Egenvall, B.N. Bonnett, P. Olson, . Hedhammar,Gender, age, breed and distribution of morbidity and mortality in insured dogs in Sweden during 1995 and 1996, The Veterinary Record, 29/4/2000, p. 519-57
"Mongrel dogs are less prone to many diseases then the average purebred dog." (S. 524)

4) R. Beythien, Tierarten- und Hunderassenverteilung, Erkrankungshufigkeit und prophylaktische Manahmen bei den hufigsten Hunderassen am Beispiel einer Tierarztpraxis in Bielefeld in den Jahren 1983-1985 und 1990-1992, 1998, Diss., Tierrztl. Hochschule Hannover
Mongrels require less veterinary treatment

5) A. R. Michell, Longevity of British breeds of dog and its relationship with sex, size, cardiovascular variables and disease, Vet. Rec., 27 Nov. 1999, S. 625-629
"There was a significant correlation between body weight and longevity. Crossbreeds lived longer than average but several pure breeds lived longer than cross breeds, notably Jack Russell, miniature poodles and whippets" (S. 627 - thus only small and toy breeds, as to be expected)

6) G.J. Patronek, D.J. Walters, L.T. Glickman, Comparative Longevity of Pet Dogs and Humans: Implications for Gerontology Research, J. Geront., BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 1997, Vol 52A,No.3, B171-B178
"The median age at death was 8,5 years for all mixed breed dogs and 6,7 years for all pure breed dogs For each weight group, the age at death of pure breed dogs was significantly less than for mixed breed dogs." (p. B173)

7) H.F. Proschofsky et al, Mortality of purebred and mixed breed dogs in Denmark, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2003, 58, 53-74
Higher average longevity of mixed breed dogs (grouped together). Age at death mixed breeds (Q1 Q2 Q3 mixed breeds 8,11,13, purebreds 6, 10, 12)

CC


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

CC
Stunning amount of information there. I'll be coming back to this thread for months to come


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

In all honesty though I don't think any decent breeder or person for that matter on here is anti cross breed its just the unfortunate situation that the majority of cross breeds are not bred ethically (note the word majority).
I have a badly bred no KC reg staffie, her life is plauged by allergies and at 3 and half her hip clicks, the vet has told me she will not have an amazing long life.
I have a rescue patterdale x, he has no health issues, however been born on a farm in wales he has physcological problems.
Then I got Nala, she is from a good quality breeder, fully KC reg'd. health tested and genetically clear for everything.
I will never ever buy from a BYB again, in fact if i ever got my hands on the woman that bred Lexi well.... out of a litter of 5 there are 3 alive with one of the girls been PTS because of allergy issues and the boy been killed in a dog fight.
Bosley well, I will rescue again but not a dog with the issues Bos has.
However buying from a good quality breeder was a wonderful expereince.

PDE highlighted some of the poorer practices that go on in some breeding circles. I am sure there are people out there that are breeding pugs with longer snouts etc but at the minute they will be in the minority. The issue been as a 'good' breeder you have to do well in the show ring, a pug with a longer snout won't do well in the show ring so should you really be breeding. 

My parents have a 16 year old JR, when she is no longer with us they have decided they would quite like a poodle x. They like cocker spaniel poodle crosses, I have no idea why but they have met a few like the size and the idea. So if thats the case they will look and the know it will not be easy but they will not buy a pup until the find a litter with fully health tested parents.

At the end of the day the rescue centres and full of both full breeds cross breeds and mongrels. You are never ever going to stop breeding but at least if the message is raised about ethical breeding, with health tested parents and raise that message then the un ethical breeders will start to fail anyway because they aren't going to go to the lengths of getting their dogs tested.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

LexiLou2 said:


> . . . You are never ever going to stop breeding but at least if the message is raised about ethical breeding, with health tested parents and raise that message then the un ethical breeders will start to fail anyway because they aren't going to go to the lengths of getting their dogs tested.


I agree. I do take exception, though, to the idea that we can determine whether an ethical breeder is just that SIMPLY on the knowledge of what type of dogs they breed. Determinations of that kind are what began this thread.

There are ethical caring crossbreeders.

There are ethical caring purebreeders.

There are ethical caring mutt breeders (sled dog breeders being my known go-to breeders that I find incredible in their knowledge).

Health testing will depend on the prevalence of problems shown in the lines that are being put together and there is NOT a one size fits all set of health tests that we can stipulate SHOULD be done.

People who are looking to purchase a dog NEED to get to know breeders in their community or of a like mind and support those that they believe in.

It is as simple as that, which USED to be common sense until it started to be mucked with by AR groups who want to demonize all breeders and are leaving buyers completely confused with the myriad of messages that manage to condemn each and every breeder for what they breed.

It is wrong to breed mutts - too risky - that was the first line of attack.
It is wrong to breed crossbreeds - too risky - that was the second attack.
It is wrong to breed purebreeds - too risky - that is their current attack.

NONE of the attacks are ones I will substantiate. Pups comes with risk and are bred with risk and there is no way for breeding to be done without risk. Tolerable risk will depend on each individual and their own evaluation criteria, with some favoring certain types of risks, while others will favor different types. There is no way of neatly packaging a 'best' way to breed.

CC


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> There is no way of neatly packaging a 'best' way to breed.


actually there is -here would be mine :


have a clear aim of what you are hoping achieve from your breeding
spend time (years ! ) and effort to thoroughly research your chosen breed
spend time effort and money in finding the best foundation bitch you possibly can
do all required health tests 
research suitable studs ( including visiting other kennels, working tests and conformation shows to see what they have produced )
be prepared to travel overseas or to use AI if this is the only way of getting the mating you want
calculate the COI of a planned litter
line breed no closer than the 4th generation
have a waiting list of prospective buyer and insist that they visit before hand
whelp and rear the pups in a home environment
provide the best quality food for mum and pups
KC register pups
issue contracts and endorse registrations
provide detailed written advice and support and ongoing support for as long as is needed
encourage pup owners to stay in touch
be prepared to take back anything you have bred
keep detailed records of the outcome of a mating including temperament, health, type etc etc
use this knowledge to breed on to the next generation always aiming ti improve where required
breed no more than 2 litters form each bitch

these are in my opinion the hallmarks of a good breeder - how many of them do breeders of cross breeds do :confused1:

and as an aside ( for Comfort Creature ) Cattanch's 4 generation rule is the one used by the KC when registering pups from intervariety matings - I know because I have bred litters registered with 3*** that are deemed 'pure 'by the 4th generation - if I was only breeding for genetic diversity then it's at this point that the out cross would have to be done again


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rona said:


> I saw two sad examples just 40 mins ago when I was out with my dog.
> 
> A poor little sharp pei with so many wrinkles it's eyes wouldn't open  and what was described to me as a miniature  Labradoodle
> 
> ...


I am sad that you saw a poor specimen of a mini labradoodle but can I just point out that there are a few breeders of them about and though I have only met a couple they have been absolutely gorgeous dogs with poodle coats and about mini poodle size. As with all breeding it will depend how it is done. If you take a good sized lab and put to a small mini poodle it is bad. If you take a few generations to produce what you want then it has to be good. Interestingly one of the owners told me that because their dog was a mini it also had cocker spaniel in it. No idea if that is normal but it would be one way of getting the size down during the process.
I am not absolutely sure of the reason for wanting to produce a dog with a coat and temperament and size of a miniature poodle when you could just breed poodles but that is another story and I suppose poodles are becoming rarer, have a certain stigma attached to them and their genetic pool must be shrinking so in fact maybe sensible outcrossing is a good idea.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Bijou said:


> actually there is -here would be mine :
> 
> 
> have a clear aim of what you are hoping achieve from your breeding
> ...


1. Thats YOUR list, not a definitive list that anyone should adher to, its just your personal opinion which btw doesn't make it right,

2. How would a crossbreed breeder register a pup with the KC? And why is the KC supposedly some great standard? They don't even enforce their own rules.


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

Phoolf said:


> 1. Thats YOUR list, not a definitive list that anyone should adher to, its just your personal opinion which btw doesn't make it right,
> 
> 2. How would a crossbreed breeder register a pup with the KC? And why is the KC supposedly some great standard? They don't even enforce their own rules.


Just as a note of interest some crossbreeders register the pups from litters on the KC activity register, if it is a first cross form kc reg parents, there names kc numbers and hip score etc. do appear on the registration, they would also appear if you registered them your self, with a breeders signature of course.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Bijou said:


> and as an aside ( for Comfort Creature ) Cattanch's 4 generation rule is the one used by the KC when registering pups from intervariety matings - I know because I have bred litters registered with 3*** that are deemed 'pure 'by the 4th generation - if I was only breeding for genetic diversity then it's at this point that the out cross would have to be done again


Except Cattanach did not ever speak about or have a 4 generation rule . . . .

The KC has a 4 generation mark at which they no longer asterisk the progeny of an outcross breeding. That does not mean it is the point that the out cross would have to be done again. That is a silly conclusion to draw.

More to the point, as I believe many do not understand it, genes cannot be diluted. The number of outcross genes inherited do not dilute by half each generation as some people might want to think (ie: from 50% - 25% - 12.5% - 6.25% . . . ).

A dog from an outcross done 4 gens ago will either have some of those outcross genes left, or he won't.

Some dogs will have MANY of them left, and others will have close to none. Genes from an outcross, that a breed did not have before, can be carried for 100+ generations if there is a way of identifying them and that is the aim. The LUA gene brought into the Dalmatians from the single Pointer used is an example. In multiple offspring from that outcross pairing will be other genes brought in, different ones in different progeny, that are less identifiable (might be a haplotype that guards agains cancer, for instance), but they all add diversity even 13, 14 and 15 generations down the line.

The longer they are in a gene pool where they are unique . . . the higher the chance they will eventually be bred out (genetic drift), but there is no hard and fast rule that tells us how long that can take. A lot is up to chance.

CC


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Cavaliers are ONE breed that are POPULAR in the UK and make up a good number of pedigrees that are purchased.


Last year about 7,500 Cavs were registered, way down from the peak of nearly 11,500 in 2007. The number was down around 200 in 2008 and then registrations for the breed fell off a cliff.

Overall, there were nearly 244,000 dogs registered in 2011. So, just 3% of dogs registered were Cavs. Hardly "a good number of pedigrees that are purchased." :scared: (BTW you have no idea how many of these registered puppies were actually sold).

I fully agree that the breed has problems and the problems should be sorted out but I wonder, as I do about many breeds, how many dogs are bred 'to standard' and how many dogs are bred to satisfy the preferences of the current judges. Those judges are, themselves, breeding dogs to their own preference, which quite often departs from the breed standard. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that the breed will veer away from the standard as people chase awards that they simply won't get if they do follow the standard.

I saw an example at a recent champ show where, in almost every class for one breed the same breeder made the No 1 position. Yet, it was blatantly obvious that the dogs being shown were unsound and were a long way off standard. The fact that the judge and the breeder both held office in the breed club was, I'm sure, a total coincidence. Indeed, the judge handed over the breeder's class certificate before the breeder even had all his dogs in the ring! I saw a repeat performance a week later - with the same breeder. Such behaviour means that the breeder's dog (BOB in both shows) needs only one more CC to become a champion and will, naturally, appear on multiple pedigrees for years to come.

The simple fact was that the particular dog (and the others from the same breeder) deviated sufficiently from the KC standard that if there had been any sort of proper judging it would never have achieved its position. But it's not isolated and I've seen it in a lot of breeds.

For pedigree dogs the KC should institute health checks on parents before registering progeny and police show judges to make sure they do what they are supposed to do, not what they want to do. If that happened a great deal of the problems would go away. Indeed, for the first part it seems that the effect is already being felt from voluntary effort which started well before PDE.

But, as her continuing campaign proves, Jemima Harrison will have a go at all pedigree dogs, no matter what. She's a journalist and makes money by selling sensationalism, often by presenting very, very dubious evidence. For example:" I do think she looks a little anxious and/or uncomfortable - over and above what's normal..." Yes, JH can not only tell that a dog is anxious/uncomfortable but goes on to say "that might be the sign of, perhaps, an aggravating eye problem". Her evidence? A still photo. Taken of the dog from a distance!  But, never mind, her veterinary qualifications (none) and her psychic ability (none) meant that she could tell the dog was anxious/uncomfortable and that it might have been so because of an eye problem. If that's the sort of evidence that people want to use then there is simply no point wasting time on this.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I have never agreed that a judge should judge a breed he/she also breeds. I see no reason why a judge cannot be trained to place different breeds just as the Best In Show judge does. I have seen a certain kennel placed and winning practically every class entered, then I also see the two breeders in question (judge and exhibitor) being friends on FB or the like. 

I don't see how this is fair to other exhibitors and I don't think it's right that this should be allowed to happen. Surely it's possible for favouritism of a particular breeder to sway the judges opinion when placing if one of the exhibitors happens to be a friend. 

Not only do I agree that a personal preference towards the look of a dog and not necessarily the breed standard sways a judges opinion but also who is on the other end of the lead. 

I think the show scene is flawed, many breed standards are flawed and it's about time we concerned ourselves with the health of our pedigree dogs and not whether breeders are upset by a tainted image!

The whole show scene to me is a bit of a fix while people who breed the dogs being shown are also part of the social sector of that breed too.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

AlbertRoss said:


> Last year about 7,500 Cavs were registered, way down from the peak of nearly 11,500 in 2007. The number was down around 200 in 2008 and then registrations for the breed fell off a cliff.
> 
> Overall, there were nearly 244,000 dogs registered in 2011. So, just 3% of dogs registered were Cavs. Hardly "a good number of pedigrees that are purchased." :scared: (BTW you have no idea how many of these registered puppies were actually sold)..


So Cavs are 3%. I'm glad to know people are being more cautious about purchasing this breed, however they are far from the only breed that has problems.

This is the list I have found. You and I must look at breeds very differently from one another because I look at this list and SEE - breeds that I would say show there is a good amount of suffering and problems in pedigree dogs! Most of the breeds on this list have high prevalence rates of specific conditions simply DUE to their breed! Look them up here - Dog Breeds










Pug joins top 10 dogs list | Mail Online

_As an aside, looking at those Labrador numbers reminds me that across Canada we register, all total in all breeds, 45,000 dogs yearly with the CKC. The estimate is that one third of those are in Quebec and Ontario with others sparsely spread throughout the rest of the massive country. The UK has as many registered Labrador Retrievers as we have registered dogs all total._​
That is NOT to say I think the aim of breeding purebred dogs is wrong. It predisposes to some risks while diminishing others. Many people LOVE the predictability given them with the choice of a pedigree. I do firmly believe, however, that those breeding purebreds are in a glass house and they should not be so readily deciding their way is the most ethical or best way and so freely pitching stones at those that have other ideas.



AlbertRoss said:


> . . . For pedigree dogs the KC should institute health checks on parents before registering progeny and police show judges to make sure they do what they are supposed to do, not what they want to do. If that happened a great deal of the problems would go away. Indeed, for the first part it seems that the effect is already being felt from voluntary effort which started well before PDE. . .


My wish would be for a registry that kept track of the health records and pedigrees of ALL dogs - not just pedigrees.

I've been involved in studying the problem of SM in Cavaliers for over a decade and have been VERY involved on breed lists. 20 years before that I was involved with American Cockers as my aim was to breed (got sidelined by life). My experience has shown me the obstacles that are put up by breeders and breed clubs with regard to health checks. They don't want them in their way. The voluntary effort that I saw in both breeds was to keep heads firmly in the sand, whitewash and hide illnesses. I also saw voluntary effort trying to do best (and those breeders are who I admire) BUT the people doing so were so far outnumbered that 'peeing into the wind' is what comes to mind when I think of it.

I saw other breeds and clubs (Irish Red and White Setters) where the culture within the club was much better. A lot depends on leadership. I don't know HOW, when the unscrupulous are at the top of the clubs, judging and minding the health committees etc., things can be changed but for waiting for the old guard to die and hoping they aren't replaced by the same. I actually have no hope of it for some clubs whilst I know others are on much better footing.

I have been VERY impressed with the actions of the KC in the UK as compared to the prominant North American registries.

CC


----------



## SpicyBulldog (Jun 30, 2012)

chichi said:


> So basically....you think the majority of breeders just care about making money. I can think of far simpler ways of making money than breeding dogs. Its hard work...lots of worry...takes your life over for several months per litter...sometimes breaks your heart when you fight to save a poorly pup and fail and if youre really lucky you may have a small profit that will help recover losses on another litter........


I'm not sure the purpose of this reply  preaching to the choir as they say.

Why don't you try telling "them" that? It doesn't matter if they lose the whole litter, even if the lose the entire litter and their female. *Their intention was to make money. *That is what counts as it was the motivation for their breeding whether it worked out or not. And if not they wanted to make cute puppies, get a pup just like their "perfect" dog with the best temperament.

I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every time someone said to me
You breed, must be good money
I bet you make a lot of money breeding dogs
We want to breed too and bring in some extra money
One guy repetitively said in one night (who'd already bred a couple litters) this is where the money is at.

I know for a fact I could have made a hefty sum of money if I sat back and bred without doing the proper things which end up costing money. I'd have made plenty. I also see with the amount some breeders make they are surely making a profit when they stand to bring in $6,000-12,000 on a litter and haven't put anything into their dogs most of that will be profit. They had to buy the pair and feed them for a year. It's pretty easy money for not a lot of work. Especially when you have some of these people getting rid of pups at 4 weeks old. Even if it does end up being hard work they didn't anticipate that. They thought it'd be all fun and exciting but if they keep the pups through and after weaning like they should the work load increases more on them. For some it's too much and thankfully they don't do it again.

This is your very own post. Yet you quoted mine with the above response. That makes a lot of sense................



chichi said:


> Any breeder. ...whether show...working...pet or any other kind...can only do their very best. *Many dont and will just breed purely for pounds*....then there are few show people that have inbred and also bred not the healthiest dogs....purely to breed the "best" but to believe that the majority of pedigree dogs are unhealthy is plain wrong.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> So not enough hard evidence of suffereing of problems in pedigree dogs?
> 
> You are kidding right?
> 
> ...


you use your dog as anectodal evidence to show health and longevity of a husky cross...well if you know how to view cached websites i can 'Prove' with hard evidence that Many pure bred Siberian huskies make it into their late teens.... http://webcache.googleusercontent.c....org.uk/page72.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk. on here is the list of UK champions, my Luna's great great great,... great, great & great grandsire amongst them...all of them lived to be 17 yrs old. Recently one of my fb friends sibes has just celebrated their 18th birthday and is still going strong!...in this country there is Absolutely no good reason to be cross breeding huskies!!...we have a Huge rescue crisis over here with husky crosses and thoughtlessy bred huskies being churned out, its heartbreaking for those that truely love the breed seeing them going the way of the staffy!

we also had a GSP, yet another pure breed known for their health and longevity!..my Meg almost made it to her 16th birthday, shes from an extremely healthy line, her sire, a very famous dog over here, lived to be 16 & a half...we also had a Lakeland terrier who lived to be 15, yet another show bred animal!.

the majority of pedigree breeds, bred by good knowledgable breeders, are healthy... i would never dream of buying a puppy, cross or pedigree!...from someone who just sticks two dogs together!, and over here you'll be hard pushed to find a breeder of crosses that puts any thought into their breeding plans, you can at least seek out many reputable pedigree breeders.

anyway i really shouldnt be on here, im suppose to be on my jollys! lol bye 
.

.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

*QUOTE : Originally Posted by SpicyBulldog 
I agree that most cross breeders only care about money. Just the same I agree that most pure bred breeders only care about money. At minimum if they don't they want to produce just one cute litter...blah blah
They are not doing health test, truly understanding good appropriate temperament, finding proper homes (even loving owners don't always realize where the pups will end up).*

You accuse me of preaching when your own post SMACKED of KNOW IT ALL self righteousness. My point was that you assume EVERYONE is breeding to make money as their sole reason for breeding (as per your original post above). Everyone but yourself ....it seems. I was trying to balance up your very unbalanced comment. You didnt say SOME or MANY, you said MOST!

The second quote of mine was saying that there are those that breed for money alone. So I am not in denial that there are breeders with puppy farmer ethics but not to tar ALL breeders with the same brush which often is done and Im a little sick of reading/hearing it. Just like some of the members here that are sick of breeders of crossbreeds being tarred as "byb" or "ignorant" - some are too quick to judge imho. I'll take each breeder as they come. An Exhibitor that breeds and health tests, isn't automatically an ethical breeder - many are, some arent. A hobby/pet breeder isn't automatically in breeding to make money - some are, some arent.......


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> you use your dog as anectodal evidence to show health and longevity of a husky cross...


A sled dog is not a 'husky cross'. Genetically it has been proven they are not 'husky crosses'. They are a landrace with their own genetically identifying characteristics which are DIFFERENT than any of the Husky breeds and with a long history.



noushka05 said:


> well if you know how to view cached websites i can 'Prove' with hard evidence that Many pure bred Siberian huskies make it into their late teens.... [/QUOTE]
> Have I anywhere denied th... than to throw stones from a glass house.
> CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Yes, it is unlikely, JUST AS it is almost as unlikely when someone announcing a purebred litter has done the research. Someone announcing a Cocker litter or a Shih Tzu litter would NOT get the same barage of nasty questions and comments. I can provide example threads if anyone cares to pmail. I have a problem with that bigotry and I will state so when I see it happening.
> 
> I will also still will give the benefit of the doubt UNLESS it has been confirmed that I shouldn't. I do that for purebred litters announced and I will do the same for crossbred litters announced. I have no reason to automatically be suspect of breeders who care enough to announce litters on a forum. I have no incentive to want to be suspect. I can't imagine what good being that way might accomplish. I CAN imagine the harm that is done when caring breeders find themselves attacked. WE NEED MORE OF THEM, NOT LESS.
> 
> ...


I'm sure I tried to quote more than you CC but only yours came up, and I've been absolutely unbelievably busy with work recently, so am dashing on while I've got chance.

I try not to be judgemental, if people have a reason for cross breeding, and have put thought into it, then I haven't got a problem. Jenny Olley mentioned registering cross bred dogs on the activity register, I know she and Dave compete at working trials, and have registered dogs on the activity register. There's nothing stopping anyone with a cross breed doing the same, and registering health tests.

What I do have a problem with are people like the OP, who post I've had a litter of jackashitzhu cross whatever, people pick up on that and ask the pertinent questions, and then it gets turned around as if all pedigree breeders are the breeders from hell.

Everyone on here, or at least all those on here who have been around a short while, will know that there are good breeders and there are bad breeders, whether they breed cross breeds or pedigrees is subjective, and everyones ethical lines are different. Some won't accept cross breeds at all, I think cross breeding can and will be useful to help maintain genetic diversity if we need to breed to type within our closed pedigree gene pools, and won't discount it. I also don't think it's wrong to breed towards new cross breeds, whether for competition or companion animals, as long as the forethought is put in there, with relevant health tests.

The other quote I copied was something to do with all pedigrees coming from mongrels in any case. Actually, dogs were bred to type, they weren't cross bred as in a poodle to a Labrador, what happened was with more fore thought, if people had a short haired retriever, and wanted to inject a working quality, they would introduce another breed, and then breed to type over several generations. They wouldn't, as is currently done, choose two names that would make a nice combined name, such as Jackapoo, or Jug, or Pugapoo, etc, etc, and cross those two breeds for the heck of it.

As to AlbertRoss, sorry, you're on ignore, but judging from the quotes you doubt whether the majority of pedigree breeders are less than ethical, look at the KC registration figures, look at the numbers of health tests being done, make your own decisions, I can't be bothered tbh.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Malmum said:


> I have never agreed that a judge should judge a breed he/she also breeds. I see no reason why a judge cannot be trained to place different breeds just as the Best In Show judge does. I have seen a certain kennel placed and winning practically every class entered, then I also see the two breeders in question (judge and exhibitor) being friends on FB or the like.
> 
> I don't see how this is fair to other exhibitors and I don't think it's right that this should be allowed to happen. Surely it's possible for favouritism of a particular breeder to sway the judges opinion when placing if one of the exhibitors happens to be a friend.
> 
> ...


I think it's perfectly valid to have breed specialist judges. The problems you've mentioned will also happen with all-rounders, whether they know them or are simply putting up a dog they've seen win before if they lack the conviction to judge correctly.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . .
> What I do have a problem with are people like the OP, who post I've had a litter of jackashitzhu cross whatever, people pick up on that and ask the pertinent questions, and then it gets turned around as if all pedigree breeders are the breeders from hell. . .


If this was about people that asked the pertinent questions it would have been done long ago.

I do understand what you are getting at . . . but that is not what happened.

I can judge every single pedigree breeder that has posted litters on this site and find something they have done as wanting. They could ALL have done better by mine and many others opinions. I am sure that you are well aware of how others condemning 'judgements' are too easily divied out when a litter is put on the ground - even a litter with the best intent and tons of research behind it.

For instance - did they go 10 gens back? Do they even understand COI or AVK? For instance - did they breed a dog with heart risk to another with heart risk? For instance - did they breed a dog with hip risk to another with hip risk? For instance - did they breed for brachycephalic traits? For instance - did they breed apple head to apple head? For instance - did they breed achondroplasia to achondroplasia (all short legged pairings then)? Keep in mind that breeding a moderate mutt to a moderate mutt is MUCH less risky than breeding within MANY of our breeds.

Is THAT judgemental place where we all want to sit? That is where AR wants us to sit and fight each other from. I DON'T want to do that. Those in the purebred world are not all breeders from hell but TOO OFTEN those in the purebred world let the most extreme talk for them and stand aside when bullying happens.

I don't do this as I give ALL breeders the benefit of the doubt and allow for their own discretion. I do that because I have been there to read and to see the hastle that some give very well intentioned crossbreeders who DO have great breeding programs and great intent. ONE I saw FIRST HAND was those that were on board with the LUA Dals . . . backs physically turned on them at shows and verbally and loudly sniped at . . . accused of breeding mutts right up to the 12th and 13th generation. I believe allowing breeder discretion is EXTREMELY important. I believe that promoting the IDEA of discouraging discretion is EXTREMELY harmful to dogs.

I don't know what research the OP did . . . I don't believe others here do either. I WILL NOT assume. I do know the combination of dogs she put together has better hope as a mix than purebred pups produced from the even the best researched lines in the parent breeds, both the Shih Tzu and the Cavalier, no matter the testing behind, on brachycephaly alone. As I don't know her research or her intent I will NOT go on a bash against her just on her age and what she has put together. - http://www.lucythewonderdog.com/breathing.htm

If I was to do that I could bash almost every litter I've seen bragged about on this forum - purebred to mixed - by pedigree, by breed risk, or by what is usually obvious lack of knowledge on the part of the breeder.

I believe it is more important NOT to be that kind of a bitch, quite frankly. There is no point in it. Every single breeder has MUCH more to learn, even those that are geneticists and judges at the top of their breeds. NONE are beyond reproach and ALL are on a learning curve.

I guess I see MUCH more gray than most who post.

We NEED MORE caring and concerned breeders who want to learn and who back puppies for life. Those are the type that usually come onto forums and they do not need to be trash talked to UNLESS they are ignorantly taking obvious and extremely heightened risks . . . such as breeding merle to merle or dysplastic to dysplastic or brother to sister etc.

CC


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> I was just wondering if we had gone back in a time warp - perhaps gayle38 and GSDAndHuskyOwner would like to get themselves up to date with everything that has happened in the world of dogs and dog showing in the five or so years since PDE and then we can have a proper discussion about the issues as they are now, not as they were then. There is absolutely no point in discussing the things they write about when things have moved on from what they are saying. *It's like trying to open a discussion on why people think the earth is flat *


Well, yeah, hello................We'd all go floating into space if it weren't

When I first saw this I thought someone had dragged up and old thread. How long ago was that programme on telly? A couple of years at least. Pedigree dogs are more likely to have had the necessary health tests, therefore more likely to be healthy. That is obvious.

But the programme was talking about the exaggerations that have been bred into dogs over the years to emphasise their main points - ckc has a little head, let's make it smaller; bulldogs have squashed up faces, let's squash it up so they can hardly breath; GSDs have long back legs, let's make them longer.

This is what I think we are all against, but the ignorant think all pedigree dogs are unhealthy, mostly because of the ignorance of an organisation who should know better.

As far as I know, the Newfoundland has had no enhancement bred into it over the years, he is naturally what he always was and he is not the only breed that has been left alone. Yet the newfoundland and others get included in this illogical idea.

How bizarre to drag this up after all this time.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> Well, yeah, hello................We'd all go floating into space if it weren't
> 
> When I first saw this I thought someone had dragged up and old thread. How long ago was that programme on telly? A couple of years at least..





newfiesmum said:


> . . . How bizarre to drag this up after all this time.


There was another thread in which the OP was posting photos of her mixbreed litter and was being sniped at and hastled by some posters that lead up to this one.



newfiesmum said:


> Pedigree dogs are more likely to have had the necessary health tests, therefore more likely to be healthy. That is obvious...


No it is not obvious. In fact it is wrong to come to that conclusion.

The health tests are there BECUZ prevalences of problems have been raised within closed gene pools. They help breeders to *offset* the problems that have been increased in prevalence. The use of health tests have not created a situation where we can say pedigrees are more healthy.

CC


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

Well that was an exhausting read!

Speaking of the OP, where have they gone?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> If this was about people that asked the pertinent questions it would have been done long ago.
> 
> I do understand what you are getting at . . . but that is not what happened.
> 
> ...


Ok, well I have to say, I do try and give all breeders the benefit of the doubt as well. I have a dodgy 'f' key atm, so it may appear too many times or not at all btw!

My problem is, as I stated in my reply above, I don't have problems with people breeding dogs, but too often, they breed in ignorance, whether that's pedigrees or cross breeds.

I know the litter I bred from Tau isn't perfect, I'd be naieve to think every single pup was the exact blue print I wanted. I know one pup is, not one I own, but the one I own is the next one down the line, so I didn't do too badly overall.

With my dogs, I went as far back as I could, ten gens means nothing in that instance. What frustrates me is this image of litter bashing, it isn't it's at the worst trying to do a last minute education bashing of the *breeder*. I think everyone on here accepts that a litter on the ground is just that, there's no point in criticising the pups, but really, when it comes to the breeder, there is always a case in point to say come on, you're 'avin a laugh, get your facts right and really think about why you are breeding, and that is regardless of whether it's a pedigree or cross breed litter.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> For instance - did they go 10 gens back? Do they even understand COI or AVK? For instance - did they breed a dog with heart risk to another with heart risk? For instance - did they breed a dog with hip risk to another with hip risk?
> 
> Keep in mind that breeding a moderate mutt to a moderate mutt is MUCH less risky than breeding within MANY of our breeds.


I am genuinely confused here. How can you ask if a breeder has done as you describe above but then make the last statement? How is breeding a 'moderate mutt' (mongrel?) less risky when you can't possibly know the history of the dog? Surely the important thing is to do as many tests as possible and to know as much history as possible to ensure the health of future pups?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

cinammontoast said:


> I am genuinely confused here. How can you ask if a breeder has done as you describe above but then make the last statement?


My ten generation comment, along with the other criteria examples, were to display that EVERY breeder puts litters on this ground without knowing ALL about them. MOST breeders do not understand a great deal about what they are doing - even the very involved ones.

Breeders are all on a learning curve and as long as we are working with 20 some odd thousand genes and all the combinations and permutations that come come from that we will only EVER have a miniscule amount of knowledge about the dogs sitting in front of us and that we might be breeding from.



cinammontoast said:


> How is breeding a 'moderate mutt' (mongrel?) less risky when you can't possibly know the history of the dog? ?


I said breeding a moderate mutt was less risky than breeding a Cavalier - purebred pup, or a Shih tzu - purebred pup, even with the BEST knowledge from behind in those breeds. I have no trouble standing behind that.

Cavaliers - 25% odds of SM syrinxes (not necessarily symptomatic) even from grade A parents. A good chance of MVD, even from the most knowledgeable breeders, before the age of 5. I know top breeders that are working with stud dogs that have a murmur at 4 years of age and using them. Despite many generations of better hearts behind they could not produce for themselves better than that. They are using them because they are too afraid of what might crop up in a dog brought in as Cavaliers are also at a heightened risk for cancers and pancreatitis and IVDD and lots of other devastating conditions as well as the ones that have garnished publicity.

Cavaliers - have the MOST brachycephalic head shape (broad across and short front to back) of ALL the breeds. 96% of the breed has a skull deformation called chiari malformation. There is no get around within the breed. That head shape, itself, brings a heightened risk of problems.

Shih Tzus - another breed with a brachycephalic head shape, along with a brachycephalic muzzle. Each and every purebred Shih Tzu will have associated risks JUST due to that. The full breed also has heightened risks to many conditions THAT WE CAN'T TEST FOR. - missing and missalligned teeth, luxating patellas, entropian, distichiasis (a big problem in the breed), fold dermatitis, arachnoid cysts, renal dysplasia).

A moderate mutt, with NO pedigree knowledge, has better *odds*. THAT is how I can say it is less risky.

When conformation exaggerations and prominant *untestable* health conditions are across the full breed then moderate dogs will have better *odds*. That is common sense.



cinammontoast said:


> Surely the important thing is to do as many tests as possible and to know as much history as possible to ensure the health of future pups?


No, not surely. You can test an English Bulldog for absolutely everything available and know its pedigree history inside out and backwards but you cannot possibly give those pups better odds than the average mutt. Sometimes the most important factor in determining health will be the known conformation. Sometimes it will be the genes that a breeder is confined to using. Other times it will be something different.

Testing and history are only PART of the picture albeit a part that is important to embrace. There ARE other considerations that can and will trump those, depending on what a breeders intent is. In every pairing breeders use discretion to decide what they are comfortable gambling with. Many involved in established purebreeds are gambling with MANY heightened risks and no breeder can ensure the health of future pups.

For some reason these same people who are fine with the gambles they have decided upon want to make out that the gambles others take are somehow worse.

I won't go there.

Do you know a dog identified as 'Tibetan Spaniel' by type, but of unknown parentage, was brought into the Tibbie breed even this decade? For the breeders that have moved forward from him DIVERSITY was the trump to knowledge from behind . . . a need for genes in a small gene pool.

Do you know the history of the Markeisje breed (relatively new Dutch breed)? The breeder went carefully forward on mutts. It is a breed that I'm very attracted to. Unfortunately from here I'll never be able to know it. The MOST important consideration in the litters THAT breeder put on the ground was her freedom to use discretion as she saw fit, up to and including the use of dogs of unknown parentage. - https://caninechronicle.com/uncategorized/the-markiesje/



> . . . As a result of Mia's investigations, the first litters of Markiesje look-alikes were born. The results, however, were disappointing. The gene pool was too small and the dogs far too big. A second attempt was made by using (1982) black-and- white Papillons from Sweden and England. Later a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel was used as well. Again the result was poor. The dogs did not resemble Mia's first love, the dog she had seen in 1963, and some hereditary diseases cropped up.
> 
> In the '70s, a group of people formed around Mia with the common goal of restoring this breed so conscientiously depicted in old paintings. In 1977, Mrs. M. Posthumus Meyjes-Granpé Molière imported a small black toy spaniel from France to the Netherlands. This was 'Pom' (born in 1977), probably out of a black Papillon *and by an unknown dog*. Mia was delighted with this bitch; it was exactly the type she was looking for. . . 'Pom' died at the age of 17, a dignified 'mother of the breed'.


Why would we decide that that type of breeding suddenly confers 'too much' risk to be acceptable when we continue to accept a myriad of other risks within the confines of established breeds?

I'm afraid to think of the assumptions made and the snipiness hurled at Mia if she had posted about breeding from 'Pom', her bitch of unknown background.

CC


----------



## SpicyBulldog (Jun 30, 2012)

chichi said:


> *QUOTE : Originally Posted by SpicyBulldog
> I agree that most cross breeders only care about money. Just the same I agree that most pure bred breeders only care about money. At minimum if they don't they want to produce just one cute litter...blah blah
> They are not doing health test, truly understanding good appropriate temperament, finding proper homes (even loving owners don't always realize where the pups will end up).*
> 
> ...


I guess some people want to argue over nothing.

My post wasn't the least bit self righteous. It was an expression of my opinion no different than the other posters who made statements before I replied in agreement to said statements. 
I made no mention of my breeding practices nor others in comparison to mine. 
I'm not being excessively or hypocritically moral, my statement wasn't a holier than thou statement (it has nothing to do with myself), I'm not smugly moral and intolerant of others opinions. 
It's not a matter of being a know it all. It's an opinion! Which came to me from observation and experience. If you believe differently that's your right and probably a difference in experience. I stand behind my opinion that most are in it for the $ or at best to make cute pups or whatever similar reason to randomly pair two dogs. They are not concerned with health, structure or temperament, ect Only dollars or the adorable babies they're going to have. I don't believe most the 130-150,000 labs reg annually came from good breeders. That doesn't include all the unreg pups. And it's only 1 breed. The responsible breeder is the minority (IMO). While the irresponsible breeders (and owners creating oops litters) out number them and lead to millions of homeless dogs.

I've made no assumptions I've observed and expressed what the situation with breeders seems to me, those breeding pure breds included.

You assumed many breeders breed for money have you not? 
Why would they do that I can think of easier ways to make money..Breeding is hard work, takes months of your life, can be heart breaking. Why would ANYone breed to make money, let alone MANY.

Right I didn't say some or many. I said most as that's what I concluded. Most is a superlative of many and means the majority. Meaning more than 50% and I find it highly probable it's above that. You said many which is an undetermined number but clearly a large amount and more than the minority, more than a few....that's why you didn't say some or few.

I never said everyone. That's blatantly putting words in ones mouth. Most doesn't mean everyone. I said most not everyone, not all. Certainly not everyone but me, you're grasping at straws to make your self righteous case. I have dogs, they came from breeders. How is that possible? With my supposed smug moral views I'd be unable to obtain a dog from someone who didn't meet my personal breeding standards. Which only includes myself according to you.

Please show me as per my original post where I said everyone is breeding solely for money, especially everyone but myself which wasn't remotely suggested.



> I agree that most cross breeders only care about money. Just the same I agree that most pure bred breeders only care about money. At minimum if they don't they want to produce just one cute litter...blah blah


That's very good of you to do when it comes to breeders. So you are no different than me in assessing breeders yet you want to pitch a fit over my belief that most breeders are not ethical because you believe many (but not most) are out for money. You had no reason to twist my words and take personal offence. Since I never painted all with one brush. In fact it was essentially the opposite.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

SpicyB....I am not being deliberately offensive here but I have NEVER seen such a long post that amounts to nothing other than petty insults and going over old ground. Honestly....I lost the will to live by the time I was halfway through

FYI I didnt take personal offence....how could I......you dont know me.

Clearly we have very different opinions on breeding matters. ....this is not the first thread we have had different ideas.......so I wont be pedantic and pick your post to pieces. Sometimes its simpler to agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

CC, the problem with your moderate mutt to moderate mutt, with *unknown* parentage, is that in itself is a gamble I wouldn't be willing to take. Unknown does not mean they can't carry the same genetic defects, have a risk of contributing towards poor conformation in their progeny, or indeed even be related, sometimes quite closely. You only have to look at a certain members cross breeds to see that it's possible for people to make startling and absolutely unfounded claims about cross breeds, as much as I don't think bassets or shar peis are the healthiest of breeds in the majority of cases, a basset x shar pei is hardly going to guarantee a healthier dog, and indeed their own website indicated they'd produced a pup with a congenital defect, and then gone on to repeat the mating. 

I'm the first to admit the pedigree world is not full of people who want the best for their dogs, it is for the most part full of uneducated people who are churning out pups of poor quality for the pet market, and breeding the fashionable breeds to get the best prices, many of these people are also willing to breed some sort of cross breed from their dogs to add novelty value. At the top end there are people who want to do the best for their breed(s), but there are also people who want to win at any cost, including the health of their dogs, sometimes in full knowledge, and sometimes blind to what they're doing either because they genuinely don't understand, or because they believe their own hype. 

The problem has become the market place, it's that which drives the forces, and I include showing and competing dogs in there, because that drives how people make breeding decisions, some better than others, unfortunately too many for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Oh Dear - I'm finding this thread more than a little confusing

Comfort Creature what is it you are tryng to say ? - the gist of your postings seems to be that as breeders cannot ever know* all* the genetic possibilities inherent in their matings, that every breeder is therefore equally good or bad - this is just nonsense - surely breeding with some knowledge is a better thing than breeding with none ? and breeders who learn as much as they can about the dogs behind their lines before breeding are surely doing a better job than those that simply put two random dogs together ? -

..and is'nt there a touch of hypocrisy involved with your choice of the Markeisje :confused1: -from the link you've given it seems that the breed was founded from just one foundation bitch and her two nephews and six resulting pups - that's a pretty small original gene pool !! - I'd be interested to see how closely line bred present day Markeisje are ..and it's interesting that the original crossing of two breeds producing a 'moderate mutt' also introduced hereditary problems - that somewhat goes against your statement that



> A moderate mutt, with NO pedigree knowledge, has better odds. THAT is how I can say it is less risky.


I think it just proves that random leap in the dark matings are highly likley introduce problems where none existed before !


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> We NEED MORE caring and concerned breeders who want to learn and who back puppies for life. Those are the type that usually come onto forums and they do not need to be trash talked to UNLESS they are ignorantly taking obvious and extremely heightened risks . . . such as breeding merle to merle or dysplastic to dysplastic or brother to sister etc.
> 
> CC


I am a cross-breeder. I breed Saluki/Afghan crosses and purebred Salukis. I breed for myself first and foremost, and I health test my stock before breeding (hearts via holter, eyes, and thyroid.) I screen buyers, have a puppy contract, health warranty, microchip my pups with me as secondary contact (not negotiable), sell all registered pet pups on limited AKC registration, will take back any dog of my breeding (there is a monetary penalty in my contract if the dog doesn't come back to me), and offer a sixty day money back guarantee on my pups (owner overestimates their ability to deal with an active pup, pup doesn't get along with older dog, buyer's remorse, I don't care, the pup comes back to me and you get your money back.) I am always there for my puppy buyers and I have a clause in my contract requiring them to report any health conditions, no matter how small, to me.

I do not breed often. My last litter will be four years old before my next litter is born.

I do not post on message boards. (I am making an exception for y'all.) In my experience, there is no value in it; it reminds me strongly of watching shows like 60 Minutes as a kid, profiling a woman who dares to do a 'man's work.' The woman always says, "You must be perfect, you cannot fail at anything, you cannot make any mistakes, everything you do will looked at far more critically than anything the men do. Even if you make no mistakes, they will pick you apart. If they can't find anything you are doing wrong, they will simply lie."

This has been my experience as an 'out' cross-breeder: It does not matter what you do, the simple fact that you cross-breed is enough for many people to condemn you. My last experience on a message board went a little something like this (get a drink, this is long):

Someone posted a link to one of my articles on the immune system. (You may the read the article here, if you are interested in such things, the link in the original thread is dead because I moved from blogger to WP.) I was immediately attacked by someone over my 'litters' page, because they failed to notice both the COIs, mention of health testing, and the pedigree link for a planned Azawakh litter.

When these things were pointed out, I was then attacked over the blank spots in my Azawakh pedigrees, which is par for the course when dealing with dogs that have African imports up close in the pedigree (pretty much all Azawakh.) My bitch Lily, for example: her dam is an African import (that is her brothers ped.) Her mum has no known pedigree behind her, therefore half of her pedigree is empty because her dam is 'foundation' stock. I was attacked because evidently this is 'lying' to produce a low COI for the litter. (The COI of that litter was about 8%; keep in mind that the average COI for Azawakh is probably around 25%, the COI of the litter to be was lower than the sire and the average, which is according to population genetic principles. To put that into some perspective, the breed average for both Salukis and Afghan hounds is about 20%.) I am precisely sure what I am to do to avoid the appearance of 'lying', pick a number out of thin air?

I was next attacked for the breeding decisions made by breeders of Azawakh in Europe in the early seventies who had access to very limited numbers of dogs (tight breeding.)

I then explained that country of origin dogs rarely come with known pedigrees and how the three generations of Western breeding works for Saluki, before they are accepted into a registry, using my Saluki bitch, Minna, as an example. (She is a gen 3 with a lot of recent imports in her pedigree.)

At that point I was again accused of lying about COIs, even though calculating COI with recent founders in the pedigree as 'unrelated' to domestic stock is standard operating procedure for breeds with open registries. This same individual then misread my Minnas pedigree as heavily linebred. It isn't.

Luckily at that point the discussion took a turn away from personally attacking me. No one apologized for their mistakes in reading pedigrees or web sites, and no one thanked me for explaining about how dealing with COO dogs from countries with no registries worked.

As you can see, one cannot do anything 'right.' Haters gonna hate. No doubt if my pedigrees had been up to snuff, (though I am hard-pressed to understand how I am supposed to be responsible for or control the breeding done thirty or more years ago. It does not thrill me that Sirdar of Ghazni makes up 30% of ancestor impact in your average Afghan, or that Sarona Kelb accounts for 20% for your average Saluki. There is nothing I can do about that, however.) then my puppy rearing, contract, or warranty would have been torn to shreds as 'not good enough.' For some people, no cross-breeder is ever 'good enough,' or will ever be 'good enough.' They hold cross-breeders to a standard that even very few 'purebred' breeders could match, as a way of avoiding the horrible realization that there might actually be some 'good' cross-breeders.

If you've made it this far, congrats. The exchange outlined above happened on this message board, and if you like, you can go and read it.

And now I will tell you what it is like to be a cross-breeder with a planned litter or one on the ground. You get up after a night of sleeping next to the whelping box, watch puppies play for a while, feed dogs and do dog things, then go to see what kind of hate you've got in your inbox. After reading the usual bile ("we're watching you", "you're a horrible person", "how can you do that?", "you're ruining Salukis", "you're destroying a breed that is 6000 years old", etc.), you check the hits on your blog to see how many people have found it by searching for your name and address. Usually it was one or two, but on a good day you might get three or four. These people were not searching for my home address in order to send me a gift basket congratulating me on my litter; they wanted to know where I lived in order to make false reports to animal control about me. This is a standard intimidation tactic among certain people who style themselves the Breed Police, here in the US. A bunch of repeated hit in short period indicates that someone has posted your link to a mailing list and people are likely commenting about how awful you are. Then you log onto your breed-specific mailing list and counter the lies told about you during the previous day. After that, Facebook, to delete any rude comments and unfriend or block people who are abusive. If you are very, very lucky, like me, someone will publish your e-mail address, (which happens to be your husbands name,) and your blog address, in a breed club magazine, with the comment that you are someone 'who doesn't care about purebred dogs.' (For the uninitiated, this is basically a 'don't sell a puppy to this person' ad.) Even after your puppies have grown and gone to their new homes, you will still deal with people who attack anything and everything you say. In certain venues I could say the sky is blue and get attacked for it, simply because I'm an Evil Cross-breeder.

Then it's back to playing with puppies again, albeit with a greatly diminished joy that people can hate you so much, when they don't know you and have never asked you a single question about yourself or your dogs. At some point you will worry for the safety of your dogs and be paranoid about every person who contacts you with puppy questions.

An acquaintance of mine who is breeding for a French bulldog type with longer face has gotten death threats.

People _do not like it_ when you mess with their world view. It's like questioning their religion.

I have a cross-bred litter planned next year, if health tests go well, and I have no reason to believe they won't. I have put off having another cross litter for a couple of years now, for several reasons, but if I am honest with myself I will admit that one of those reasons is dreading the attacks that are bound to start up again.

The atmosphere that makes this type of behavior acceptable (and remember, if you don't speak up to condemn, you are tacitly condoning it) is the repeated assertion that there are no 'good' cross-breeders. If there are no good ones, why, those people just deserve what they get, don't they? That is why you do not get even 'good' cross-breeders posting on your message boards; even one who tries their best to be 'good' will never be good enough. The ones that do don't come back.

Jess Ruffner-Booth

PS. the contentious Azawakh litter never happened; a litter sister of the sire developed grand mal seizures, and a niece of the bitch developed a eye disease that will leave her blind. A nephew of the bitch recently developed mild seizures as well (seizures are unfortunately common in Azawakh.) I felt the risk was too great, so I cancelled my plans, against the wishes of the breeder of the bitch.

PPS. Cheers, CC!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Jess everything you've written could equally have been written by a breeder of pedigree dogs - you cannot deny the sheer barrage of outlandish stuff that comes up whenever anyone mentions that they breed within a closed gene pool or ( shock horror) mentions that they show their dogs !!- it's the way of the world that some cannot listen to the 'other side' and argue their corner like adults but try to bully and intimidate -it's sad but true that we'd rather stand with our fists up defending our own interpretation of what's 'right' than try and work together ( and lets face it Jess you've said some pretty cutting things about breeders like myself that line breed within a closed gene pool ).

If you have a passion for what you're doing and are producing healthy, active, long lived and beautiful dogs then so what if others disagree - carry on doing it your way ...(.and I'll carry on doing it mine  )


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Nightmare said:


> I am a cross-breeder. I breed Saluki/Afghan crosses and purebred Salukis. I breed for myself first and foremost, and I health test my stock before breeding (hearts via holter, eyes, and thyroid.) I screen buyers, have a puppy contract, health warranty, microchip my pups with me as secondary contact (not negotiable), sell all registered pet pups on limited AKC registration, will take back any dog of my breeding (there is a monetary penalty in my contract if the dog doesn't come back to me), and offer a sixty day money back guarantee on my pups (owner overestimates their ability to deal with an active pup, pup doesn't get along with older dog, buyer's remorse, I don't care, the pup comes back to me and you get your money back.) I am always there for my puppy buyers and I have a clause in my contract requiring them to report any health conditions, no matter how small, to me.
> 
> PPS. Cheers, CC!


Do you actually SELL puppies or lease them to the owner so you can take them back if you dont like how they get on in their new home. I have never heard anything like it. Fine, put in the contract that you will take the dog back. There is nothing legal or binding in that and the OWNER of the dog can do what they like with it, though it is comforting to be sure the breeder will help out in case of unforseen circumstances. You certainly cannot fine them if they dont follow your wishes. It is not your dog.
As for 'requiring' them to report health conditions, no matter how small. What an absolute load of rubbish.
If you actually sell any pups I would imagine the contract goes in the bin when the new puppy OWNER gets home.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> I would go to a rescue centre  as my parents have twice, fab dogs but not my thing!
> 
> And thank you yes I am rather...angelic
> 
> As for mongrel breeders worming, vaccinating & buying a welping kit! Don't make me laugh! Don't see many doing that on these Facebook sites, free adds etc. I see the mums being kept on manky old duvets in a cage! Rehoming to young not giving a dam about the bitch or pups. My own experience and view on mongrel breeders (obviously not all)


You obviously frequent the wrong places then  I would not have thought that decent owners would buy a dog from facebook and the likes anyway.

I would never go to a rescue centre, for various reasons but one of the main being the fact a dog is in rescue must mean it did not originate from a decent breeder or it would have gone back to the breeder and not be in rescue.

The fact that so many tests are required for the majority of breeds must surely mean that breeding practices to date have not been in the best interests of the dogs, otherwise there would not be so many issues to test for.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> CC, the problem with your moderate mutt to moderate mutt, with *unknown* parentage, is that in itself is a gamble I wouldn't be willing to take. Unknown does not mean they can't carry the same genetic defects, have a risk of contributing towards poor conformation in their progeny, or indeed even be related, sometimes quite closely. .


SL, the gambles taken that you mentioned are ALL taken by purebred breedes ALL THE TIME - en masse in many breeds as their conformation or genetic pool dictates it - even WITH 10 gen pedigrees and health info from behind well studied. In MANY breeds ANY pairing is genetically as risky as pairing a brother to sister together from a mutt litter and most of even the most IGNORANT about breeding will not breed littermates. In MANY breeds the same genetic defects have an incredibly HIGH rate of being carried. Is this not well known information!

So HOW are those gambles taken ANY different?

Cesky Terriers are a highly inbred breed where almost every pairing in the Cesky breed produces a HIGHER inbreeding level than that of sister/brother pairings of mutts. Ceskys have a HIGH cancer rate related to this and a median age at death at less than 8 1/2 (UK KC survey) and 9 yrs 2 mos (Finish database). http://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi/frmTerveystilastot.aspx?R=246

Why is it O.K. to breed Cesky x Cesky and not mutt x mutt?

You speak about this with some logic, so is it the fact that you visualise these risks as 'more controlled' due to the background information in the pedigrees and the testing? Are more controlled risks considered more palatable, and why would that be? I don't get it.



> . . . However, continuous inbreeding still had an effect upon the breed. The high cancer rate in the breed is very likely the result of inbreeding depression. The breed likely has little diversity in the MHC. . .


 - http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2...-inbreeding-in-cesky-terriers-and-wolf-chows/

IF a Cesky breeder came onto this forum to show off her puppies would we would not have seen ANY of this bashing.

It does not follow from the fact that YOU wouldn't be comfortable with breeding mutt to mutt or other risks that OTHERS should be raked over coals for making the decision to do so. What it means, obviously to me, is that YOU should avoid some breeds in particular or breeding mutt to mutt yourself. We shouldn't be breeding or buying out of our comfort zones which is why I bought a mutt similar in many traits to a Cavalier rather than buying a purebred Cavalier.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . . You only have to look at a certain members cross breeds to see that it's possible for people to make startling and absolutely unfounded claims about cross breeds,.


We are not talking about unfounded claims about cross breeds. No unfounded claims were made by the OP of this thread.

I made the claim that breeding moderate mutt x moderate mutt is a safer risk gamble than breeding two purebred Cavaliers or Shih Tzus?

I'll stand by that claim. It is NOT unfounded!

The fact that someone finds claims 'startling' also does not make those claims unfounded.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> . as much as I don't think bassets or shar peis are the healthiest of breeds in the majority of cases, a basset x shar pei is hardly going to guarantee a healthier dog, and indeed their own website indicated they'd produced a pup with a congenital defect, and then gone on to repeat the mating.


No one has suggested guarantees of healthier dogs here. The conversation has been about RISKS and which ones might be higher or lower.

I don't know which website from which crossbreeder you are bringing into this conversation, but I KNOW that I could easily dredge up similar from those 'reputably' breeding purebred x purebred.

The argument here has been that we should be kinder to those that breed crosses and purebreds with CARE and not go ballistic on them making assumptions when we have no idea what their program is about. We have no need to compare crappy breeders in each faction to each other. That just proves what we already know . . . that there is crappy breeders involved in breeding dogs of all kinds.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> . I'm the first to admit the pedigree world is not full of people who want the best for their dogs, it is for the most part full of uneducated people who are churning out pups of poor quality for the pet market, and breeding the fashionable breeds to get the best prices, many of these people are also willing to breed some sort of cross breed from their dogs to add novelty value. At the top end there are people who want to do the best for their breed(s), but there are also people who want to win at any cost, including the health of their dogs, sometimes in full knowledge, and sometimes blind to what they're doing either because they genuinely don't understand, or because they believe their own hype. .


I know you recognize this.

Please realise that I am well aware that an organized system still has great merit with regard to getting dog lovers together with each other to share and do better . . . . for those that WANT that. Many times great things are accomplished within and by those in clubs.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . . .The problem has become the market place, it's that which drives the forces, and I include showing and competing dogs in there, because that drives how people make breeding decisions, some better than others, unfortunately too many for the wrong reasons.


There has ALWAYS been a market place . . . this is not new, but this also does not play into what began this conversation. It does not have ANY play into a discussion of why we should or should not be promoting one flawed breeding system over another.

BREEDERS get to decide what gambles they want to make. THAT IS FOR THEM TO DO. When SO MANY of the gambles sit at equal merit to each other it is NOT for others to determine, *by bigotry alone*, that one is worse than another.

Why do we accept the automatic condemnation of a breeder who crosses dogs just on the fact that she has done that . . . with NO other information.

That is what happened on the puppy photo sharing thread and which spilled over into this thread.

Why is the sniping and bullying behaviour shown even the TINIEST bit acceptable.

Maybe this reflects on my time in the classroom and work towards stopping bullying between preteen and young teen girls. It sure feels like I'm dealing with the same thing.

Done some searching and the thread Nightmare has referred to above is here (for the curious): http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/132245-breeding-line-breeding-po-tay-po-tah-c-o-i-3.html

CC


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> You obviously frequent the wrong places then  I would not have thought that decent owners would buy a dog from facebook and the likes anyway.
> 
> I would never go to a rescue centre, for various reasons but one of the main being the fact a dog is in rescue must mean it did not originate from a decent breeder or it would have gone back to the breeder and not be in rescue.
> 
> The fact that so many tests are required for the majority of breeds must surely mean that breeding practices to date have not been in the best interests of the dogs, otherwise there would not be so many issues to test for.


You wouldn't ((rescue)) a dog because it didn't come from a decent breeder!! Are you serious? You would rather let a dog/ pup get PTS because it didn't come from a decent breeder?!?!?!?!

A lot of tests are new, PRA/ FN for example have only been around for a few years! Understandly breeders are not genetic mind readers!

Where would I go to find a good, decent mongrel breeder? Other than Facebook, pet sites, ad trader, preloved, school playground I've no idea? I'm yet to see a mongrel champ dogs equivalent


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> This is the list I have found. You and I must look at breeds very differently from one another because I look at this list and SEE - breeds that I would say show there is a good amount of suffering and problems in pedigree dogs! Most of the breeds on this list have* high prevalence rates of specific conditions simply DUE to their breed!*


What an outstandingly ignorant thing to say. There are conditions - for example hip dysplasia - which are known across many breeds. Equally there are probably enormous numbers of potentially genetically inherited problems across all dogs, pedigree or otherwise - and other animals - but the data isn't collected, basically because no one is interested.

The simple fact is that because _some_ conditions are known action is taken to minimise them by responsible breeders. To pretend otherwise flies in the face of collected evidence as published annually in the Kennel Club's Health Report which shows the progress made year by year.

It's that sort of generalisation, along with the ludicrous Jemima Harrison attacks, that indicate obsession rather than reasoned argument.

Further, the list you publish (from the Daily Mail of all 'truthful' publications!!) is for 2010 - my list is from the Kennel Club 2011 (as I said, 'last year'). Further, I've looked at the website you posted and in particular the breed I know most about. It advises checking for problems that I've never heard of in my breed - so if you are using that as a touchstone I suggest you think again. (And my breed is one of the most popular).

Your arguments are getting more and more outlandish. The only reason I replied to this posting was the totally misleading and untrue statement that most dogs have problems due to their breed.

Statements like:


> You can test an English Bulldog for absolutely everything available and know its pedigree history inside out and backwards but you cannot possibly give those pups better odds than the average mutt


 indicate a total lack of knowledge of real life. Yes, you can,with a great deal of statistical confidence predict what you will get. You won't be right 100% of the time but you will 95%. That's way, way above ANY confidence you can have predicting the outcome of 2 unknowns. Simple genetics and simple statistics.

I really think this thread has gone way off target and either needs to get back to its roots or get shut down.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> You wouldn't ((rescue)) a dog because it didn't come from a decent breeder!! Are you serious? You would rather let a dog/ pup get PTS because it didn't come from a decent breeder?!?!?!?!
> 
> A lot of tests are new, PRA/ FN for example have only been around for a few years! Understandly breeders are not genetic mind readers!
> 
> Where would I go to find a good, decent mongrel breeder? Other than Facebook, pet sites, ad trader, preloved, school playground I've no idea? I'm yet to see a mongrel champ dogs equivalent


I said there are various reasons I would not rescue, but yes quite serious that is one reason. If its badly bred with health issues whether you get it direct from the rubbish breeder or from rescue the end result is the same - a badly bred dog with health issues.

As I would not be responsible for either breeding the dog or for putting it into rescue the PTS question again is not my responsibility.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Bijou said:


> Oh Dear - I'm finding this thread more than a little confusing!


Not surprised. 



Bijou said:


> Comfort Creature what is it you are tryng to say ?!


That the snipey postings made to the OP were not defensible. They assumed knowledge of her aims and were petty . . . what I call bullying. Assuming knowledge on BIGOTRY and bullying from that assumed knowledge is WRONG. I tend to speak up when I see it being done.



Bijou said:


> - the gist of your postings seems to be that as breeders cannot ever know* all* the genetic possibilities inherent in their matings, that every breeder is therefore equally good or bad - this is just nonsense -


Of course THAT is nonsense. That is becuz it is not what I'm saying.

I have not suggested every breeder is EQUALLY good or bad. NOT AT ALL. I rarely do black and white categories.

I AM saying that every breeder is breeding in a very gray area - all on a learning curve (there ya' go . . . therefore not all equal).

Unless an OBVIOUS abhorant pairing has been made it is NOT the place of others to make ASSUMPTIONS on BIGOTRY and determine THEIR risky pairings are somehow made from a more 'saintly' place, then go on to snipe and BULLY at others for thinking differently.

We CAN help others learn. We can ASK questions (not demand answers mind you). We CAN discuss aims etc. without TAKING A BATTERING RAM at those who cross breed just on the fact that they have done so.



Bijou said:


> surely breeding with some knowledge is a better thing than breeding with none ? !


IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT IS PAIRED. Breeding with knowledge - of dogs that are highly prone to defect - is NOT a better thing than breeding moderate mutt x moderate mutt. Keep in mind that I don't believe breeding mutt x mutt is 'breeding with none' as you have put it. Why would you call it 'none'?

The dogs in front offer knowledge for any breeder.



Bijou said:


> . . . and breeders who learn as much as they can about the dogs behind their lines before breeding are surely doing a better job than those that simply put two random dogs together ? !


I have yet to speak of putting RANDOM dogs together. Speaking of breeding mutt to mutt does NOT indicate putting random dogs together.

Again, the dogs in front offer knowledge for any breeder. That is HOW the MUTT that LOOKED and ACTED like a Tibbie was brought into the Tibetan Spaniel gene pool this last decade was able to be assessed. He OFFERED knowledge just in his being there.



Bijou said:


> ..and is'nt there a touch of hypocrisy involved with your choice of the Markeisje :confused1: -from the link you've given it seems that the breed was founded from just one foundation bitch and her two nephews and six resulting pups - that's a pretty small original gene pool !!!


I see you making leaps and assumptions here. Please read the link again. They started with a small foundation population. They DID NOT expound on where they went from there. I, nor YOU, can just imagine it up.



Bijou said:


> ..- I'd be interested to see how closely line bred present day Markeisje are .


I'd be interested to see it as well . . . but I won't *ASS*UME how close they are until that information has been given. Why have you decided to do so? What would be your aim in doing so?



Bijou said:


> ..- ..and it's interesting that the original crossing of two breeds producing a 'moderate mutt' also introduced hereditary problems


Yes, interesting.  The original crossing was not of two breeds. Did you read the link? - https://caninechronicle.com/uncategorized/the-markiesje/

The fact that hereditary problems cropped up in some pups as this breed was being developed is not very interesting, really. Breeding and producing puppies is a gamble after all.



Bijou said:


> ..- - that somewhat goes against your statement that . . .
> 
> 
> > A moderate mutt, with NO pedigree knowledge, has better odds. THAT is how I can say it is less risky.


You conveniently left off the end of my statement which was _"Keep in mind that breeding a moderate mutt to a moderate mutt is MUCH less risky than breeding within MANY of our breeds."_



Bijou said:


> ..- I think it just proves that random leap in the dark matings are highly likley introduce problems where none existed before !


The idea that mutt x mutt breedings sometimes produce hereditary problems goes against my statement about ODDS is bull.

Anecdotal information that shows pairings of mutts produce illness does not *prove *anything, nor does anecdotal information that shows purebreds produce illness. Gleaning information and jumping to conclusions from anecdote is incredibly foolish.

Do you understand the concept of anecdote? Do you understand the concept of ODDS? Do you know what PROVE means? This statement makes me wonder if you do.

CC


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> I said there are various reasons I would not rescue, but yes quite serious that is one reason. If its badly bred with health issues whether you get it direct from the rubbish breeder or from rescue the end result is the same - a badly bred dog with health issues.
> 
> As I would not be responsible for either breeding the dog or for putting it into rescue the PTS question again is not my responsibility.


Wow, humanity at its best lmao, thank dog for people who love there pets no matter what  do you feel the same about children in care? They don't deserve a better life, a second chance, to be loved & looked after no matter what has happened to them before? 

My parents have had a couple of dogs from rescue centres with far less health problems than pedigrees and far better temperaments 

Says me who had a litter of KC pedigree pups


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> Wow, humanity at its best lmao, thank dog for people who love there pets no matter what
> 
> My parents have had a couple of dogs from rescue centres with far less health problems than pedigrees and far better temperaments
> 
> Says me who had a litter of KC pedigree pups


Pot / kettle spring to mind - ok for you to breed & sell pedigrees but disgusting for people to breed/buy crosses they should only be from a rescue. Why did you breed at all instead of rescuing yourself, why didn't you keep all your litter and tell the prospective purchasers to go and rescue?

I love my dog for the dog he is not for pieces of paper that supposedly make a better dog. He has a fabulous temperament, no health issues at all - he was from one of the non-existant cross breeders who health test by the way and even more shocking for you was wormed, innoculated etc etc.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> Wow, humanity at its best lmao, thank dog for people who love there pets no matter what  do you feel the same about children in care? They don't deserve a better life, a second chance, to be loved & looked after no matter what has happened to them before?
> 
> My parents have had a couple of dogs from rescue centres with far less health problems than pedigrees and far better temperaments
> 
> Says me who had a litter of KC pedigree pups


Edited since I responded - what a ridiculous thing to say, have you been on the bump buddies thread & asked all the lovely ladies why they are pregnant why they did not adopt a child instead?

What is it with you - do as I say not as I do lol


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

AlbertRoss said:


> > This is the list I have found. You and I must look at breeds very differently from one another because I look at this list and SEE - breeds that I would say show there is a good amount of suffering and problems in pedigree dogs! Most of the breeds on this list have high prevalence rates of specific conditions simply DUE to their breed!
> 
> 
> What an outstandingly ignorant thing to say. !


I will disagree.



AlbertRoss said:


> There are conditions - for example hip dysplasia - which are known across many breeds. Equally there are probably enormous numbers of potentially genetically inherited problems across all dogs, pedigree or otherwise - and other animals - but the data isn't collected, basically because no one is interested.


WE have LOTS of data collected. We have LOTS more to go. We do KNOW that SOME BREEDS are have INCREDIBLY heightened risks of LOTS of conditions over the average mutt or mixbreed dog.



AlbertRoss said:


> The simple fact is that because _some_ conditions are known action is taken to minimise them by responsible breeders. To pretend otherwise flies in the face of collected evidence as published annually in the Kennel Club's Health Report which shows the progress made year by year..It's that sort of generalisation, along with the ludicrous Jemima Harrison attacks, that indicate obsession rather than reasoned argument.


Who is pretending that responsible breeders aren't taking action? Don't put words in my mouth and argue I am saying what I am not. I see you do the same with making up things you THINK Jemima Harrison might be implying all the time.

After this post I won't be responding to those things you THINK are being said, when they are not.



AlbertRoss said:


> Further, the list you publish (from the Daily Mail of all 'truthful' publications!!) is for 2010 - my list is from the Kennel Club 2011 (as I said, 'last year').


I showed a list of top 10 breeds . . . it does not matter to the point made about lots of breeds having heightened risks of disease conditions if a couple of those breeds and numbers change up a bit over a year.



AlbertRoss said:


> Your arguments are getting more and more outlandish. The only reason I replied to this posting was the totally misleading and untrue statement that most dogs have problems due to their breed.


I suggest you, again, stop putting words into my mouth.

I have NOT said 'most' dogs have problems due to their breed. You keep pretending that I have though.

Why you make this leap and think this is what I said is beyond me.



AlbertRoss said:


> Statements like:
> 
> 
> > You can test an English Bulldog for absolutely everything available and know its pedigree history inside out and backwards but you cannot possibly give those pups better odds than the average mutt
> ...


Breeding mutt x mutt is not breeding two unknowns.

Yes you can predict what you will get - statistically - and those EB pups will have worse ODDS at health AND longevity than the average mutt. By conformation alone they will have restrictions from the start. That is something I don't approve of . . . so I wouldn't breed them HOWEVER I would NOT go around sniping at every EB breeder that posted and telling them they are wrong to love and breed their breed.

Perhaps all those who are so keen to take up sniping believe this is where we should go.

CC


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Pot / kettle spring to mind - ok for you to breed & sell pedigrees but disgusting for people to breed/buy crosses they should only be from a rescue. Why did you breed at all instead of rescuing yourself, why didn't you keep all your litter and tell the prospective purchasers to go and rescue?
> 
> I love my dog for the dog he is not for pieces of paper that supposedly make a better dog. He has a fabulous temperament, no health issues at all - he was from one of the non-existant cross breeders who health test by the way and even more shocking for you was wormed, innoculated etc etc.


I can't rehome from a rescue as I have an unneutered bitch and young children 

However I do volunteer at my local sspca dog walking 

Edited to add)) you think dogs in rescue don't deserve to be rescued, they shouldn't have a better life etc? Because some how it was down to the bad breeder putting them there? Ugh?

To justify the price of a 'designer dog' some breeders will of course try & make it look and feel like your getting a pedigree equivalent hence the worming! health testing etc :arf: it's something like 'selling to a market' probably providing family tree etc  posh mongrels are of course desirable in some places for what reason I don't know. But I'm 100% sure you could of picked up a dog similar to yours at many rescue centres, no health issues, temperament second to none etc, I've met and walked lots.

Bet that's a turn up...someone who has bred a litter of KC pups....who helps at a rescue....who couldn't rehome one due to circumstance & choice! Funny world lol


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Yes, interesting. The original crossing was not of two breeds. Did you read the link? -


...ummm I've read it again ...this is what it says:



> A second attempt was made by using (1982) black-and- white Papillons from Sweden and England. Later a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel was used as well. Again the result was poor. The dogs did not resemble Mias first love, the dog she had seen in 1963, and some hereditary diseases cropped up.


so that's Papillon x Cavalier = moderate mutt = hereditary disease

..and can we have a rest from all those capitals !


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> I can't rehome from a rescue as I have an unneutered bitch and young children
> 
> However I do volunteer at my local sspca dog walking
> 
> To justify the price of a 'designer dog' some breeders will of course try & make it look and feel like your getting a pedigree equivalent hence the worming! health testing etc :arf: it's something like 'selling to a market' probably providing family tree etc  posh mongrels are of course desirable in some places for what reason I don't know. But I'm 100% sure you could of picked up a dog similar to yours at many rescue centres, no health issues, temperament second to none etc, I've met and walked lots.


:lol::lol::lol: hilarious, slate them for not testing/breeding ethically, slate them if they do. Just because something isn't desirable to you the whole world should agree how pompous, I might not like your car/house/clothes so what!

Pedigrees are the ultimate designer dog - designed by humans.

You did not try hard enough there are rescues who will permit homes with young children & other unneutered dogs. You did not rescue because you did not want to, same as I didn't just that I am honest about it.

I have had pedigrees and loved them dearly - the last one was a fabulous dog with a champion pedigree, fully health tested, lots of nice line breeding to "improve" the breed etc etc such a pity he was so ill from 2 years of age and dead at 5.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> Edited to add)) you think dogs in rescue don't deserve to be rescued, they shouldn't have a better life etc? Because some how it was down to the bad breeder putting them there? Ugh? /QUOTE]
> 
> No I don't think that, you are more than welcome to rescue to give a dog a better life (you didn't though did you so basically you are a hypocrite) I said that is ONE of the reasons rescuing is not for me. I have the greatest respect for people who do.
> 
> You have not rescued, you have bred a litter(s) so frankly you are the last person to criticise anyone


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Bijou said:


> .and it's interesting that the original crossing of two breeds producing a 'moderate mutt' also introduced hereditary problems
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> As a result of Mia's investigations, the first litters of Markiesje look-alikes were born. The results, however, were disappointing. The gene pool was too small and the dogs far too big. A second attempt was made by using (1982) black-and- white Papillons from Sweden and England. Later a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel was used as well. Again the result was poor. The dogs did not resemble Mia's first love, the dog she had seen in 1963, and some hereditary diseases cropped up.


Are you seriously going to argue this is stating there was a crossing of two breeds, a Papillon x Cavalier pairing? Seriously? Did the thought enter that those Papillons from Sweden were used to ADD to the gene pool already there, and the Cavalier that was 'later' added was used to add to a gene pool already partly in progress?

And yes - moderate mutt = heriditary disease SOMETIMES

Purebred = heriditary disease SOMETIMES.

What do you make of that? What are we supposed to make of that? The only thing I can conclude is that dogs get hereditary disease SOMETIMES. Rocket science that is isn't it?

More importantly, is it your submission that this type of breeding . . . from which breeds are created . . . too risky to now undertake? After all that is what was being addressed when I used the example of the Markeisje.

Is it your submission that the Tibetan Spaniel x mutt (Tibetan Spaniel types) crossbreedings should be condemned as being of too much risk?

Is THAT the idea that we want to promote?

CC


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> MaisyMoomin said:
> 
> 
> > Edited to add)) you think dogs in rescue don't deserve to be rescued, they shouldn't have a better life etc? Because some how it was down to the bad breeder putting them there? Ugh? /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

MaisyMoomin said:


> emmaviolet said:
> 
> 
> > well we all know why the poster has done this thread, because she wants to validate herself for intentionally breeding mongrels for no reason other then she wanted to.
> ...


Let me spell it out for you.

This is not OPINION . . . nor is it harmless behaviour.

My OPINION is that this is SPITEFUL UNCALLED FOR AND UNFOUNDED ACCUSATION and BULLYING.

The use of the word PIMP as describing a breeder, as was done, amounts to the same thing.

I will speak up when I see this type of hassle being given ANY other human being.

I would expect 10 year old children to know better than to make unfounded accusations like the one made here and then slap another on the back for the smugness of the unfounded comment.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> SL, the gambles taken that you mentioned are ALL taken by purebred breedes ALL THE TIME - en masse in many breeds as their conformation or genetic pool dictates it - even WITH 10 gen pedigrees and health info from behind well studied. In MANY breeds ANY pairing is genetically as risky as pairing a brother to sister together from a mutt litter and most of even the most IGNORANT about breeding will not breed littermates. In MANY breeds the same genetic defects have an incredibly HIGH rate of being carried. Is this not well known information!
> 
> So HOW are those gambles taken ANY different?
> 
> ...


Just trying to respond while I wait for my tea and back to work!

Why is it ok to breed Cesky terriers and not cross breed? I wouldn't say one is better than the other, the criteria for me is how an individual breeder goes about breeding. To simply breed for the sake of it without any knowledge of your dogs, their health status, whether that is a pedigree breed that is more prone to some hereditary conditions, or cross breeds that are prone to different and some of the same hereditary conditions, and you don't know if the progeny can be affected, both are as bad.

Breeders can only decide to gamble on what they know, if they know something, and for me it's not acceptable to simply breed, without knowledge of your breeds/cross breeds, and whether they have good temperament, conformation, etc, etc, no matter whether you are breeding to compete, show, work or just for companion animals, and I do accept there is a need for good breeders solely for the companion market.

Has the market always been there? I don't think it has in the same capacity where we have people who want to own pets simply for the sake of it, and we are actually seeing a backlash in the UK from that privilege, as more people are unable to afford their pets and are handing them in to rescue, or having them put to sleep. The last time something like that happened here was during the war, when people were actually advised to have pets put to sleep so that they weren't a drain on resources.

The market used to be very different, pedigree dogs were for the most part beyond the reach of many as a pet, or even as a working animal, and in today's market, working dogs are still incredibly valuable, good ones at least. I know folks who have been offered thousands of pounds or their field trials champion, usually from aboad as our dogs in the UK are considered some of the best in the world.

Pet dogs came from unwanted litters, latch key dogs that had unwanted matings and pregnancies, and they were true mutts, not today's purpose bred cross breeds. And before the fashion for showing dogs took off, we had the gamekeepers ring, where those with the cream of working dogs competed to show how good they looked as well, and records show a greater diversity of shapes were rewarded back then, something I hope will come back, rather than the very narrow range in some breeds now, with very little proven working ability.

You often get people saying their reason for breeding is to improve a breed, and yet looking at how some breeds have become exaggerated, that goal seems to have been lost somewhere. I also don't agree with the 'pure breed' mentality some have, where they are unwilling to accept that breed type along with genetic diversity, can be maintained by using other breeds that were possibly even used in the formation of their much loved pure breed.

I have to say, if someone were to, and I have done in the past, post about a litter of Labrador pups, or any pedigree for that matter, and it became apparent that they had bred without really knowing enough, I'd be just as critical. I have no empathy for folks who just breed without enough knowledge, I understand everyone has to start and learn from somewhere, but information is not that difficult to come by these days. If you can post pictures of puppies on a forum, you have enough internet savvy to be able to look up inormation about dog breeding, health tests, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I have to say, if someone were to, and I have done in the past, post about a litter of Labrador pups, or any pedigree for that matter, and it became apparent that they had bred without really knowing enough, I'd be just as critical..


Just to address this bit.

. . . that is my point.

It was not apparent, but the criticism was quickly hurled.

I have even snooped and skimmed back on the OPs posts. What knowledge she has or does not have is not apparent. Her goals are not apparent.

I REALLY take issue with the presumption of what they are SIMPLY on the basis that she has bred mixed small dogs.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Just to address this bit.
> 
> . . . that is my point.
> 
> ...


Did the OP post any sort of response that would allay fears that this is simply another litter of cross breeds without any thought gone into it, except that mum and dad are apparently healthy, and the pups are lovely and cute?

I always try to apologise for sounding harsh when I ask questions, but I cannot see with such a mix in there, how on earth anyone can hope to predict what they will get, for me, that is very wrong. What if the pups suffer from issues brought about from poor conformation? And yes, that is possible in a pedigree as much as it is in a cross breed, but with the mix of dogs in this breeding, can you tell me how they would know for certainty what they could know about this litter?

This was my post from the original thread:

"How on earth would you begin to assess any conformation issues that might arise from this sort of cross bred litter? We are only just getting to the bottom of health issues with pedigrees, and the issues with cross breeds are shown to be just as complicated, and that includes how a dog is built.

Sorry, but I think it's highly irresponsible to breed a litter like this, and then shout victim just because they're not pedigrees. All puppies are cute, but look in the eyes of a dog being put to sleep, and tell me that's cute, no matter what breed or cross breed."

Would you say it's not valid to ask about how you would assess conformation issues that arise from a pairing of a cavalier, jack russell and shitzhu? All three are prone to problems with luxating patellas for a start, and I know the website for the cockapoo owners club focus on this and try to get people to ensure parentage is clear of problems. It's no guarantee, but simply breeding without any knowledge of these issues is not acceptable for me. My post wasn't snipey or personally abusive, plain and to the point maybe, I make no apologies for that, it's how I am in real life.

One good thing may have come of all this, a whole raft of readers may have learnt there's a lot more to breeding than sticking two dogs together, whatever their background.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . .Breeders can only decide to gamble on what they know, if they know something, and for me it's not acceptable to simply breed, without knowledge of your breeds/cross breeds, and whether they have good temperament, conformation, etc, etc, no matter whether you are breeding to compete, show, work or just for companion animals, and I do accept there is a need for good breeders solely for the companion market..


(Slowly making it through the post here).

Do you think the outcrosses made to the mutt Tibbie types, in order to bring in diversity, was a wrong gamble then? How about the pairings made to develop the Markeisje breed (as just one example)?



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Did the OP post any sort of response that would allay fears .


Do you TRULY think that is owed on a photo sharing thread?

Do you?

I think it is wrong to demand answers to that which is none of my business, myself.

Sharing photos does NOT make it my business.

We were not asked to help with the litter. We were not asked to buy pups from the litter. IF SO THEN it would be my business, but before that questions asked are by 'request' for our nosiness, not by demand.

The fact that any of us has 'fears' over the litter is NOT on the OP to take responsibility for.

CC


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> Let me spell it out for you.
> 
> This is not OPINION . . . nor is it harmless behaviour.
> 
> ...


My statement is fact, she opened this thread because of the other thread.

What I said that you quoted is not bullying. No name calling I just said sh opened this thread for getting grief about breeding cross breeds.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> My statement is fact, she opened this thread because of the other thread.
> 
> What I said that you quoted is not bullying. No name calling I just said sh opened this thread for getting grief about breeding cross breeds.


Emmaviolet, this comment that you posted is NOT FACT.



> well we all know why the poster has done this thread, *because she wants to validate herself* for intentionally breeding mongrels *for no reason other then she wanted to*.


You were being DELIBERATELY NASTY in suggesting that the OP opened this thread to validate herself.

You don't have a clue if she needs validation.

You were being DELIBERATELY NASTY in suggesting that you know about the reason for her decision to breed mongrels.

You do not KNOW her reasons.

That deliberate nastiness is what I call UNCALLED FOR BULLYING and I will point it out for what it is and object when I read it.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Do you TRULY think that is owed on a photo sharing thread?
> 
> Do you?
> 
> ...


Hang on a minute, a photo sharing thread? Is there such a thing?

The OP posted in the breeding section of a forum, which if they'd taken a minute to read through, they would have seen similar threads, ending in similar ways. Is it the forum's fault as a whole that the OP didn't do their research, either on or off the forum?

If the OP is forum savvy, surely they would have posted in the photo section, or the dog chat section, or not at all if they'd seen the response for some of the past threads re similarly well thought out litters.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't view photo sharing threads as innocently as that, in the UK, a much smaller country than the states, it's often a marketing thing to post photos of pups in the breeding section of a forum, and hope someone asks you if there's a pup available. Sharing on open forum makes it anyone's business these days, and this forum is actually incredibly soft in comparison to others, where the OP would have been *virtually* hung drawn and quartered for daring to post photographs of such a cross bred litter without any evidence of research before hand.

Of course the OP is entirely free still to lay any of these queries to rest by posting health test results, conformation considerations, and any general research they did before breeding. The more people don't ask these questions, the more it will seem acceptable to just let it happen time and time again, without putting in the necessary forethought and preparations. And that is less acceptable to me than saying nothing.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> Emmaviolet, this comment that you posted is NOT FACT.
> 
> You were being DELIBERATELY NASTY in suggesting that the OP opened this thread to VALIDATE HERSELF.
> 
> ...


Why else open this thread then?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Hang on a minute, a photo sharing thread? Is there such a thing? .


Yes there is. I have seen MANY.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> The OP posted in the breeding section of a forum, which if they'd taken a minute to read through, they would have seen similar threads, ending in similar ways. Is it the forum's fault as a whole that the OP didn't do their research, either on or off the forum?
> 
> If the OP is forum savvy, surely they would have posted in the photo section, or the dog chat section, or not at all if they'd seen the response for some of the past threads re similarly well thought out litters. .


I am assessing no fault on the forum. I will assess fault on nasty comments from commentors that jump to conclusions for doing just that. I've done it on other breeding threads as well where assumptions are made and conclusions are jumped to.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't view photo sharing threads as innocently as that, in the UK, a much smaller country than the states, it's often a marketing thing to post photos of pups in the breeding section of a forum, and hope someone asks you if there's a pup available. Sharing on open forum makes it anyone's business these days, and this forum is actually incredibly soft in comparison to others, where the OP would have been *virtually* hung drawn and quartered for daring to post photographs of such a cross bred litter without any evidence of research before hand. .


I believe you are being too cynical, and I do NOT believe sharing photos on an open forum makes it anyone's business.

I don't CARE if this forum is soft. The fact that there is MORE nastiness on other forums does not make nastiness and bullying O.K.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Of course the OP is entirely free still to lay any of these queries to rest by posting health test results, conformation considerations, and any general research they did before breeding.


So I see this is where you are coming from.

You seem to believe that breeders deserve a grilling for putting pups on the ground and posting photos of them on a forum. They OWE answere?

I'm not with you on that one.



> The more people don't ask these questions, the more it will seem acceptable to just let it happen time and time again, without putting in the necessary forethought and preparations. And that is less acceptable to me than saying nothing.


Nor am I with you on this one. There is no one suggesting questions can't be asked.

DEMANDING answers is a full other story. It shows complete disrespect when someone has politely reminded us that it is not our business, and then demands begin to be made.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> (Slowly making it through the post here).
> 
> Do you think the outcrosses made to the mutt Tibbie types, in order to bring in diversity, was a wrong gamble then? How about the pairings made to develop the Markeisje breed (as just one example)?


Sorry CC, missed this bit, but of course not and that should be obvious from all I've posted. But I'm guessing with the mutt Tibbie types, conformation was taken into account, it wasn't just an all out gamble.

As you well know, breeding is a gamble to a greater extent in many instances, where do you draw the line at how great a gamble, or how less a gamble it is? Surely the onus lies with the breeder, if they have made themselves aware of the gambles involved, and done all they can to minimise known issues, and researched as much as possible to ensure the *gamble* is in the favour of any progeny, ie less likely than other suitable pairings to produce problems, then that's as much as anyone can do. But to simply bung dogs together and hope for the best isn't a gamble, it's bl**dy irresponsible. And I'm not saying that IS what the OP has done, but they've not produced any evidence to say otherwise, and it is what many people do no matter what type of dog they are breeding.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> Why else open this thread then?


Perhaps you should have asked that question of the OP before the decision was made to post such a nasty comment.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry CC, missed this bit, but of course not and that should be obvious from all I've posted. But I'm guessing with the mutt Tibbie types, conformation was taken into account, it wasn't just an all out gamble. .


Nor are all pairings of mutt x mutt.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> As you well know, breeding is a gamble to a greater extent in many instances, where do you draw the line at how great a gamble, or how less a gamble it is? Surely the onus lies with the breeder, if they have made themselves aware of the gambles involved, and done all they can to minimise known issues, and researched as much as possible to ensure the *gamble* is in the favour of any progeny, ie less likely than other suitable pairings to produce problems, then that's as much as anyone can do. .


Just as I have been saying. Thank you for synopsizing in less words.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> But to simply bung dogs together and hope for the best isn't a gamble, it's bl**dy irresponsible..


I agree totally.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> And I'm not saying that IS what the OP has done, ..


Others have implied just such up to and including naming the OP as a pimp.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> but they've not produced any evidence to say otherwise, and it is what many people do no matter what type of dog they are breeding.


And I will not jump to conclusions from what 'many people do'.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Yes there is. I have seen MANY.
> 
> I am assessing no fault on the forum. I will assess fault on nasty commentors that jump to conclusions for doing just that. I've done it on other breeding threads as well where assumptions are made and conclusions are jumped to.
> 
> ...


I haven't seen one photo sharing thread of pups on a forum with the same sort of demographics as this where the OP wouldn't be picked up on and asked what breed, were there health tests etc.

I think it's a bit harsh to make personal judgements about people and call them nasty, what you deem as nasty, I deem as actually giving a damn about the dogs. I've made no personal judgements about the OP, simply pointed out that breeding without fore thought is irresponsible. The OP hasn't responded to say they have or haven't.

I don't believe breeders deserve a grilling if they post photos, but they should be willing to answer any responses people post on what is after all, an open forum.

I haven't demanded anything, I've posted my opinion of what on the face of it seems to be a litter from some dogs the OP happens to own, my humble apologies if the OP travelled several hundred miles to the best cavajack stud dog available, with full health tests, good temperament and a conformation to compliment their shitzhu. The OP has had plenty of opportunity to respond and say what their stance is, and it's entirely their perogative to hold a completely different stance than others, and again, it's an open forum so anyone can feel free to argue and put forward their beliefs and reasons why they think that way. No one has prevented the OP from doing so.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

I think the person who said pimp was being sarcastic tbh. No need to jump on that.

Also I really do not understand why it is you are o wholeheartedly defending someone you know very little about, someone who could in fact be a puppy farmer for all you know about her.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

The other day I told someone that I have cut down on Alfies meals because he's put on some weight (good move) and kept his treat levels up as it breaks up his day.( could be good or bad)
This person knows me quite well, but they obviously came to the conclusion that what I was doing was the bad thing 
A huge frown came over their face. I quickly added to my statement that treats were part of his normal food intake, plus carrot, not the rubbish that many feed as treats.
Her face changed completely and she smiled.

I felt annoyed and upset that anyone could think I would do anything to the detriment of my boy and actually annoyed with myself for feeling I needed to correct someone elses misconception of me.

Personally, I admire the OP and the way they conducted themselves under the barrage of insinuation.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> I think the person who said pimp was being sarcastic tbh. No need to jump on that.
> 
> Also I really do not understand why it is you are o wholeheartedly defending someone you know very little about, someone who could in fact be a puppy farmer for all you know about her.


That's it, not defending the person but the bigotry on this forum


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I haven't seen one photo sharing thread of pups on a forum with the same sort of demographics as this where the OP wouldn't be picked up on and asked what breed, were there health tests etc. .


What demographics are you speaking about here?

On a quick search both Shih Tzu litters and no questions asked - http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/230498-my-dog-doesnt-like-her-whelping-box.html

- http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/231697-hopefully-pregnant.html#post1061946793



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think it's a bit harsh to make personal judgements about people and call them nasty, what you deem as nasty, I deem as actually giving a damn about the dogs. I've made no personal judgements about the OP, simply pointed out that breeding without fore thought is irresponsible. The OP hasn't responded to say they have or haven't. .


Nasty is the word that describes best what was said IMHO. I'm not asking for agreement, but if I find a statement 'nasty' that is what I will call it.

The OP responded politiely on the original thread . . . but I guess that was missed.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't believe breeders deserve a grilling if they post photos, but they should be willing to answer any responses people post on what is after all, an open forum.


Since when does posting on an open forum mean one should be 'willing' to give responses? One has the right to say 'none of your business'.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . . so anyone can feel free to argue and put forward their beliefs and reasons why they think that way. No one has prevented the OP from doing so.


Yes they can . . . and I can feel free to post MY OPINION of the nastiness if that is what I am seeing. They can then argue back and I'm sure it can go back and forth for a thousand pages. 

CC


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> but they should be willing to answer any responses people post on what is after all, an open forum.
> 
> .


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


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> What demographics are you speaking about here?
> 
> On a quick search - http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/230498-my-dog-doesnt-like-her-whelping-box.html
> 
> ...


The demographics of any forum of pet, and particularly dog owners, and particularly in the breeding section of a forum where had the OP done any reading they would have seen the sort of responses they would be likely to get from posting a thread about a litter of pups without posting any other information that would tell people why they had bred and how they had gone about it.

Why would you post on an open forum unless you were willing to give a response? Or do you only count a response as one you are prepared to give, ie yes, my puppies are lovely and fluffy, thank you for posting. Which is inane and frankly insulting to the intelligence of many of the forum members.

You hold the opinion people are nasty, that's a personal judgement, something I avoid making whether I agree with anyone's reason for breeding or not. And yes, that's an opinion you're entitled to have, I never said otherwise, I just pointed out that actually your post is quite personal in calling individuals nasty. I don't agree with the OP but I haven't resorted to a personal opinion of them other than their actions are in my view irresponsible.



rona said:


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


Because open forums invite opinions from all and sundry, whether you want them or not. Otherwise there wouldn't be a reply button, just a like button.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because open forums invite opinions from all and sundry, whether you want them or not. Otherwise there wouldn't be a reply button, just a like button.


But why should she answer?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> But why should she answer?


I never said she should, but the option is there if she wants to. Just as the option is there for other forum members to post differing opinions.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I never said she should, but the option is there if she wants to. Just as the option is there for other forum members to post differing opinions.


How can you have an opinion on a situation you know nothing about? 

Just because someone hasn't answered questions it doesn't mean they are in the wrong


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The demographics of any forum of pet, and particularly dog owners, and particularly in the breeding section of a forum where had the OP done any reading they would have seen the sort of responses they would be likely to get from posting a thread about a litter of pups without posting any other information that would tell people why they had bred and how they had gone about it. .


I quickly found two threads on THIS forum, one which you contributed to, where no questions were asked of the breeder past 'which breed'.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Why would you post on an open forum unless you were willing to give a response? .


Because you want to share your puppies photos. That is why.

We have contributors to this thread that have made bullying comments that did exactly the same thing without questions - on the fact that they were producing purebred pups.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Or do you only count a response as one you are prepared to give, ie yes, my puppies are lovely and fluffy, thank you for posting. Which is inane and frankly insulting to the intelligence of many of the forum members. .


I do not find it the LEAST bit insulting to look at a litter of puppies and comment on their cuteness. NOT inane at all for a dog lover, I would think.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> You hold the opinion people are nasty, that's a personal judgement, something I avoid making whether I agree with anyone's reason for breeding or not. .


I said that COMMENTS were nasty and that they were UNFOUNDED and they constituted BULLYING. I quoted the comments. That is NOT a personal judgement.

DO NOT REWORD THAT.

I DO make personal judgements from a repeated pattern of comments made but usually avoid mentioning that myself.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> And yes, that's an opinion you're entitled to have, I never said otherwise, I just pointed out that actually your post is quite personal in calling individuals nasty. I don't agree with the OP but I haven't resorted to a personal opinion of them other than their actions are in my view irresponsible..


You are admitting to stating someones actions are irresponsible - on no evidense. . .

. . . yet you have difficulty with me stating that the comments made that included the word PIMP, were nasty and IMHO were bullying.

I don't get it, but that's O.K. I don't have to.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> How can you have an opinion on a situation you know nothing about?
> 
> Just because someone hasn't answered questions it doesn't mean they are in the wrong


I have an opinion on the parts of the situation I know about, which is a Cavajack x shitzhu litter, and my opinionis that I have no idea how the OP would begin to know what sort of conformation issues could arise from this sort of mating, or the health implications that could arise from conformation. I also think it's irresponsible to breed without thinking about these things before hand.

I've not posted a personal opinion on the OP, that is simply my opinion on the type of breeding that has gone on.

I've not demanded the OP explain themselves, they don't have to as far as I'm concerned, it's not compulsory and I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. But it's just as much my right to post my opinion, as it is the right of the OP to post theirs, hence this thread


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

rona said:


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


Why bother posting on a forum atall, if all your after is 'Ahh cute' just copy & paste it a few times on a word sheet and gaze at it :sosp:

Although I like a good gallery post with cute pups what ever they may be as much as the next person. :blush:

*****

As for my pimp comment, maybe my choice of words was wrong but breeding your cat & dog...anyway....personally I don't give a gnats left ball hair, and I don't think the op does either 

It only seems CC has a bee in the old bonnett and maybe you CC should deal with that personally and not take it upon yourself to try & dictate to people that aren't really bothered what you say/ think or type  as I'm sure your aware you will never win an argument, you won't change people's views and not everyone agrees with you....and never will. :blink:

And on that note, the thread and hole episode has bored me to tears :lol:


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

MaisyMoomin said:


> Why bother posting on a forum atall, if all your after is 'Ahh cute:


Becuz some of us like to admire puppies. Others like to share. You shared photos of your very own pups here without any of this type of bashing.



MaisyMoomin said:


> It only seems CC has a bee in the old bonnett and maybe you CC should deal with that personally and not take it upon yourself to try & dictate to people that aren't really bothered what you say/ think or type  as I'm sure your aware you will never win an argument, you won't change people's views and not everyone agrees with you....and never will. :blink:


Yes I do have a bee in my old bonnett. I had it in my young bonnett as well. It has been a lifelong affliction but one I don't mind carrying along.

I don't lilke bullying. I don't like deliberate nastiness and most importantly I don't like bigotry.

I will continue to have this bee in my bonnett and will continue to call out deliberately nasty posts and posts that reflect bigotry when I see them.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I quickly found two threads on THIS forum, one which you contributed to, where no questions were asked of the breeder past 'which breed'.
> 
> Because you want to share your puppies photos. That is why.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Well I apologise for my lapse in holding an opinion, work committments have been heavy recently, but I'll try not to sleep in future so I can post an opinion on all threads just to be equal.

Sorry CC, but you fail to answer the question time and again, the breeding section is full of photo threads of pups where it all takes a turn for the worst when people start asking questions, you don't have to be a detective to see that, if you can work out how to post pics you can honestly view past threads.

All puppies are cute, no matter what their background, the reference was more to do with the fact do you not think it demeaning to expect folk to withold their intelligence and ethics to post on a thread just to please the OP, particularly because it has pics of pups on there. Surely that's the best place to educate folks about breeding? Particularly as it's in the breeding section of the dog part of a pet forum!

No, I am stating that it's irresponsible to breed a litter of pups without taking into consideration the possible health implications that might arise from producing pups from dogs where you simply have no evidence that progeny will have a healthy conformation. I view it as irresponsible to produce pups that are an experiment, or accident, or gamble on conformation, where those pups will have to live with the consequences throughout their life. If you can show me where I pointed to the OP and said YOU are irresponsible, or YOU are nasty, I'll eat my flatcoat. I actually said I think it's highly irresponsible to breed a litter l'ike this', because whether you believe it or not, I don't like calling people names and prefer to state a general opinion. And yet looking back at the original thread, Rona has posted a response that there are nice people on PF, implying that all those who question the breeding aren't nice. You've said yourself that some people are nasty, and no, I've not agreed that calling anyone a pimp is acceptable, and surely after posting about having words put in your mouth by another member that's not something you'd resort to?

This is your response to another forum member:

"You were being DELIBERATELY NASTY in suggesting that you know about the reason for her decision to breed mongrels.

You do not KNOW her reasons.

That deliberate nastiness is what I call UNCALLED FOR BULLYING and I will point it out for what it is and object when I read it."

That is, in my book, calling an individual nasty, or I've mis interpreted it  And I am genuinely confused, because I know we've discussed various issues in the past, including cross breeding, and I generally agree with you about the whole issue, although I know we have a different take when it comes to responding to posts in the breeding section, which I think is obvious from this thread.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> On a quick search both Shih Tzu litters and no questions asked - http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/230498-my-dog-doesnt-like-her-whelping-box.html
> 
> - http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/231697-hopefully-pregnant.html#post1061946793


There are no recommended health tests for shih tzu's on the KC's website


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

There aren't any for a cavajack either.


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

Blitz said:


> Do you actually SELL puppies or lease them to the owner so you can take them back if you dont like how they get on in their new home. I have never heard anything like it. Fine, put in the contract that you will take the dog back. There is nothing legal or binding in that and the OWNER of the dog can do what they like with it, though it is comforting to be sure the breeder will help out in case of unforseen circumstances. You certainly cannot fine them if they dont follow your wishes. It is not your dog.
> As for 'requiring' them to report health conditions, no matter how small. What an absolute load of rubbish.
> If you actually sell any pups I would imagine the contract goes in the bin when the new puppy OWNER gets home.


I live in the US. My contract _is_ legal and binding, and making it enforceable in small claims court, which is where most dog cases end up, is much easier if you have a penalty for breaking the contract. It is not a 'fine', it is a penalty for breaking the contract. I work in the publishing industry and nearly every contract I have ever signed on a project has a penalty built in for breaking the contract. It may be a lesser paycheck, it may be no paycheck, it may be loss of the contracted work, but in a court of law, in the US, the breaking of a contract is easier to prosecute if there are penalties built in.

If the owner can no longer keep the dog, I want it back. I don't want it to go to rescue, I don't want it turned over to a shelter, I want it back, and I am deadly serious about that, enough to sue. Clear?

Interestingly enough, I have NEVER had an objection to that clause. I go over each provision and why it is there with any prospective owner so they understand what they are signing and why.

I also have a clause that states that the signees agree to professional arbitration, cost to be split, before resorting to court. Never had an objection to that one, either.

As for the health reporting, this is for my own records and it helps me to make future breeding decisions. For an owner, a dog that gets itchy eyes that are resolved with allergy drops each spring may not be a big deal, as it's easily controlled. As a breeder, this means allergies, which means a problem with the immune system, and I want to know about it. Again, interestingly enough, I have NEVER had an objection to that provision, and putting it into the contract is a reminder to the owner of the dog how very important this information is to me.

There is nothing in my contract that states the owner does not 'own' the dog. It is a SALES contract, after all. Money changes hands for a product. The sale is a business transaction. By signing the contract, the owner is agreeing to be bound by it's provisions. There are some points which are negotiable, some which are not. If they don't like the contract, they are free to buy a puppy from someone else.

This post is actually a prime example of how forums drive breeders away. A simple, "Why do you include these clauses in your contract?" would have been a much better way to start a discussion.

Jess Ruffner-Booth

PS. My contract is actually very simple and extremely non-restrictive compared to many contracts from 'responsible' breeders I've seen, who sell all pups on a co-ownership, require completed titles before any breeding or relinquishment of co-ownership, require approval for any breeders, etc. I know a breeder with a contract that is eighteen pages long, no kidding.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> There aren't any for a cavajack either.


What a surprise!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> Let me spell it out for you.
> 
> This is not OPINION . . . nor is it harmless behaviour.
> 
> ...


I think you should join Horse and Hound and go to the All about Dogs section. If you think the OP got a poor reception for deliberately breeding a mongrel (2 pure breds crossed=cross, any more than 2 crossed=mongrel), have a search on there. Note that they aren't fussy about whether it's a pedigree breed either if the OP's opening statement fails to mention relevant health tests and the waiting list for pups plus reasons why they bred a litter. You think it's bullying? At least, as SL said, this thread will hopefully make others think twice about breeding (at all)



comfortcreature said:


> I REALLY take issue with the presumption of what they are SIMPLY on the basis that she has bred mixed small dogs.


Of course, the OP doesn't have to justify her aims etc but I've no doubt the attention and posts responding to her have kept her highly amused. We are entitled, on a public forum, to ask her and say what we like. She is entitled to keep quiet but by doing so has led many people to jump to conclusions. The conclusions may be wrong or right. Only she knows but if the parents have clear eye/hip etc tests, I'm pretty sure she would have been delighted to prove all us doubters wrong.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Did the OP post any sort of response that would allay fears that this is simply another litter of cross breeds without any thought gone into it, except that mum and dad are apparently healthy, and the pups are lovely and cute?
> 
> Sorry, but I think it's highly irresponsible to breed a litter like this, and then shout victim just because they're not pedigrees. All puppies are cute, but look in the eyes of a dog being put to sleep, and tell me that's cute, no matter what breed or cross breed.


Nope. Still waiting!  As mentioned already, all three breeds have issue re luxating patellas. This is why I'm bothered, because I stupidly bought pups from non health tested parents and the subsequent heart break for the owners is appalling. This is why I will post on such threads and don't tell me I'm 'bullying' someone by querying the health tests (or denigrating the lack thereof) when they've casually bred a litter without doing their research. It's a *responsibility*, not an _option_.



> It's no guarantee, but simply breeding without any knowledge of these issues is not acceptable for me.


Same



> One good thing may have come of all this, a whole raft of readers may have learnt there's a lot more to breeding than sticking two dogs together, whatever their background.


Hope so.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

You know what actually pee's me off more than anything about this thread, people are there posting a judgement on what I've posted, saying how wrong it is to judge other people on what little I know. I don't get on here as often these days, just checked pm's, the last one I sent was to someone asking about breeding on open forum, and wanted to pm them with more information rather than ask questions on an open thread and prompt more questions, so sent all the info privately instead. I'm not out to bully, intimidate, or make personal nasty remarks about any indivudal member, but I am out to educate people, and do have my own personal opinion which on an open forum I am free to express on any relevant thread. 

I think I may have a large glass of red!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

I'm with you, SL! OH just brought a new bottle in. Watching CSI with my dog on my knee. Very calming.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You know what actually pee's me off more than anything about this thread, people are there posting a judgement on what I've posted, saying how wrong it is to judge other people on what little I know. I don't get on here as often these days, just checked pm's, the last one I sent was to someone asking about breeding on open forum, and wanted to pm them with more information rather than ask questions on an open thread and prompt more questions, so sent all the info privately instead. I'm not out to bully, intimidate, or make personal nasty remarks about any indivudal member, but I am out to educate people, and do have my own personal opinion which on an open forum I am free to express on any relevant thread.
> 
> I think I may have a large glass of red!


Why do you take things so personally?
Many other people had posted on this thread


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Why do you take things so personally?
> Many other people had posted on this thread


One minute you're complaining others make personal posts, the next you're complaining people take things too personally. Make your mind up!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> One minute you're complaining others make personal posts, the next you're complaining people take things too personally. Make your mind up!


Not personal, bigoted.

I really can't understand your stance on this issue as you yourself was at the receiving end of whispers about your litter 

It a principle that CC, I and others are concerned about, not breeding ethics.
We probably agree on almost every point about breeding ethics, just not the way it's put across on this forum


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Not personal, bigoted.
> 
> I really can't understand your stance on this issue as you yourself was at the receiving end of whispers about your litter
> 
> ...


There's a difference on being at the receiving end of unfounded whispers when you've planned a litter over a number of years, carried out 7 health tests on your bitch along with other considerations, and travelled across the country to use a health tested stud dog who is proven, all of which is documented, none of which is documented on the OP's thread. As I said, I stand to be corrected, if they travelled to use the best cavajack stud dog available with all the relevant health tests and used the knowledge about conformation to breed a litter, I'll eat my flatcoat, in fact I'll eat the smallest chocolate numpty as a desert!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> all three breeds have issue re luxating patellas


Really. 

I wouldn't care if Elles was bred to round up sheep and called a border collie by people (which she was), or a medium/long coated, medium sized, dog with a nose, bred from healthy parents who can run all day, of a good temperament and called a mongrel by people. Either way she'd be a dog and the type of dog I like. 

I agree that all breeders should try to breed the healthiest dog they can, with the best temperament. That would exclude large numbers of pedigree dog breeders simply because their breed of choice isn't very healthy (or at least could be considered to have a compromised quality of life, depending on who's judging) if only by virtue of its conformation and way before you start looking at what's on the inside.

On saying that. Some people like the more difficult to look after breeds. They like cleaning their ears and putting drops in their eyes, or cleaning their wrinkles and folds etc. It depends on whether we breed dogs for dogs, just for us, or for both I suppose. 

So I agree with CC, if we're going to jump from a great height on breeders, we should make sure it's all breeders and not just the ones who breed cross breeds, with 'OMG you bred a mongrel' as top of the list of some peoples don'ts, which is how it looked to me too. 

Breeders of cross breeds shouldn't be exempt from questioning either though. Discrimination is discrimination whether it's positive or negative. It does seem to me from some posts that some members are very against any breeding of cross-breed dogs though and will use anything they can think of to use to condemn it, but I don't think SL is one of them.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

rona said:


> Not personal, bigoted.
> 
> I really can't understand your stance on this issue as you yourself was at the receiving end of whispers about your litter


I don't empathise with this whole 'bigoted' issue. Bigoted, to me, is when you take a stance against something purely because you can, be it race, religion, whatever. It's not bigoted to think people ought only to breed when armed with thorough knowledge and heaps of research/tests. It's _common sense!_

SL did all the tests, so she is in prime position to throw the stone, although I think she has been quite restrained frankly. Don't see why Tau's litter is being mentioned, totally different issue.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

cinammontoast said:


> . . . You think it's bullying? At least, as SL said, this thread will hopefully make others think twice about breeding (at all)


I stated clearly what I thought the bullying was . . . and yes it was/is bullying.



cinammontoast said:


> We are entitled, on a public forum, to ask her and say what we like. .


. . . and I am entitled, on a public forum, to call out the bullying when I see it and speak to it.



cinammontoast said:


> She is entitled to keep quiet but by doing so has led many people to jump to conclusions.


Only those that feel an entitlement to do so. I think it is wrong to do so myself.



cinammontoast said:


> The conclusions may be wrong or right. Only she knows but if the parents have clear eye/hip etc tests, I'm pretty sure she would have been delighted to prove all us doubters wrong.


You're pretty sure. That is funny. I'm pretty sure that if I was asked the questions, whether I had the tests in front of me or not, I'd be telling others to back right off and mind their own business.



cinammontoast said:


> Nope. Still waiting!  As mentioned already, all three breeds have issue re luxating patellas.


Do you know the process for assessing patellas? It is done at a vets office by a general practitioner vet . . . UNLESS there is reason to believe there is a problem, at which point assessments move to orthopedic vets.



cinammontoast said:


> This is why I'm bothered, because I stupidly bought pups from non health tested parents and the subsequent heart break for the owners is appalling. This is why I will post on such threads and don't tell me I'm 'bullying' someone by querying the health tests (or denigrating the lack thereof) when they've casually bred a litter without doing their research. It's a *responsibility*, not an _option_. .


No one has suggested you are bullying for querying health tests.

Drawing unfounded conclusions when a poster suggests to you that they have no reason to give you those health results and then posting NASTY comments, however, is bullying.



cinammontoast said:


> I don't empathise with this whole 'bigoted' issue. Bigoted, to me, is when you take a stance against something purely because you can, be it race, religion, whatever. It's not bigoted to think people ought only to breed when armed with thorough knowledge and heaps of research/tests. It's _common sense!_ :


No it is not bigoted to think that at all.

However it is bigoted to look at what a breeder has put together and decide - solely on the grounds that mixbred dogs were used and on NO other information - that health tests and research were 'most likely' not done and that the breeder 'probably' hasn't assessed structure.

ESPECIALLY when we have others that post on this forum about breeding purebred litters and NONE of those conclusions were jumped to.

It is then bullying to take those unfounded conclusions and then run with them, making accusations with no merit.



cinammontoast said:


> SL did all the tests, so she is in prime position to throw the stone, although I think she has been quite restrained frankly. Don't see why Tau's litter is being mentioned, totally different issue.


No she is not. NO-ONE is in prime position to throw a stone.

There is not a single breeder who has EVER put a litter on the ground that is in the position to JUMP to UNFOUNDED conclusions and throw stones . . . not without the expectation that others will point out how wrong it is to do so.



> So I agree with CC, if we're going to jump from a great height on breeders, we should make sure it's all breeders and not just the ones who breed cross breeds,


And that is the point. I have posted links to examples of threads where those that breed small breed purebred dogs have gotten an easy pass without questions asked.

The treatment and the conclusions jumped to about this litter SMACKS of bigotry.

Definition of a bigot, for those that don't know it. "_One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ_."

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

As far as I know, patella assessments can be done without prior indication of any problem, you simply need to find a vet with either the necessary relevant experience, or one who can point you in the right direction. 

I've not jumped to unfounded conclusions, nor thrown any stones. Unlike other posts mine have been general, others have been more pointed, as I have set out in past posts. I've not called any one member a bully, or nasty, or anything as such.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bigoted 
Definition of bigoted - Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of ones own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others:

Enough said.

Night night


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Definition of a bigot, for those that don't know it. "_One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ_."
> 
> CC


I've constantly stated I'm not against cross breeding, have stated on many threads including this one that I am more pro cross breeding than some of the purists of pedigree breeds are, and I'm not intolerant of other views, it seems however there are plenty who intolerant of others views on this thread.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Bigoted
> Definition of bigoted - Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)
> 
> having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of ones own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others:
> ...


See below hen, I believe your own view is expounded in the response!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> As far as I know, patella assessments can be done without prior indication of any problem, you simply need to find a vet with either the necessary relevant experience, or one who can point you in the right direction. .


Just as I said. Every small dog that goes into a vets office gets a patella assessment. Those that breed ask for a more thorough look-see but I've never had a dog that was not fully assessed from the first vet trip on forward, each and every yearly visit.

Getting the paperwork done that states the patellas has been examined is usually just a request and sometimes a small fee.

CC


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've constantly stated I'm not against cross breeding, have stated on many threads including this one that I am more pro cross breeding than some of the purists of pedigree breeds are, and I'm not intolerant of other views, it seems however there are plenty who intolerant of others views on this thread.


SL, yes you have made those statements. I understand that is where you come from.

It is not VIEWS I am intolerant of. Views are for discussion and often for agreement to disagree. We can disagree for days about the fact that you think a poster should answer questions and I have no problem with them not doing so. We can disagree for days about whether or not taking temperatures leading up to whelping is worth while. We can disagree for days about whether or not mutts should be used for diversity, or whether or not new breeds should be developed from mutts.

Those are points of discussion.

I AM intolerant of bullying AND blatant bigotry . . . as in 'intolerant of those that differ' - "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Statements were made in the deliberate aim of being hurtful. The breeder was being cajoled and THAT was being called justifiable. It is this outright nastiness and bullying that took place that I will be intollerant of everytime - whether it be over a breeder that has bred a purebred litter or a mixed.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sorry CC, but in the UK, Patella examinations are not part of the general look over to see if a dog has four legs, tail, wet nose and oh yes, is healthy enough to breed from examination. Patellas would be something you have to ask to be looked at specifically with the majority of UK vets from my experience, and I'd probably know more than most vets about patella luxation even though it's not something relevant particularly to the breeds I own. I got in a huge argument with someone recently who relies on their vets inherently for advice and information, and I just don't, I may agree with my vets, but that is after making an informed decision.


----------



## PennyGC (Sep 24, 2011)

A litter of cross bred dogs was advertised as suitable for agility, hybrid vigour, bred by vet so guaranteed healthy - they were a spaniel & two pastoral breeds combination.

When asked the breeder stated that they hadn't been health tested, but there was no need, that a conversation had been had with an opthalmic vet and the view was there wasn't an issue... the cost started at something like £700 and was slowly reduced. 

A friend happened to take a dog for an eye test and this litter and breeder were there - as a student was with the vet some of the consultation 'leaked' into friend's consultation... it appears that at least one of the pups was found to be suffering from juvenile PRA - interesting as this disease isn't normally noted in more than one of the three breeds making up this cross, although normal PRA is.

It is clear that whether they're one breed or many the health tests need to be done because the diseases don't care about the 'pedigree' of the dog..... In this instance because of the sheer stupidity of someone who's a pet health 'professional' at least one of those pups will have been blind by the time it was about a year old.... so avoidable... reputable breeders will avoid the obvious and will work with as much information as they can and take action if they need to.

On the flip side, I have much respect for a breeder of a pastoral breed who in one litter had a pup with epilepsy. Much investigations later and the dog in the bitch's pedigree was found and this breeder stopped breeding the current line and has bought in a new bitch. 

I have no respect at all for the breeder of the same pastoral breed who has bred epileptic pups for many years and who usually tells new owners concerned at their pups fitting... 'all pups do that' well, yes, most pups from them do, most other pups do not. This breeder, although of pedigree dogs, isn't reputable. The other breeder certainly is.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

PennyGC said:


> A litter of cross bred dogs was advertised as suitable for agility, hybrid vigour, bred by vet so guaranteed healthy - they were a spaniel & two pastoral breeds combination.
> 
> When asked the breeder stated that they hadn't been health tested, but there was no need, that a conversation had been had with an opthalmic vet and the view was there wasn't an issue... the cost started at something like £700 and was slowly reduced.
> 
> ...


A friend of mine has a Labrador with epilepsy, I considered using his sire for a while, beore researching and finding out about the epilepsy, and even worse, the owner of the sire repeated the mating that definitely produced epileptic progeny.

Having suffered from epilepsy, and being able to say first hand what a confusing and disorientating condition that is, anyone who ignores (and they did ignore) obvious signs and breeds despite knowing they can produce this condition deserves nothing but contempt, no matter how high other people hole them in their books. I have nothing but contempt and pity that people will stoop so low as to knowingly breed in this way!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

...and this is why the most important tool any breeder has is knowledge ..epilepsy cannot yet be tested for ( but this is coming  ) the best way of breeding dogs without this horrible condition is not to use dogs that carry the gene for it and I'm talking about avoiding dogs that may appear way back in your present dogs pedigree - that means knowing who those dogs are in the first place and what they have produced in several generations - of course we cannot possibly know everything about the dogs we are using but we sure as hell can keep records and of course health test where we can so that our breeding plans are based on informed choices rather than on the fact that the dogs are 'cute' and will produce 'cute' pups !.

This goes for all breeders whether they are producing pedigree or cross breed - and is'nt *that* the message that this forum has been trying to get across ?- not that cross breeding is wrong but that it needs to be done responsibly - some may view this as 'bullying' and have the view that we should respond to all new litter posts with " OOH how cute " instead of asking questions about testing etc but for a forum that aims to educate surely we want to underscore a commitment to ethical breeding ?.

...and if a breeder *was *doing it 'right' then why would they not share this information with us along with those 'cute' puppy pictures ?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

cinammontoast said:


> Don't see why Tau's litter is being mentioned, totally different issue.


Because she was at the receiving end of people making assumptions and then judging on those assumptions. (Assumptions I believe to be unfounded by the way)
She chose to fight those assumptions, others may not see the point in bothering to answer the questions of keyboard warriors. People they have never met and are unlikely too ever meet.

My replies on this thread are mainly about a mindset, not if this particular litter has been health tested or not.

If you all feel the need to keep pushing the point (And it's a very good point)
Why don't you do so to those that obviously deserve it and not someone who you think has done wrong just because of the choice of dog they have bred?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I suppose I should not be surprised that there are so many arguments - it seems to be part and parcel of this forum, but have a think about it.

There are probably thousands of litters produced in a year. A small percentage have health tested parents. People breed for a variety of reasons.

1. Because they are breed enthusiasts and want to produce something great so they do a lot of research and use health tested parents.
2. Because they are breed enthusiasts and just want to produce more puppies of that breed. They may or may not health test.
3. Because they happen to own a certain breed and it would be nice to have puppies. Highly unlikely to health test and may not even have heard of it.
4. Because they own a bitch and it is nice for a bitch to have at least one litter of puppies. Almost certainly will not health test.
5. Because they want to make money and, unless something goes wrong, there is a quite a lot of money to be earned. Definitely will not health test.

I would think, without doing a scientific study  that number 1 will be the minority and 3 or 4 will be the majority. Therefore it is the minority who are trying, on here, to push their ideas on to the majority. But then that is about right, it is always minority groups that shout the loudest.

Why not stop these silly posts and just have a sticky which ONE person can advise a new breeder to read instead of everyone repeating the same thing over and over and not actually influencing a single breeder as they will all stick to their original thoughts on the subject.

This is obviously just my personal opinion, just as every other post is just a personal opinion.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

I do think repeating the point has influenced some potential breeders but more importantly it has had an impact on the kind of questions puppy buyers are asking - I've had some on my puppy list asking for the coefficient of inbreeding for my next planned litter ( which I was happy to answer) - just a few years ago this would have been unheard of - education is always the key to any change and forums like this are ideal places to inform and educate whether it is about training , buying, owning or breeding - and don't forget the huge increase in knowledge about dogs that has occurred over the years - when I was a child there were very few health tests available, pups were sold in the local market place and choke chains were considered ideal training tools - should we not promote our increased knowledge on the importance of health testing etc on forums such as this in order to raise standards of care for our dogs ?


----------



## PennyGC (Sep 24, 2011)

the way to think about what we and others do is to discuss it, that's why we have forums, I certainly change some of my views, and learn things, from the discussions on here.... if one person were to tell everyone what to do wouldn't that be a dictatorship, and who's to say that one person is right? if anyone puts an alternative view who's to say that's not right? we are lucky, we have a number of knowledgeable people on here and we all have the right to our own point of view.... otherwise no point in having a forum, just some fact sheets.... we can look stuff up on the internet, a forum is for an exchange of views.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> I do think repeating the point has influenced some potential breeders but more importantly it has had an impact on the kind of questions puppy buyers are asking - I've had some on my puppy list asking for the coefficient of inbreeding for my next planned litter ( which I was happy to answer) - just a few years ago this would have been unheard of - education is always the key to any change and forums like this are ideal places to inform and educate whether it is about training , buying, owning or breeding - and don't forget the huge increase in knowledge about dogs that has occurred over the years - when I was a child there were very few health tests available, pups were sold in the local market place and choke chains were considered ideal training tools - should we not promote our increased knowledge on the importance of health testing etc on forums such as this in order to raise standards of care for our dogs ?


Yes we should, but what shouldn't be happening is the slating of someones ethics/motives when we know nothing about that person.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> Why bother posting on a forum atall, if all your after is 'Ahh cute' just copy & paste it a few times on a word sheet and gaze at it :sosp:
> 
> Although I like a good gallery post with cute pups what ever they may be as much as the next person. :blush:
> 
> ...


You have said you have bred a litter - were you pimping your pet then? If you put up a few pics and were immediately stamped on from a great height with masses of assumptions being made would you believe that is fair? I don't believe you health tested, I don't believe you had a puppy contract, in fact you are clearly an unethical byb and you were only in it for the money. If its not true you prove it, even if you did its probably fake documents anyway - not nice is it?



cinammontoast said:


> I don't empathise with this whole 'bigoted' issue. Bigoted, to me, is when you take a stance against something purely because you can, be it race, religion, whatever. It's not bigoted to think people ought only to breed when armed with thorough knowledge and heaps of research/tests. It's _common sense!_


But there is bigotry about crossbreeds (only ever come across it on here not in real life by the way) - many posters immediately assume the worse and jump to massive conclusions. MaisyMoomin for example claimed that no crossbreeder health tests, doesn't even worm or have a whelping box! That to me is an outrageous claim to make; when I responded that my dogs breeder was obviously a non-existant one that did then he/she said it was obviously only done as a marketing ploy to get a high price. That to me is bigotry, with a fair bit of stupidity thrown in for good measure!

As CC says, if everyone was treated to exactly the same interrogation it would be one thing but they are not. Is anyone going to start demanding answers from MaisyMoomin, very much doubt it


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> But there is bigotry about crossbreeds (only ever come across it on here not in real life by the way) - many posters immediately assume the worse and jump to massive conclusions. MaisyMoomin for example claimed that no crossbreeder health tests, doesn't even worm or have a whelping box! That to me is an outrageous claim to make; when I responded that my dogs breeder was obviously a non-existant one that did then he/she said it was obviously only done as a marketing ploy to get a high price. That to me is bigotry, with a fair bit of stupidity thrown in for good measure!
> 
> As CC says, if everyone was treated to exactly the same interrogation it would be one thing but they are not. Is anyone going to start demanding answers from MaisyMoomin, very much doubt it


Not asked here 
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/229575-umbilical-cord-question.html

nor here 
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/235240-good-snacks-pregnant-bitch.html

or here
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/238301-take-temperature-not-4.html

or even here 
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/241090-litter-pics-day-4-days-old-2.html

Mmmm 
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-photo-galleries/249622-dougal-storm-7-weeks-old.html

An obvious inexperienced breeder and no one asked!!!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

rona said:


> Not asked here
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/229575-umbilical-cord-question.html
> 
> nor here
> ...


Says it all really doesn't it 

If anyone had gone onto those threads demanding to know what was the purpose of breeding and adding they would only ever get one from rescue as not worthy of paying for there would be uproar & a spate of bans. Funny old world isn't it, I have never actually seen owners of crossbreeds slating other dogs perhaps they just like dogs !

Perhaps the answer is to have a separate section on the forum for crossbreeds so that those who despise the very idea have no need to venture there


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Says it all really doesn't it
> 
> If anyone had gone onto those threads demanding to know what was the purpose of breeding and adding they would only ever get one from rescue as not worthy of paying for there would be uproar & a spate of bans. Funny old world isn't it, I have never actually seen owners of crossbreeds slating other dogs perhaps they just like dogs !
> 
> Perhaps the answer is to have a separate section on the forum for crossbreeds so that those who despise the very idea have no need to venture there


Someone from the show circuit maybe? 

Someone most of them know!!!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

rona said:


> Someone from the show circuit maybe?
> 
> Someone most of them know!!!


Argh the in crowd lol!!

See on another thread asking for volunteers for mods to tackle the spam - perhaps we need a special "Mutt Mod" too :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Argh the in crowd lol!!
> 
> See on another thread asking for volunteers for mods to tackle the spam - perhaps we need a special "Mutt Mod" too :lol::lol::lol:


Not quite what I meant 

I just thought as they showed, the others might know them.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> A sled dog is not a 'husky cross'. Genetically it has been proven they are not 'husky crosses'. They are a landrace with their own genetically identifying characteristics which are DIFFERENT than any of the Husky breeds and with a long history.
> 
> Apologies i do remember now you saying she was a landrace, im very interested in landrace 'breeds' if you have any info on the landrace huskies you have over there i'd be really greatful if i could see it
> 
> ...


no im not a bigot, im a dog lover who thinks of the dogs 1st, over the years, seeing the boom in popularity of my own breed and the heartbreaking fallout of it, my ethics on the subject have got even stronger, but, on the crossbreeding of certain crosses(certainly NOT status symbols..such as huskies,mals, staffies, other bullbreeds etc) then i have been swayed somewhat, so long as its done with the knowledge and care of the good pedigree breeders,...but i will never slap the back of someone i dont consider has the best interests of their dogs/puppies at heart.


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Says it all really doesn't it
> 
> If anyone had gone onto those threads demanding to know what was the purpose of breeding and adding they would only ever get one from rescue as not worthy of paying for there would be uproar & a spate of bans. Funny old world isn't it, I have never actually seen owners of crossbreeds slating other dogs perhaps they just like dogs !
> 
> Perhaps the answer is to have a separate section on the forum for crossbreeds so that those who despise the very idea have no need to venture there


I questioned her on a thread and there was uproar so I deleted my post because I couldn't be bothered with the hassle .


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

So MaisyMoomin has bred a litter herself...yet is critical of another breeder purely on the grounds that the pups are crossbreeds. It cant be anything other than that because there hasnt been a lot else said by the breeder...just multiple assumptions of what had and hadnt been done regarding health etc. 

So why has MaisyMoomin managed to avoid being ripped apart after asking basic breeding questions....well they sound basic but due to the fact they have been deleted because of strange forum stalkers  I am having to guess a lot just from the thread title.

I am guessing MM is breeding pedigree dogs and may even have been involved with showing......could that be why shes not been set upon.....I wonder 

I wonder if Gayle has removed her puppy pics and posts.....even after being harassed purely for breeding crosses. I havent yet checked but if they still remain then I would say that speaks volumes


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

chichi said:


> So MaisyMoomin has bred a litter herself...yet is critical of another breeder purely on the grounds that the pups are crossbreeds. It cant be anything other than that because there hasnt been a lot else said by the breeder...just multiple assumptions of what had and hadnt been done regarding health etc.
> 
> So why has MaisyMoomin managed to avoid being ripped apart after asking basic breeding questions....well they sound basic but due to the fact they have been deleted because of strange forum stalkers  I am having to guess a lot just from the thread title.
> 
> ...


This place is full of really weird/ strange/ freaks/ stalkers I'm having NOTHING to do with :lol: freaking me out big time :lol:

Yes I have a number of breeding bitches & attend lots of shows! Hence why I was on a forum asking really basic breeding questions :lol:

Come on....jump on the Moomin band waggon! Choo Choo!....and we're off!


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

MaisyMoomin said:


> This place is full of really weird/ strange/ freaks/ stalkers I'm having NOTHING to do with :lol: freaking me out big time :lol:
> 
> Yes I have a number of breeding bitches & attend lots of shows! Hence why I was on a forum asking really basic breeding questions :lol:
> 
> Come on....jump on the Moomin band waggon! Choo Choo!....and we're off!


Lots of laughing smileys and sarcasm........I think maybe you arent laughing quite as much as you would have us believe....after all.....deleting posts and shouting STALKER smacks of paranoia to me:thumbup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Yet again I unreservedly apologise for not reading every thread on here, I'm sure others will join me in hanging their heads in shame for having a real life, which includes work, their own dogs etc, etc etc. I shall try and live down to peoples' expectations of me in the future and post derogatory comments on all breeding threads, rather than just those I happen to read when I have time! Of course then I'd be most likely criticised for including all breeding posts!


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

chichi said:


> Lots of laughing smileys and sarcasm........I think maybe you arent laughing quite as much as you would have us believe....after all.....deleting posts and shouting STALKER smacks of paranoia to me:thumbup:


Freaks one and all lol....I am really laughing, not out loud, just a smirk :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Except for my comment about the original subject of this thread being a few years out of date, I've deliberately not posted on here - even though one or two of the posts have had me sitting in my hands so I couldn't type. 

I would, however, just like to express my amusement at the fact that some people who protested that the OP was being bullied and are now themelves bullying another breeder.

I'm not saying either breeder is right - but why is bullying wrong in the OP's case and not wrong in MaisyMoomin's case?


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2012)

swings and roundabouts
i try very hard to stay out of this section now because i can feel my blood pressure shooting through the roof! not a good feeling


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

If MaisyM is being bullied then Gayle must have been positively hung out to dry by the anti crossbreeder brigade.........wheres that rolling around laughing smiley when you need it.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Except for my comment about the original subject of this thread being a few years out of date, I've deliberately not posted on here - even though one or two of the posts have had me sitting in my hands so I couldn't type.
> 
> I would, however, just like to express my amusement at the fact that some people who protested that the OP was being bullied and are now themelves bullying another breeder.
> 
> I'm not saying either breeder is right - but why is bullying wrong in the OP's case and not wrong in MaisyMoomin's case?


Too be honest, I don't know why MaisyMoomin has ended up as a target. 
My links where there point out that she was not asked any of the questions aimed at the OP, nothing more.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I would, however, just like to express my amusement at the fact that some people who protested that the OP was being bullied and are now themelves bullying another breeder.
> 
> I'm not saying either breeder is right - but why is bullying wrong in the OP's case and not wrong in MaisyMoomin's case?


In what way is MM being bullied? If you make statements as below then expect to be questioned about your own ethics if you are a breeder. If anyone made a comment like that on his/her puppy thread there would, quite rightly, have been uproar. Double standards - there was no questioning, merely the assumption that all was hunky dorey in this case with absolutely no evidence to support that & despite asking lots of questions. Yet in Gayles case the assumption was made, again with absolutely no evidence, that everything must be wrong, despite not asking basic breeding questions.

If you don't agree with cross breeding fine but why the need to attack people for no reason other you don't like their choices. Can't see its any different that attacking someone because you don't like their choice of pedigree breed



MaisyMoomin said:


> As for mongrel breeders worming, vaccinating & buying a welping kit! Don't make me laugh! Don't see many doing that on these Facebook sites, free adds etc. I see the mums being kept on manky old duvets in a cage! Rehoming to young not giving a dam about the bitch or pups. My own experience and view on mongrel breeders (obviously not all)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> In what way is MM being bullied? If you make statements as below then expect to be questioned about your own ethics if you are a breeder. If anyone made a comment like that on his/her puppy thread there would, quite rightly, have been uproar. Double standards - there was no questioning, merely the assumption that all was hunky dorey in this case with absolutely no evidence to support that & despite asking lots of questions. Yet in Gayles case the assumption was made, again with absolutely no evidence, that everything must be wrong, despite not asking basic breeding questions.


Either they have both been bullied or neither of them have been bullied. If it is bullying to question someone's breeding ethics, it is also bullying to post things like this:



chichi said:


> Lots of laughing smileys and sarcasm........I think maybe you arent laughing quite as much as you would have us believe....after all.....deleting posts and shouting STALKER smacks of paranoia to me:thumbup:


Flaming people like this is against forum rules, as is questioning people who crossbreed and denigrating crossbreeding. If one is classed as bullying, so is the other. I just found it ironic that some people who were crying bully in one case had no compunction in carrying out a bit of bullying themselves.

Interestingly enough, although talking about crossbreeding is against forum rules, questioning people who breed pedigrees and denigrating pedigree breeding isn't against forum rules. Yet somehow some crossbreed owners still think the forum is biased against them and their dogs. The reality is actually the opposite. There are countless threads on here that villlify pedigrees and pedigree breeders, especially pedigree breeders who show their dogs.

Take this thread, for example. It started off purposely to denigrate pedigrees and pedigree show breeders in particular:



gayle38 said:


> Pedigree dogs are suffering from genetic diseases following years of inbreeding ............physical traits required by the Kennel Clubs breed standards, such as short faces, wrinkling, screw-tails and dwarfism, have inherent health problems ........................Other problems occur because of exaggerations bred into dogs by breeders trying to win rosettes ................ deliberate mating of dogs which are close relatives is common practice and the Kennel Club registers dogs bred from mother-to-son and brother-to-sister matings ........... People are carrying out breeding which would be first of all entirely illegal in humans and secondly is absolutely insane from the point of view of the health of the animals .........


And then there were posts like this who continued the pedigree slating:



GSDAndHuskyOwner said:


> The owners of some of the dogs on it are ridiculous, they do not care for their dogs at all, its all about breed standards and winning competitions for them ........... They should also not be bred from, its cruel and neglect to breed a dog with known health problems which could pass on to others .................. the breed standards which have made people in this mind set though. All the owners care about is do they meet the breed standards and all this...............
> .


You quite rightly get angry when posters automatically assume crossbreeders breed unethically - but there is an equal amount, if not more, of posters who do exactly the same with pedigrees. From the perspective of some crossbreed owners, there is a bias towards dissing crossbreeding. But from a pedigree owner perspective, the bias seems the other way.

However, having said all that, if you actually read most of the posts on here that talk about breeding, most of them seem to be advocating ethical breeding (both crossbreeding and pedigree breeding) and denigrating unethical breeding (again, both crossbreeding and pedigree breeding). What is wrong with that? There are thical and unethical breeders on both sides of the fence - why do find it a problem that unethical breeding is questioned in crossbreeding? If there is no unethical breeding in crossbreeding, there is no problem, surely? But if there is unethical breeding, surely you would not want it to continue? (Just as I would not want unethical breeding of pedigrees to continue.)


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

I own and breed pedigree dogs so I am not saying that cross breeding is the way to go but I have an open mind. I certainly dont judge somebody purely by the fact that they have bred a multi breed litter. I wont stay quiet when I think that somebody is being judged unfairly. I always find that those who are quick to judge others without taking the time to find out facts are always the first to get touchy when they themselves are questioned or put on the spot.

I even liked MaisyMs last post I read because it did make me chuckle.....


----------



## gayle38 (Jul 16, 2012)

Hi everyone, Ive posted some more pictures in the picys thread of Bella's puppies.

Be warned though these puppy pictures are of cross bred puppies so If you dont like em DONT LOOK.:thumbup:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

gayle38 said:


> Hi everyone, Ive posted some more pictures in the picys thread of Bella's puppies.
> 
> Be warned though these puppy pictures are of cross bred puppies so If you dont like em DONT LOOK.:thumbup:


So why post an announcement on a completely unrelated thread about pedigree dogs?

That's a rehtorical question btw - I can guess the answer, in the same way that it also tells me far more about you and your breeding than any details of health tests, what you were hoping to achieve in such a cross, and your care for the litter ever will! 

PS- I never look at puppy pics anyway - regardless of breed or cross breed - there all pretty much the same at that age


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Hi Gayle. I shall be popping over to see the new puppy pics now

I hope those members opposed strongly to cross bred litters will not spoil the thread for you this time


----------



## gayle38 (Jul 16, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> So why post an announcement on a completely unrelated thread about pedigree dogs?
> 
> That's a rehtorical question btw - I can guess the answer, in the same way that it also tells me far more about you and your breeding than any details of health tests, what you were hoping to achieve in such a cross, and your care for the litter ever will!


sorry did you say somthing....


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Any more unnecessary comments on cross-breeds and this thread will be closed. There is absolutely no need for some of the deliberately antagonistic remarks on here.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

chichi said:


> Hi Gayle. I shall be popping over to see the new puppy pics now
> 
> I hope those members opposed strongly to cross bred litters will not spoil the thread for you this time


Who's against cross bred litters?  I think if you read through the posts, it's any unethical breeding people are opposed to.

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

And in fact this post is an attack on pedigrees, based on a tv documentary that was flawed and misleading, I pity anyone who was misled by that programme and hasn't got the intelligence to enlighten themselves further than what was shoved under their noses. You only have to look as far as the cockapoo owners club to see that cross breeds can and do suffer from conditions relating to skeletal development and construction, ie conformation, which makes me question how on earth with three breeds in the mix, you would know what you were going to get, and whether you could be sure, as much as possible, that progeny would not have any defects arising from the combination of the three breeds.

I also think it's now just turned into a stirring campaign with the OP determined to post to try and wind some folk up, I couldn't give two hoots, I'm off to walk my pedigree mutants while the sun is shining, and may possibly have a glass of wine while I get on with some work this evening.

I do however look forward to the OP posting about all the health tests they undertake on their breeding stock, and how the conformation of their dogs compliments each other, so that they know the pups will have healthy lives that won't be impaired by problems inherited from their parents that could have been prevented given our current knowledge of tests and screening for health issues. Although I rather believe that a chocolate Labrador will win the IGL first!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lymorelynn said:


> Any more unnecessary comments on cross-breeds and this thread will be closed. There is absolutely no need for some of the deliberately antagonistic remarks on here.


I agree - it's unnecessary to make antagonistic remarks about crossbreeds when the whole thread was started merely to make antagonistic remarks about pedigrees. So antagonistic remarks about pedigrees only from now on please!


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Who's against cross bred litters?  I think if you read through the posts, it's any unethical breeding people are opposed to.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> I do however look forward to the OP posting about all the health tests they undertake on their breeding stock, and how the conformation of their dogs compliments each other, so that they know the pups will have healthy lives that won't be impaired by problems inherited from their parents that could have been prevented given our current knowledge of tests and screening for health issues. Although I rather believe that a chocolate Labrador will win the IGL first!


Re your first comment.......Gayle was getting accused of being ignorant...irresponsible....a pet pimp....you name it....before any questions regarding health testing or ethics were even discussed. Her first photo thread was closed because it was completely getting out of hand.

Gayle doesnt have to share any of the details regarding her Breeding ethics with you or anyone else. She chose to share her litter pics and was verbally abused and judged unfairly by some members. Why on earth would she need to justify herself to narrow minded people who think they know it all and have the right to be rude to somebody they know nothing about....other than her litter is not pedigree.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I agree - it's unnecessary to make antagonistic remarks about crossbreeds when the whole thread was started merely to make antagonistic remarks about pedigrees. So antagonistic remarks about pedigrees only from now on please!


Omg you are on a roll!!!!

haha!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

chichi said:


> Re your first comment.......Gayle was getting accused of being ignorant...irresponsible....a pet pimp....you name it....before any questions regarding health testing or ethics were even discussed. Her first photo thread was closed because it was completely getting out of hand.
> 
> Gayle doesnt have to share any of the details regarding her Breeding ethics with you or anyone else. She chose to share her litter pics and was verbally abused and judged unfairly by some members. Why on earth would she need to justify herself to narrow minded people who think they know it all and have the right to be rude to somebody they know nothing about....other than her litter is not pedigree.


If you post on an open forum people will form opinions, whether you like it or not, and some will voice those opinions, whether you feel it's the place to or not, after all, they are just opinions, and to be quite honest, if Gayle doesn't like peoples' opinions she just has to ignore them. But given that Gayle has chosen to post yet again about a contentious issue, it doesn't seem that it can be affecting her that much.

I never said Gayle had to post, I said she was free to post, I'm not demanding proof of anything, I don't need or want it and I don't personally think it's there in any case. I'm not narrow minded, I have spoken up vociferously in the past to defend cross bred litters and breeding programmes, which I've explained many times on here and other threads. The simple fact is if you choose to post in the breeding section of an open forum, where, if you take the time to read through before you post, you will see that there is a chance people will ask questions about your motives for breeding, and just how much research/preparation you have done, then you should expect posts from members asking these things. It doesn't mean at all you have to answer them.

For the record, I haven't verbally abused anyone, I don't agree with a cavajack x shitzhu cross because I see no reason for breeding this sort of litter, particularly when all three breeds are prone to patella luxation, and you may be opening up a can of worms you don't know about unless you've done good research about the three individual breeds and exactly what you're putting together, so to speak. I know shitzhus have no recommended health tests, but from memory, off the top of my head I think some breeders are testing for PRA, is that an issue with the other two breeds? I don't know off hand, but I'd want to make damn sure I did know before I contemplated breeding any dog just what it was I was doing, to ensure pups had the best chance possible.

I'm sure the pups are absolutely adorable, but then most pups are, I don't think I've seen an unadorable pup. I sincerely hope the pups stay healthy and live a long life in a loving home, but I can't agree with gambling on that outcome alone, rather than researching and making sure the odds are in favour of this happening. I also sincerely apologise if my posts have offended Gayle, that wasn't my intention by posting my views at all, online forums are not easy to get a view across sometimes without offending, but if I were sat round having a drink with anyone who told me about such a breeding, I'd say the same to their face and have done several times in fact, not to Gayle of course.

It's actually possibly a good thing this discussion has reared it's ugly head again, since it's Puppy Awareness Week, which is all about educating the public to do their research when buying a pup, so they know the breeder has done their best to ensure pups have a long healthy life and parents have had all the relevant health tests done etc, etc.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

gayle38 said:


> It says deliberate mating of dogs which are close relatives is common practice and *the Kennel Club registers dogs bred from mother-to-son and brother-to-sister matings*. Scientists at Imperial College, London, recently found that pugs in the UK are so inbred that although there are 10,000 of them, it is the equivalent of just 50 distinct individuals. Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, said: People are carrying out breeding which would be first of all entirely illegal in humans and secondly is absolutely insane from the point of view of the health of the animals. In some breeds they are paying a terrible price in genetic disease.


Can I just point out that the Kennel Club does not register litters bred in this way, the rules changed some time ago, and progeny from parent to offspring matings and sibling matings are not registered by the KC. I'm not sure if anyone else clarified this but it's worth noting for anyone reading.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Many of the changes the KC have made regarding better breeding practices were as a result of the PDE programme. So the airing of the show was a positive in my eyes.

Still dont believe anyone has the right to be abusive to a member about breeding practices without knowing the full story.

And FWIW Sleeping Lion I have never seen you post an abusive comment so I wasnt referring to you in my previous post. Opinion is one thing. After all....like you say.....it is a forum but I do believe a few members crossed the line towards Gayle. Jmho.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

chichi said:


> Many of the changes the KC have made regarding better breeding practices were as a result of the PDE programme. So the airing of the show was a positive in my eyes.
> 
> Still dont believe anyone has the right to be abusive to a member about breeding practices without knowing the full story.
> 
> And FWIW Sleeping Lion I have never seen you post an abusive comment so I wasnt referring to you in my previous post. Opinion is one thing. After all....like you say.....it is a forum but I do believe a few members crossed the line towards Gayle. Jmho.


I disagree re PDE prompting changes, it perhaps sped things up a little, but changes were coming in any case. Unfortunately for many people who took the *documentary* at face value, they now think pedigree dogs are all vastly unhealthy, and many folks had the experience of puppy waiting lists emptying, whilst puppy buyers went to the free ads for a healthy cross breed, with absolutely no evidence that the cross bred puppy would be healthy other than it wasn't a pedigree, because that's what the programme implied.

I'd agree that some breeds are unhealthy, I don't like some of the very heavy Labradors seen in the show ring, but there are plenty of healthy examples. There are a minority of breeds that do need looking at closely I think, and perhaps the closed gene pool mentality needs to be tackled, or we may loose some breeds altogether.

I completely agree that it's wrong to be directly abusive towards a member, and I think I'd be right in saying it is against forum rules in any case. I do think there was far too many people just posting their thoughts without thinking before pressing the 'submit reply' button, or perhaps aren't worried about how their posts may affect other people, the OP included, but that's because of the huge cross section of personalities on here I'm afraid, and that's not something I'd want to change, even though I've been on the receiving end a few times.

Right, I think it's time for that glass of wine before I go and tackle a load of reports about bridges!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

chichi said:


> Many of the changes the KC have made regarding better breeding practices were as a result of the PDE programme. So the airing of the show was a positive in my eyes.
> 
> Still dont believe anyone has the right to be abusive to a member about breeding practices without knowing the full story.
> 
> And FWIW Sleeping Lion I have never seen you post an abusive comment so I wasnt referring to you in my previous post. Opinion is one thing. After all....like you say.....it is a forum but I do believe a few members crossed the line towards Gayle. Jmho.


No one has any right to be abusive to ANYONE whether they know the full story or not. What anyone chooses to do re breeding their bitch is their business and even if it did somehow affect someone else on here there is still no right to be abusive.
This is worse than the school playground.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Blitz said:


> What anyone chooses to do re breeding their bitch is their business .


Do you really believe that? Honestly and truly?

Because if you did, we'd have to stop campaigning against puppy farms - because if that's what they choose to do re breeding their bitches that's their business. We'd have to stop campaigning against chavs who churn out staffies from their bitch every time the poor girl is in season - because if that's what they choose to do re breeding their bitch that's their business. We'd have to stop campaigning against breeding bulldogs whose heads and chests are so big they cannot give birth properly - because if that's what they choose to do re breeding their bitch that's their business. We'd have to smile fondly on the kind of idiot who breeds a bitch from a smaller breed to a stud from a larger breed and coo lovingly at any cute puppies that survive as the bitch is ripped to bits giving birth - because if that's what they choose to do re breeding their bitch that's their business.

Are you really advocating that we should no longer be concerned if breeding bitches are suffering because it's none of our business? Or did you not really think about what you wrote? 

btw - before anyone jumps on me - I'm not saying the OP fits into any of the above categories. I can't - I don't know anything about her breeding practices other than she breeds mongrels because she has chosen not to speak about her breeding; so for all I know she may be the best breeder in the world. I will reserve my comments until such times as she does talk about her breeding practices.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Excellent post Spellweaver ...


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> Excellent post Spellweaver ...


This ^^ Had to rep her for it!

And to add: we'd have to see the poor pups who are born to die early due to issues inherited from untested parents who should never have been put together.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Do you really believe that? Honestly and truly?
> 
> Because if you did, we'd have to stop campaigning against puppy farms - because if that's what they choose to do re breeding their bitches that's their business. We'd have to stop campaigning against chavs who churn out staffies from their bitch every time the poor girl is in season - because if that's what they choose to do re breeding their bitch that's their business. We'd have to stop campaigning against breeding bulldogs whose heads and chests are so big they cannot give birth properly - because if that's what they choose to do re breeding their bitch that's their business. We'd have to smile fondly on the kind of idiot who breeds a bitch from a smaller breed to a stud from a larger breed and coo lovingly at any cute puppies that survive as the bitch is ripped to bits giving birth - because if that's what they choose to do re breeding their bitch that's their business.
> 
> ...


Puppy farms are a welfare issue, not a breeding issue per se. Chavs keeping staffies in terrible conditions and churning out pups are a welfare issue too so of course something should be done about it. I fail to see how these puppy farms can be allowed to keep going if their conditions are as horrendous as we are led to believe.
Where I live there were, apparently, many puppy farms. When the breeders licencing law came in the local council actually enforced it properly and every single breeder stopped breeding because it was going to cost them far too much to comply with the regulations. Actually slightly untrue, there was one left with just a couple of bitches that used to send puppies to dealers but she was soon 'persuaded' to stop. 
So why is it allowed to carry on. If one area can actually enforce the law and stop it why cant other areas manage.

But your normal bitch owner that wants the odd litter - that is completely their business because they have good welfare and are breaking no laws and it is also where a huge number of pet dogs come from so if they stopped breeding there would be a severe shortage of pet puppies.

And why should anyone take on a rescue dog. I have had private rescues and I would take on a rescue if it was what I wanted, but not just for the sake of rescuing a 'dog'
Can you imagine the problem if everyone took on a rescue dog instead of the puppy of their choice. There would be hundreds of staffies wandering around with unsuitable unhappy owners who could not control them.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Blitz said:


> But your normal bitch owner that wants the odd litter - that is completely their business *because they have good welfare *and are breaking no laws and it is also where a huge number of pet dogs come from so if they stopped breeding there would be a severe shortage of pet puppies.


But how would we (and I mean we in the wider public sense, not we as in pf members) know the bit I've highlighted in bold to be true if we don't ask the questions? (or if the breeder refuses to answer the questions.  ) Do you think we should just believe everything anyone tells us and not question it?

In that case, if you send me £5,000 you will automatically go to heaven! I'll pm you with my address so that you can mail me a cheque 



Blitz said:


> And why should anyone take on a rescue dog. I have had private rescues and I would take on a rescue if it was what I wanted, but not just for the sake of rescuing a 'dog'
> Can you imagine the problem if everyone took on a rescue dog instead of the puppy of their choice. There would be hundreds of staffies wandering around with unsuitable unhappy owners who could not control them.


Not sure where this came from - I've never mentioned rescue dogs  - but for the record I agree with you on this one. I just wish that more people would make the puppy of their choice a puppy who has been bred well.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> But how would we (and I mean we in the wider public sense, not we as in pf members) know the bit I've highlighted in bold to be true if we don't ask the questions? (or if the breeder refuses to answer the questions.  ) Do you think we should just believe everything anyone tells us and not question it?
> 
> In that case, if you send me £5,000 you will automatically go to heaven! I'll pm you with my address so that you can mail me a cheque
> 
> Not sure where this came from - I've never mentioned rescue dogs  - but for the record I agree with you on this one. I just wish that more people would make the puppy of their choice a puppy who has been bred well.


I think the second bit was me forgetting what thread we were on! It is an age thing you know 

First bit, not sure where the believing bit comes from. I have never said anything about that (are you old too!). Of course you must ask questions when buying anything. I never believe a word anyone says to me unless I can verify it, but not sure of the relevance of it here. 
It is usually fairly easy to find out over the phone whether a breeder has a clue what they are doing and whether the pups are reared properly. Then go and have a look and see if it is true. When I was looking for a second dog I phoned about a lot of litters, some I was not that interested in but I wanted to get a feel for it. They were all out of the scotads and most were sold within days but of the ones I spoke to I would have crossed some off my list immediately but tbh most sounded genuine and had bred from their pet bitch because they wanted a litter but they had good responses to my questions.
In the end I bought a locally bred pup that I could visit weekly and know exactly how she was reared. That breeder would be knocked to bits on here but those pups lacked for nothing and had so much time spent with them and had so many visitors their socialisation was second to none. Even so, I have to say it does not sit easily with me that she is about to have another litter.(just to prove that though I think everyone has the right to breed their bitch I do not necessarily think it a good idea)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I think the second bit was me forgetting what thread we were on! It is an age thing you know
> 
> First bit, not sure where the believing bit comes from. I have never said anything about that (are you old too!). Of course you must ask questions when buying anything. I never believe a word anyone says to me unless I can verify it, but not sure of the relevance of it here.
> It is usually fairly easy to find out over the phone whether a breeder has a clue what they are doing and whether the pups are reared properly. Then go and have a look and see if it is true. When I was looking for a second dog I phoned about a lot of litters, some I was not that interested in but I wanted to get a feel for it. They were all out of the scotads and most were sold within days but of the ones I spoke to I would have crossed some off my list immediately but tbh most sounded genuine and had bred from their pet bitch because they wanted a litter but they had good responses to my questions.
> In the end I bought a locally bred pup that I could visit weekly and know exactly how she was reared. That breeder would be knocked to bits on here but those pups lacked for nothing and had so much time spent with them and had so many visitors their socialisation was second to none. Even so, I have to say it does not sit easily with me that she is about to have another litter.(just to prove that though I think everyone has the right to breed their bitch I do not necessarily think it a good idea)


But that's what happens on an open forum, some threads are treated differently to others, and there are various reasons for that. Sometimes the tone of the thread are already set, there is one thread on here I refuse to even look at, it's been here longer than I have, and when I started reading it I couldn't believe people were so congratulatory over such poor practices. If that person were to post now what they had done, I'd most likely be very honest with them about my thoughts.

If you think the breeder you bought your pup from was good enough, what does it matter what others think. For the record, I don't disagree with people breeding from pets, mine are more pet than anything else, but I do disagree with people simply breeding and breeding without doing the slightest bit of research or thinking about the consequences for the pups they choose to bring into this world. I know my vets intimated they have to smile and grit their teeth with the vast majority of breeders they see, who have done nothing in the way of research and preparations for a litter, it's incredibly rare for them to have anyone with a pregnant bitch in who has the faintest knowledge of health tests even, and puppy buyers are for the most part just as ignorant. If only someone would do a hard hitting documentary about health testing, oh wait, they did, but they chose to persuade people that pedigrees are all unhealthy (see thread title) instead of focussing on the research that's gone into the health of our dogs, and those of us who health test and use that information to the best of our ability.


----------



## SharonM (Mar 2, 2010)

My dogs are pets and I breed from them, but ALL my dogs have been health tested, using the DNA tests available to our breed, what really annoys me is when owners of bitches think it's ok to use a clear tested dog and not bother getting their own bitch tested - people like that are basically in it for the money only!


----------

