# Pedigree Dogs Presenter Exposed!



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Just thought I'd share this link, hope it works, it seems Ms Harrison has been making stuff up for dramatic effect, and been caught out. Perhaps she needs to check her research a little more thoroughly.

Pedigree Dogs presenter exposed!


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

I think she'll end up sued for libel. She seems to be losing popularity and credibility now.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Let's hope so, she didn't do the dog world any favours with her sensationalist programme.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> I think she'll end up sued for libel. She seems to be losing popularity and credibility now.


Here's hoping, stupid woman!

Just goes to show eh?


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

She was the presenter. That doesn't mean she wrote the script.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Rumour is that the breeder of the dog in question (from america) may be considering suing.

Damn right too, the damage she is doing to the show world is just infuriating, at least she is being found out for the liar she truely is.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> She was the presenter. That doesn't mean she wrote the script.


The PDE programme? It was HER programme, research (or lack of it) to production. It was made by her own production company 

But, this is about something completely different


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> She was the presenter. That doesn't mean she wrote the script.


The programme was made by a company she is, I believe, a co-owner of, or is involved in some way, I think she would have had more than a little bit of a say as to what the content was


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> The PDE programme? It was HER programme, research (or lack of it) to production. It was made by her own production company
> 
> But, this is about something completely different


Thanks Jess, I wasn't sure, and unlike others, don't like to spout inaccuracies, chuckle


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The programme was made by a company she is, I believe, a co-owner of, or is involved in some way, I think she would have had more than a little bit of a say as to what the content was


Spot on :thumbup:

Passionate Productions


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

I find it incredible, although expected from journalists, that something can get as far as it did on hearsay alone


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Ahh- Karma - it gets you in the end :thumbup: - give her a bigger spade and she'll dig herslef in even deeper - even her old allies the RSPCA are backing off ! see this from the recent APGAW meeting

[


> B] David Grant (Harmsworth Hospital, RSPCA)[/B]  I wanted to pick up on the social malaise comment raised by Chris Laurence. We need to look at indiscriminate breeding, often in social housing, for profit under no control. The KC is being criticised but there is no criticism of backstreet breeders who are breeding to an inferior standard and the dogs are then falling into the wrong hands. You have to deal with the social malaise and indiscriminate breeding as part of the resolution to these problems.


they at least have changed their tune and are recognising the REAL problem affecting dogs instead of carrying on this spiteful and vindictive campaign against the show world - will the fact that she has been caught out in her lies and could well be sued be highlighted in the press in the same way that her programme was ? - I doubt it - but she's lost all credibility in the dog world after this little debacle !!


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Where was the article published originally?


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> I think she'll end up sued for libel. She seems to be losing popularity and credibility now.


Wonder if we shall see any form of retraction


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

In fairness, nobody could deny there was some truth in what she said 
Perhaps especially about the KCCS ... :confused1:

It will be interesting to see how this pans out :confused1:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

pearltheplank said:


> Where was the article published originally?


There are a few floating around, the minutes from the APGAW meeting, where she produced a document stating that the sire and dam, of one of the top achieving show dogs of a particular breed, had both died from genetic diseases. In actual fact, the dam had died in an accident, and the sire is alive and well, both had been health tested appropriately for the breed, and the dog itself is co-owned and very healthy. It was the co-owners who were left to contact Miss Harrison, who apologised, not very convincinginly, and had to be persuaded to take down the false claims and photographs from her online blog. That's what the article is referring to, that I posted a link to.

She's in a couple of the dog magazines this month, and a vet has written an article in the telegraph condemning her approach, and her accusations that basically vets used at crufts to assess show dogs will all be bent.

What worries me, is the information about the dog she used as an example, came from an apparently reliable source. Just how many more of her reliable sources are similar to this one?

No-one in the show world would deny, that some of the things that were highlighted on the programme she produced were appalling. Unfortunately, Miss Harrison takes sole credit for the introduction of health testing schemes, and the move away from some of the exaggerations that had crept in to some breeds, where as the truth is that this was already happening, and all she did was jump on the bandwagon and shout the loudest and crudest message possible, which scared everyone away from good pedigree breeders.

On another forum I go on, and where I read this article initially, there's a journalist who writes for one of the dog magazines, and she followed up the PDE programme with an article to highlight the case of a CKCS puppy that had been put to sleep after having a seizure or fit in the garden, because the vet believed it may have SM after watching the programme. The sad fact was that it most certainly didn't, it may have eaten something, but the parents had been tested and were clear of the condition. The vet basically scared the owners into having the dog put to sleep because of the possible costs associated with SM.

At last the truth about Ms Harrison's methods, and the harm she's done is actually coming to the attention of the public. Perhaps that may help turn things around a little.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

There was certainly a lot of truth to what she said about the breeds she highlighted IMO. But it was all exaggerated and she used shock tactics to create the illusion all pedigree dogs are falling to pieces. Who wouldn't be horrified at the sight of a dog writhing on the floor screaming in pain after a 5 minute commentary on how sweet they are or the boxer fitting. That was horrible footage.

But it's a good thing it's now come out that so much of it was lies as the pedigree people knew already. It did help highlight the issues and that's a good thing but it pushed people towards PFs and BYBs in the illusion they would be healthier. Which isn't a good thing


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> There was certainly a lot of truth to what she said about the breeds she highlighted IMO. But it was all exaggerated and she used shock tactics to create the *illusion *all pedigree dogs are falling to pieces.


You're quite right, Harrison definitely painted a picture where all Pedigrees are falling apart and genetically unsound. I think the program (or one similar) was due, but it was so very out of proportion that I can only imagine how it's damaged the show world.

I'd be devastated too if I were Wrink's owner


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Well, well well! Truth will always out. 

How nice to have positive proof of what those of us who know what we are talking about with regard to pedigree dogs, dog showing, the Kennel Club and Crufts have been saying all along - ie that this woman's research is flawed and her accusations are wildly innacurate. 

I hope Wink's owners do go ahead and sue her - it might teach her to tell the truth in future.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

A couple of comments on Facebook was all it took for it to spiral out of control with hearsay only


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

pearltheplank said:


> A couple of comments on Facebook was all it took for it to spiral out of control with hearsay only


Not sure what you're talking about here - you'll have to excuse me, I've been up since 5am and have been at a dog show all day! Do you mean what Jemima has done and said re Wink? That was nothing to do with hearsay. According to the front-page article in "Our Dogs", Jemima herself gave her flawed and inaccaurate research about the health of Wink and his parentage at the AGPAW meeting in the Hosue of Commons. She has had to apologise to Wink and his owners and is in danger of being sued by them fr the distress they have undergone. That's not hearsay from facebook


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Not sure what you're talking about here - Jemima herself gave her flawed and inaccaurate research about the health of Wink and his parentage


Sorry, should have been clearer. Her inaccurately researched original article spiralled from a few facebook comments and ran away with it without checking the facts


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

pearltheplank said:


> Sorry, should have been clearer. Her inaccurately researched original article spiralled from a few facebook comments and ran away with it without checking the facts


Ah, now I understand! Thanks for explaining!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Jemima has posted about what has happened and about the circumstances and her apology, on the Champdog forum.

The link is here:Pedigree Dog Presenter Exposed

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I know, I've posted on that thread too.

The problem is, Jemima only apologised because one of the co-owners of the dog contacted her.

She used a dog's details, and photographs, without permission of the owner to imply they were breeding unethically, and got it very wrong. Her first action, to me, should have been to contact the owners and apologise unreservedly, and remove any offending material. It took her 24 hours to be persuaded to remove the photo and article, and she did not make any attempt to contact the owners. I don't think that is in any way defendable.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

I love how she is yet again flinging unfounded accusations around about who sent the flyer


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> I love how she is yet again flinging unfounded accusations around about who sent the flyer


It's hilarious isn't it, who cares who sent it, it's her that put it together to present at the meeting!!!


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

I just read her other post on the champdogs thread, and she actually seems more upset about someone sending the flyer than the awful, incorrect comments she put in it!! If I read something like that about a specific dog I would also forward it to the owners, they have a right to know what is being said about their dog IMO. How she can make out the person who sent it is in the wrong and "unprofessional"....!!! 

She's like a child, its everyone elses fault but hers...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> I just read her other post on the champdogs thread, and she actually seems more upset about someone sending the flyer than the awful, incorrect comments she put in it!! If I read something like that about a specific dog I would also forward it to the owners, they have a right to know what is being said about their dog IMO. How she can make out the person who sent it is in the wrong and "unprofessional"....!!!
> 
> She's like a child, its everyone elses fault but hers...


Yep, more worried at being found out, than the harm she's done to someone else by publicly declaring their dog to be unhealthy and their breeding practices therefore unethical.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Jemima has posted about what has happened and about the circumstances and her apology, on the Champdog forum.
> 
> The link is here:Pedigree Dog Presenter Exposed
> 
> CC


And why, with her track record, would anyone now believe anything she says? I've been following the conversation on champdogs and she's wriggling every which way and tripping over herself again and again trying to blame others and exonerate herself. She still can't alter the facts, which are that she did not do her research properly and hence slandered someone's breeding in a very high profile public meeting in the House of Commons. And given that the whole problem with PDE was her lack of proper research and hence she slandered ALL breeders, this positive proof of her poor journalistic skills now brings her methods of investigation (and hence the program itself) into disrepute for everyone other than the Jemima sycophants who truly do not want to see the truth.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

She still writes every month in Dogs Today magazine, so she must be respected by some i'd think! :


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Excellent news... so the breeding world can carry on as it was without a care in the world and a clear conscience. I love a happy ending.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Excellent news... so the breeding world can carry on as it was without a care in the world and a clear conscience. I love a happy ending


What a ridiculus, ignorant comment to make 

Nothing in any of this has indicated that the breeding world can carry on without a care in the world - nor has the breeding side I know done that anyway 

However, to take up your point - if anyone is going to better things, the right way to do it is with the *correct* information, not on heresay and badly researched info.

Although I do agree with Jemima on some points, this does rather put her 'research' into question.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Excellent news... so the breeding world can carry on as it was without a care in the world and a clear conscience. I love a happy ending.


No one has said that. However that program was completely unfair. They showed the sick dogs in breeds but not the healthy ones, they made out that breeders didnt health test and didnt bother to show the good breeders who do.

Because of that stupid program people think all pedigree dogs are sick. I remember watching that program in horror and I knew that it was unfairly made so god knows how it made people who know nothing about pedigree's felt.

If it wasnt for pedigree breeders there would be no market for health tests like optigen I think that's what people lose sight of.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Excellent news... so the breeding world can carry on as it was without a care in the world and a clear conscience. I love a happy ending.


No surprises here! Again, all your post deserves is

     

and a good dose of

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The depth of your ignorance is superceded only by the depth of your wish to cause trouble on this forum.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Malmum said:


> She still writes every month in Dogs Today magazine, so she must be respected by some i'd think! :


The editor, Beverley Cuddy is pretty anti pedigree dogs and Crufts now. Though she used to breed Bearded Collies didn't she?

I used to buy Dogs Today, but though not a breeder or shower myself tired of the rants


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> She still writes every month in Dogs Today magazine, so she must be respected by some i'd think! :


Yes, she has been supported by a couple of dog magazines, the editors of which have taken her "facts" as truth despite all the evidence to the contrary. Now she has proved just how she doesn't let the true facts get in the way of a sensational story, these editors have also ended up with egg on their faces.

Thankfully, most of the dog press sussed her out pretty quickly early on and have always taken her ridiculous pontifications with a huge pinch of salt.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> The editor, Beverley Cuddy is pretty anti pedigree dogs and Crufts now. Though she used to breed Bearded Collies didn't she?
> 
> I used to buy Dogs Today, but though not a breeder or shower myself tired of the rants


Its funny actually, I bought dogs today the other month and it had a article basicly saying about what breeds of dog were at this trainers training lesson, she barely mentioned breeds but the designer crosses and how great they are I was offended by it as I felt like it was glorafieing designer crosses now to people who know nothing about breeding the first place they would go and look for a designer cross is somewhere like p4h and we all know what types of cross breeders use that.

If they are going to try and push readers towards cross breeds they could at least supply some contact details of good cross breeders.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Its funny actually, I bought dogs today the other month and it had a article basicly saying about what breeds of dog were at this trainers training lesson, she barely mentioned breeds but the designer crosses and how great they are I was offended by it as I felt like it was glorafieing designer crosses now to people who know nothing about breeding the first place they would go and look for a designer cross is somewhere like p4h and we all know what types of cross breeders use that.
> 
> If they are going to try and push readers towards cross breeds they could at least supply some contact details of good cross breeders.


I can believe it 

I perhaps think this is a magazine that simply panders to the "latest fads" in the pet keeping dog world? They want to sell mags and it is without doubt (in my eyes) aimed at pet dog owners. They must see online what people are wanting breed or so often crossbreed wise?

Do they still have their breed specific pages where they have litter details?
Maybe if they want to promote mongrels/crossbreeds they could insist on health checks etc breeder do and put their details there ... If they must


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> I can believe it
> 
> I perhaps think this is a magazine that simply panders to the "latest fads" in the pet keeping dog world? They want to sell mags and it is without doubt (in my eyes) aimed at pet dog owners. They must see online what people are wanting breed or so often crossbreed wise?
> 
> ...


To be honest I read that article then the one on the next page about the cavalier cross project and binned the thing. Think I will stick to yourdog its actually interesting to read and isnt based on opinion's but facts.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I bought the latest one I think and it had an article about people breeding alternate less exaggerated versions of KC breeds like pugs with long muzzles, working dachshunds, the various Victorian/old tyme etc bulldogs. They did emphasise that you should go to someone who breeds for health and that they weren't guaranteed to be healthy etc. Interesting to read

They did have an article on koirkerhondje or however it's spelt that was pretty accurate


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> To be honest I read that article then the one on the next page about the cavalier cross project and binned the thing. Think I will stick to yourdog its actually interesting to read and isnt based on opinion's but facts.


Cavalier cross project 

Why do I get the feeling I would have done exactly the same as you


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> I bought the latest one I think and it had an article about people breeding alternate less exaggerated versions of KC breeds like pugs with long muzzles, working dachshunds, the various Victorian/old tyme etc bulldogs. They did emphasise that you should go to someone who breeds for health and that they weren't guaranteed to be healthy etc. Interesting to read


At least they offered information in regards to who they should be bought off.
Why do they need to cross dogs? The kennel club and the breed clubs are working hard and in time it will happen but as it stands all the dogs today are going to do is create more cross breeds with breathing problems.

Many pug cross's maintain the pug face. What would they cross them to? Without losing the temperament? French bull dog....already has a flat face, boston terrier already has a flat face. If they breed out to another breed the pug will lose many things not just its face but it will be taller and have different fur and traits.

I am waiting for someone to suggest poodle now...:lol:


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

They looked like pugs just with a longer muzzle not sure how they did it might have been pure breds just breeding dogs with longer muzzles together. It was a kennel in Germany. The working dachshunds were lovely I have to admit teckels recognised variety or seperate breed I think


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> Cavalier cross project
> 
> Why do I get the feeling I would have done exactly the same as you


They are supporting the cavalier project, which the kennel club and breed clubs are not happy about.

A 21 (or 22) year old girl has this idea....about breeding a Papillon and a Cocker together to create a cavalier...and people actually believe that they will get a dog that looks like a cavalier and has the temperament of a cavalier...no way.

I am all for bettering the breed but they are not even using a cavalier.

Edit to add: Here is a old link discussion on it 
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/100207-cavalier-recreation-project.html


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I've heard about that and yes cavaliers are in an awful state but how does crossing a papillon and a cocker create a cavalier?


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> I've heard about that and yes cavaliers are in an awful state but how does crossing a papillon and a cocker create a cavalier?


They believe that 2 similar breeds were used to create cavaliers however there is no proof of that even breed clubs are not 100% sure. But there is no way they will be the calm, kind, great temperament they are now.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Not with that mix they're going to be high energy


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> They are supporting the cavalier project, which the kennel club and breed clubs are not happy about.
> 
> A 21 (or 22) year old girl has this idea....about breeding a Papillon and a Cocker together to create a cavalier...and people actually believe that they will get a dog that looks like a cavalier and has the temperament of a cavalier...no way.
> 
> ...


Thank you will read later :thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Not with that mix they're going to be high energy


It's just silly... When people try to re-create breeds they should at least have the backing of breed clubs and kennel club. I have a cavalier who has a heart problem I know the breed needs help...but not like this.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I can understand wanting to help them and maybe selective outcrossing with KC backing, ok unlikely look at the LUA dallies, but surely this is the wrong way to do just start over again. Even the Old Tyme bulldogs at least have bulldog in them. Using papillons and cocker you're going to end up with a totally different temperment


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Why do they need to cross dogs? The kennel club and the breed clubs are working hard and in time it will happen but as it stands all the dogs today are going to do is create more cross breeds with breathing problems.


Absolutely, I mean they've only had 138 years let's not rush them (remembering of course that all of the health problems that exist now were caused by their experiments in the first place).

With the information and science available now, this is the perfect time to cross and develop breeds, not simply hang to all the existing ones regardless of their health problems - unless you're saying the whole documentary was just made up and none of the KC breeds has any issues.

As long as the breeding is regulated (something the KC and clubs have fought against) then there is not an issue.


----------



## Luvdogs (Aug 15, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Well, well well! Truth will always out.
> 
> How nice to have positive proof of what those of us who know what we are talking about with regard to pedigree dogs, dog showing, the Kennel Club and Crufts have been saying all along - ie that this woman's research is flawed and her accusations are wildly innacurate.
> 
> Here here....it does indeed, let's hope she has learned something from this!


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Absolutely, I mean they've only had 138 years let's not rush them (remembering of course that all of the health problems that exist now were caused by their experiments in the first place).
> 
> With the information and science available now, this is the perfect time to cross and develop breeds, not simply hang to all the existing ones regardless of their health problems - unless you're saying the whole documentary was just made up and none of the KC breeds has any issues.
> 
> As long as the breeding is regulated (something the KC and clubs have fought against) then there is not an issue.


A breed like the Cavalier is known for its temperament using two dogs to create one is daft you are going to not only lose the temperament but gain all sorts of other problems. No one knows what that cross could produce...

As long as good breeders keep health testing (as they currently are) then soon enough they can only breed from healthy dogs. I think the kennel club should put stops on ALL unhealth tested dogs being bred from but even more so in Cavaliers. Even breed experts are not sure which two dogs created cavaliers or weather it was a range of mixes over time so hows is sticking two random dogs together going to crate a cavaliers and maintain their fantastic temperament?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Same circular argument. A Cavalier was created by guesswork, new breeds now have a whole lot more certainty to rely on (by way of science).

I personally have no wish to create any new breeds but do think many of those currently in existence (with health issues) should stop breeding; this, as far as I'm concerned, is worse than cross breeders "chancing it".. the deliberate continued breeding of a breed with known issues.

This forum is renowned for the phrase "there are lots of breeds already, why crossbreed", half of that I agree with. There are lots of breeds already, why continue to breed any of those that have known health issues?


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Same circular argument. A Cavalier was created by guesswork, new breeds now have a whole lot more certainty to rely on (by way of science).
> 
> I personally have no wish to create any new breeds but do think many of those currently in existence (with health issues) should stop breeding; this, as far as I'm concerned, is worse than cross breeders "chancing it".. the deliberate continued breeding of a breed with known issues.
> 
> This forum is renowned for the phrase "there are lots of breeds already, why crossbreed", half of that I agree with. There are lots of breeds already, why continue to breed any of those that have known health issues?


Breed clubs and the kennel club dont agree with it so its not going to replace the cavalier only add another cross breed to the list.

Off out now but will reply later.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Absolutely, I mean they've only had 138 years let's not rush them (remembering of course that all of the health problems that exist now were caused by their experiments in the first place).


Yet you are advocating that this all begins again by starting new crosses? Very sensible - not.



Elmo the Bear said:


> unless you're saying the whole documentary was just made up and none of the KC breeds has any issues.


I think it's now widely accepted (except by people who are truly ignorant of the subject and just believe the gutter press) that:

a) most of the program was, indeed, made up (never one to let facts get in the way of a shock horror documentary is Jemima, which she has just proved)
b) only a few breeds are suffering health problems and these problems were being addresed by breeders and the KC LONG before Jemima jumped on the bandwagon.



Elmo the Bear said:


> As long as the breeding is regulated (something the KC and clubs have fought against) then there is not an issue.


You really must find out the truth before you post or you will continue to make yourself look silly. The part in red is just untrue. A touch of the Jemima's here I'm afraid - ie the facts don't fit your tirade so make them up! The Kennel Club has long advocated breeding being regulated and are, at the moment, the ONLY society in this country who has any sort of breed regulation in place. They readily admit that the flaw in the ABS is that they do not have regulatory powers by law to enforce breeders to comply and they would welcome such a law being passed.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Whilst it is wrong to fabricate stuff to gain recognition at least the programme did highlight that all is not well in the pedigree world and has probably got people talking more and asking more questions which is never a bad thing when an animals welfare is at stake.

A lot of KC breed standards that are held in high esteem on here I personally think are more about aesthetics.

I had a look at the BS for Cavs and most were about appearance and at the bottom it said that any dog that doesn't comply with these are considered to have a fault!!!

How can a wavy coat or not having feathered ears be a fault??? shocking!!!

We need to get away with lots of these aesthetically pleasing attributes being the main concern and concentrate more on the serious health risks.

There should be an independent body who represents all breeds whether pure or cross and sets standards for health tests etc....required for that breed/cross.

If there was one regulated body for all dogs and not just purebreeds it would hopefully help all sides come together to promote healthy breeding and work towards stopping PF and the like.

The crossing and outcrossing of dogs has either made your breed or kept it alive.

Otherwise you wouldn't be sitting on a sofa now with your lovely dog but probably be having your throat ripped out by a wolf or some dog like mutation :lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

A few more facts I've since found out about the programme, two of the dogs highlighted were not show bred, they were pet bred, which sort of links in nicely with the other thread running. And the issue of Rhodesian Ridgebacks was for the most part, erroneous; there is a link to dermoid sinus, but other dog breeds, and indeed animals, without the ridge, including us, also suffer the same condition. Research is going on, but just because a ridgeback has a ridge, does not mean it has this condition, which is what the programme implied.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> A lot of KC breed standards that are held in high esteem on here I personally thing are more about aesthetics.
> 
> I had a look at the BS for Cavs and most were about appearance and at the bottom it said that any dog that doesn't comply with these are considered to have a fault!!!
> 
> ...


Either you haven't looked at the breed standard properly or you are doing a Jemima and ignoring all the facts that don't fit in with your pet argument. I suggest you have another look at the breed standard - but I suggest you actually READ it this time!

You mention ears and wavy coat - this is what the standard actually says about them:

Ears
Long, set high, with plenty of feather.

Coat 
Long, silky, free from curl. Slight wave permissible.

So you were wrong about the coat, and chose only to mention the feathering part of the ears because the rest of it didn't fit it with your argument about breed standards being merely aesthetic. (another touch of the Jemima's - don't mention the facts that don't fit in with your theory  )

The rest of the breed standard talks about the construction of the dog - ie the size of the skull (very important with this breed), the construction of the eyes, mouth, neck, forequarters, body, hindquarters, feet, tail, gait, movement, size and weight - so nothing to do with aesthetics at all. However, don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion, will you?

And as for the paragraph that says any departure from the set standard should be considered a fault - how on earth can you argue against that? Don't you think that a dog with a skull that's too small/can't move/cow-hocked/sickle-hocked/bad bite etc etc etc should be faulted in the show ring? Those and many more are all faults that should be penalised according to the breed standard, which can be viewed here: The Kennel Club


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Either you haven't looked at the breed standard properly or you are doing a Jemima and ignoring all the facts that don't fit in with your pet argument. I suggest you have another look at the breed standard - but I suggest you actually READ it this time!
> 
> You mention ears and wavy coat - this is what the standard actually says about them:
> 
> ...


I merely picked a few of the standards I read from memory- there really is no reason to be so pedantic or rude !!! and it's says *slight *wave permissible if you want me to be pedantic!!

and if you read my post properly I said MOST of the standards!!!!!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Edited post as per Spellweaver comments regarding copyright.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Either you haven't looked at the breed standard properly or you are doing a Jemima and ignoring all the facts that don't fit in with your pet argument. I suggest you have another look at the breed standard - but I suggest you actually READ it this time!
> 
> You mention ears and wavy coat - this is what the standard actually says about them:
> 
> ...


If you refer to the standards then yes some of these are aesthetics and do not impact on the dogs health.
How does the dog failing the tail standards impact on it's health then?
If it's eyes are not spaced far apart enough for them how does that affect the dog?

If it's feet are not that feathered how does that affect it's health?

and so on......

so go on then explain that to me with facts of course and not opinions


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Breed clubs and the kennel club dont agree with it so its not going to replace the cavalier only add another cross breed to the list.


And that in a nutshell, just about sums it up ...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> *FYI spellweaver*
> 
> The KC standards on the Cavalier:
> .


Can I just point out two things hun - first of all I gave you the link to this, so no need to post it for me! Secondly, if you read it properly, there is a little bit at the bottom that says:

Unauthorised reproduction of text and images prohibited
Copyright © 2011 The Kennel Club

so you are breaking the law by cutting and pasting this on this forum - which is why I posted the link in the first place rather than printing it all out. You may call it pedantic, but I - and the law - call it breaking copyright law.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Yes you are right there Spellweaver and have edited as didn't see the small print at the bottom.

You could have politely pointed it out rather than point scoring as it's quite clear that it was a genuine over sight on my behalf.

Still you can still answer my questions ?????


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> If you refer to the standards then yes some of these are aesthetics and do not impact on the dogs health.
> How does the dog failing the tail standards impact on it's health then?
> If it's eyes are not spaced far apart enough for them how does that affect the dog?
> 
> ...


If the tail is not set and carried correctly it will affect the dog's movement, which in turn could give rise to skeletal problems whilst growing, and joint problems later in life.

If the eyes are spaced incorrectly, not only will the dog's vision be impaired, but it is an indicator of a skull that is the wrong size.

Feathering on the feet protects tender feet against twigs, thorns and stones.

And as for the other things you quoted in the post where you illegally copied the breed standard:

Snipiness - ie too narrow a jaw - is a skeletal problem of the skull that could give rise to all sort of problems - so not aesthetics but definitely a possible health problem.

high set long ears - ears that are wrongly set could be caught under the feet when walking, casuing damage. Again - not aesthetics - again, a possible health problem if not adhered to.

Neck - if skeletally incorrect, this will give rise to all sorts of skeletal and joint problems. Again - not aesthetics - again, a possible health problem if not adhered to.

Movement - elegant is a descriptive word. If the movement is not elegant, it will be becasue of underlying skeletal or conformation problems

White undesired in the coat I am guessing here (and I'm saying this because, unlike some people, I admit when I'm posting things that I don't know about) but usually when white is listed as undesirable it has something to do with a link between the gene that cause white in the coat being the same/related to the gene that causes deafness - so perhaps this is why it is in the standard? I'm sure someone with more knowledge of cavs than me will be able to answer this one for you.

There you go - all your points answered with facts, not opinions  As you can now plainly see, to anyone with any knowledge of dogs at all, the things you quote are obviously not aesthetic considerations and are indicators of whether or not a dog is healthy and likely to have problems - which, of course, is why it is all in the breed standard, and why it is a fault if it differs from the breed standard.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes you are right there Spellweaver and have edited as didn't see the small print at the bottom.
> 
> You could have politely pointed it out rather than point scoring as it's quite clear that it was a genuine over sight on my behalf.
> 
> Still you can still answer my questions ?????


Thought I answered it very politely. You should see me when I'm not being polite :scared:

All question answered above btw!


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

It really amazes me how many dogs do survive tbh, when you read the problems a not so perfect dog can have however do they reach their 1st birthday. Dont get me wrong ime all for dogs having the best start in life and been bred as healthy as possible but i do find it a tad extreme tbh


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Breed clubs and the kennel club dont agree with it so its not going to replace the cavalier only add another cross breed to the list.


But as it is the breed clubs and KC who are solely responsible for all of the issues so far, is it really responsible to let unelected, unaccountable, unregulated private clubs decide ? (that's a rhetorical question BTW.. obviously they are completely the wrong people to be allowed to decide).

To be honest, the KC is irrelevant. The standards its supports are only for the purpose of showing and those of us who do not feel the need to "show" our dogs usually ignore them unless we have their existence pushed on us.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But as it is the breed clubs and KC who are solely responsible for all of the issues so far, is it really responsible to let unelected, unaccountable, unregulated private clubs decide ? (that's a rhetorical question BTW.. obviously they are completely the wrong people to be allowed to decide).


It's not just the kennel club but breeders for not health testing.

Going by your logic there should be no breed standard.....


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> If the tail is not set and carried correctly it will affect the dog's movement, which in turn could give rise to skeletal problems whilst growing, and joint problems later in life. *Not sure I agree with this because what happens when tails are docked??*
> 
> If the eyes are spaced incorrectly, not only will the dog's vision be impaired, but it is an indicator of a skull that is the wrong size. *could be or it could be that the dog has narrow spaced eyes like some humans have and that doesn't affect your vision
> *
> ...


Well you love to be sarcastic don't you. Sorry but I don't think you have given facts entirely that explain these breed standards and they are opinions. Entitled to have them just as I am though according to you I am not

Whilst I am all for standards to ensure serious health defects I am not for minor issues and looks.

I personally prefer not to have carbon copied dogs- Stepford Wives anyone?:lol:

I like dogs to have some quirks. I don't care if the dogs ears are one inch longer than KC thinks they should be?? dog is healthy and won't give a stuff.

I don't care if the dog has one blue eye and one brown etc... because I would love them all the same.

I like to see some differences in the breeds. One with a more wavier coat then the other for example.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I like dogs to have some quirks. I don't care if the dogs ears are one inch longer than KC thinks they should be?? dog is healthy and won't give a stuff.
> 
> I don't care if the dog has one blue eye and one brown etc... because I would love them all the same..


This is the problem I have with Alaska, although she has great hips, is CEA clear and we are waiting on her results for DNA CEA so she is healthy, very. Yet because 1 ear doesnt go up as high and she is on the higher end of the breed standard (not to big but the higher end) she is unlikely to be placed or even considered yet she's still within breed standard.

Its daft, I think as long as they are of standard does it matter if they are taller? or so on.

The perfect example is that I met a lovely sable sheltie at blackpool dog show, the only down fall was that she had 1 blue eye and 1 brown (sables are not suppose to have blue eyes) otehr than that she was a perfectly healthy example of the breed.

She didnt get placed and her owner left yet antoehr show without anything.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Well Shetland Lover you just contradicted yourself on having a breed standard set by the KC and breed clubs.

Your'e obviously not entirely in total agreement with all the standards either?


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Well Shetland Lover you just contradicted yourself on having a breed standard set by the KC and breed clubs.
> 
> Your'e obviously not entirely in total agreement with all the standards either?


I think the dogs need a standard as such, they should all look similar. However I think its daft if for example in my breed I met a lovely dog who was 16inch (2 inch over average) beautiful dog if his height was smaller he would have won at shows easily...yet his sister was winning all over the country because she was average height.

I think for example they should look like shelties (no point in having 5 dogs that look like shelties int he ring and a dog that looks like a poodle) but eye colour, height and so on is daft I dont think a dog with health problems should be shown and win over a dog that is in great health but slightly to tall.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> This is the problem I have with Alaska, although she has great hips, is CEA clear and we are waiting on her results for DNA CEA so she is healthy, very. Yet because 1 ear doesnt go up as high and she is on the higher end of the breed standard (not to big but the higher end) she is unlikely to be placed or even considered yet she's still within breed standard.
> 
> Its daft, I think as long as they are of standard does it matter if they are taller? or so on.
> 
> ...


I really dont know how show people do it tbh i couldnt stand there and listen to someone picking faults with my dog because its "slightly imperfect" This is why i always say not everyone can show certainly not a pet owner because a pet owners attachment must be very different to the attachment of a show dog owner because basically i couldnt take it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

haeveymolly said:


> I really dont know how show people do it tbh i couldnt stand there and listen to someone picking faults with my dog because its "slightly imperfect" This is why i always say not everyone can show certainly not a pet owner because a pet owners attachment must be very different to the attachment of a show dog owner because basically i couldnt take it.


That's what I am dreading, in June. Waiting for a judge to pick faults.
Up to yet my boy has no faults but that can all change when he grows up.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> That's what I am dreading, in June. Waiting for a judge to pick faults.
> Up to yet my boy has no faults but that can all change when he grows up.


Don't worry hun - judges don't pick faults. Rather, they give reasons for placing the dogs they do choose, but they don't say why they didn't pick the ones they didn't choose, except for a very general comment such as "Most dogs in this class need a little more drive". They don't deliver it at the ringside either; they write it up and it appears in _Dog World_ or _Our Dogs_. Sometimes, if you ask them, at the ringside, they will tell you why they placed a dog above yours - but not always.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Don't worry hun - judges don't pick faults. Rather, they give reasons for placing the dogs they do choose, but they don't say why they didn't pick the ones they didn't choose, except for a very general comment such as "Most dogs in this class need a little more drive". They don't deliver it at the ringside either; they write it up and it appears in _Dog World_ or _Our Dogs_. Sometimes, if you ask them, at the ringside, they will tell you why they placed a dog above yours - but not always.


I guess I will feel more confident after ringcraft...I am just so nervous.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Well you love to be sarcastic don't you. Sorry but I don't think you have given facts entirely that explain these breed standards and they are opinions. Entitled to have them just as I am though according to you I am not


Actually, I take great exception to this. I have never said that you shouldn't have opinions - merely that you don't seem to let the facts get in the way of your opinions, which this post again proves. Is your middle name Jemima by any chance  Ignore the facts and pretend they are opinons if you want to - I couldn't care less really. I just wanted the correct facts to be posted on this open forum, so that all the people who read it will be able to distinguish the facts from your opinions.

As for my sarcasm - :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> I really dont know how show people do it tbh i couldnt stand there and listen to someone picking faults with my dog because its "slightly imperfect" This is why i always say not everyone can show certainly not a pet owner because a pet owners attachment must be very different to the attachment of a show dog owner because basically i couldnt take it.


A judge doesn't pick faults with your dog though hun - he just thinks another dog is closer to the breed standard than your dog. It's no disgrace for your dog to be beaten by a better dog - for example, if you saw a fabulous specemin of a spaniel whilst on a walk you could admit it was a fabulous specemin but it wouldn't make you love your dog any the less, would it?

And we have a saying - that whatever the judge says, we always take the best dogs in the show home with us. :thumbup:


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Honest to god some of the people on this forum dement me. 

I show two (three when hes old enough) of my dogs. I also have one dog who I don't show. They are ALL pets. They are all treated like pets and I love them with all my heart. They are not perfect and they are not treated like dolls. The unhealthiest and worst natured dogs I have ever met aren't show dogs. Sorry but that's the reality of it and trying to use the fact that around 20 breeds of dogs have health issues (most of which is not actually caused by the show ring, but by the puppy farmers and 'pet' breeders) to knock dog showing does not change anything. The programme highlighted problems in certain breeds and invented others. There is a small number of people on this forum who know the difference because there is only a small number of people on this forum who either show or have the brains to research subjects themselves, not just believe what they are told. Dogs are supposed to be 'fit for function'. I have never met a newfie other than a newfie from show lines that would be classed as fit for function. Most pet newfies have poor hocks, are overweight, too much haw/jowels ect. The majority of unhealthy newfies are pet newfies. To some of the people bitching about the show world on here - if you care that much about dog welfare how about next time you get a dog you don't just go buy the latest 'oodle'? Unless you are telling me that your dogs are from health tested parents and have proven themselves in some way! You want a dog that looks different from other dogs ect? Go to a rescue centre. Theres thousands of dogs sitting in rescue across the country that look different, have different temprements and don't have a breed standard . I would say i'm sorry for being rude but i'm not. It gets extremely annoying hearing the same utter nonsense from the same utter bampots all the time. Most of the people who bash dog shows have never even been to one.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Honest to god some of the people on this forum dement me.
> 
> I show two (three when hes old enough) of my dogs. I also have one dog who I don't show. They are ALL pets. They are all treated like pets and I love them with all my heart. They are not perfect and they are not treated like dolls. The unhealthiest and worst natured dogs I have ever met aren't show dogs. Sorry but that's the reality of it and trying to use the fact that around 20 breeds of dogs have health issues (most of which is not actually caused by the show ring, but by the puppy farmers and 'pet' breeders) to knock dog showing does not change anything. The programme highlighted problems in certain breeds and invented others. There is a small number of people on this forum who know the difference because there is only a small number of people on this forum who either show or have the brains to research subjects themselves, not just believe what they are told. Dogs are supposed to be 'fit for function'. I have never met a newfie other than a newfie from show lines that would be classed as fit for function. Most pet newfies have poor hocks, are overweight, too much haw/jowels ect. The majority of unhealthy newfies are pet newfies. To some of the people bitching about the show world on here - if you care that much about dog welfare how about next time you get a dog you don't just go buy the latest 'oodle'? Unless you are telling me that your dogs are from health tested parents and have proven themselves in some way! You want a dog that looks different from other dogs ect? Go to a rescue centre. Theres thousands of dogs sitting in rescue across the country that look different, have different temprements and don't have a breed standard . I would say i'm sorry for being rude but i'm not. It gets extremely annoying hearing the same utter nonsense from the same utter bampots all the time. Most of the people who bash dog shows have never even been to one.


Well said! Rep for you hun! :thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Honest to god some of the people on this forum dement me.
> 
> I show two (three when hes old enough) of my dogs. I also have one dog who I don't show. They are ALL pets. They are all treated like pets and I love them with all my heart. They are not perfect and they are not treated like dolls. The unhealthiest and worst natured dogs I have ever met aren't show dogs. Sorry but that's the reality of it and trying to use the fact that around 20 breeds of dogs have health issues (most of which is not actually caused by the show ring, but by the puppy farmers and 'pet' breeders) to knock dog showing does not change anything. The programme highlighted problems in certain breeds and invented others. There is a small number of people on this forum who know the difference because there is only a small number of people on this forum who either show or have the brains to research subjects themselves, not just believe what they are told. Dogs are supposed to be 'fit for function'. I have never met a newfie other than a newfie from show lines that would be classed as fit for function. Most pet newfies have poor hocks, are overweight, too much haw/jowels ect. The majority of unhealthy newfies are pet newfies. To some of the people bitching about the show world on here - if you care that much about dog welfare how about next time you get a dog you don't just go buy the latest 'oodle'? Unless you are telling me that your dogs are from health tested parents and have proven themselves in some way! You want a dog that looks different from other dogs ect? Go to a rescue centre. Theres thousands of dogs sitting in rescue across the country that look different, have different temprements and don't have a breed standard . I would say i'm sorry for being rude but i'm not. It gets extremely annoying hearing the same utter nonsense from the same utter bampots all the time. Most of the people who bash dog shows have never even been to one.


100% spot on. Rep.:thumbup:


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

I would give rep too if I knew how:blushing::blushing::blushing:


----------



## Luvdogs (Aug 15, 2008)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Honest to god some of the people on this forum dement me.
> 
> I show two (three when hes old enough) of my dogs. I also have one dog who I don't show. They are ALL pets. They are all treated like pets and I love them with all my heart. They are not perfect and they are not treated like dolls. The unhealthiest and worst natured dogs I have ever met aren't show dogs. Sorry but that's the reality of it and trying to use the fact that around 20 breeds of dogs have health issues (most of which is not actually caused by the show ring, but by the puppy farmers and 'pet' breeders) to knock dog showing does not change anything. The programme highlighted problems in certain breeds and invented others. There is a small number of people on this forum who know the difference because there is only a small number of people on this forum who either show or have the brains to research subjects themselves, not just believe what they are told. Dogs are supposed to be 'fit for function'. I have never met a newfie other than a newfie from show lines that would be classed as fit for function. Most pet newfies have poor hocks, are overweight, too much haw/jowels ect. The majority of unhealthy newfies are pet newfies. To some of the people bitching about the show world on here - if you care that much about dog welfare how about next time you get a dog you don't just go buy the latest 'oodle'? Unless you are telling me that your dogs are from health tested parents and have proven themselves in some way! You want a dog that looks different from other dogs ect? Go to a rescue centre. Theres thousands of dogs sitting in rescue across the country that look different, have different temprements and don't have a breed standard . I would say i'm sorry for being rude but i'm not. It gets extremely annoying hearing the same utter nonsense from the same utter bampots all the time. Most of the people who bash dog shows have never even been to one.


Rep coming your way


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> she didn't do the dog world any favours with her sensationalist programme.


It provoked a wholesale review of breed standards and several notable changes and revisions.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> It provoked a wholesale review of breed standards and several notable changes and revisions.


No, that review, as you call it, was already underway, it just provoked an earlier release of the details


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Thorne said:


> You're quite right, Harrison definitely painted a picture where all Pedigrees are falling apart and genetically unsound. I think the program (or one similar) was due, but it was so very out of proportion that I can only imagine how it's damaged the show world.


The general thrust of the programme and its criticisms were subsequently corroborated by scientific papers from Rooney and Bateson (the latter being funded by the KC itself).


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> The general thrust of the programme and its criticisms were subsequently corroborated by scientific papers from Rooney and Bateson (the latter being funded by the KC itself).


Strange how it's been taken apart elsewhere then, that two of the dogs with genetic health problems were not show bred, but pet bred, and that the health problems with rhodesian ridgebacks were not accurately reported?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Honest to god some of the people on this forum dement me.
> 
> I show two (three when hes old enough) of my dogs. I also have one dog who I don't show. They are ALL pets. They are all treated like pets and I love them with all my heart. They are not perfect and they are not treated like dolls. The unhealthiest and worst natured dogs I have ever met aren't show dogs. Sorry but that's the reality of it and trying to use the fact that around 20 breeds of dogs have health issues (most of which is not actually caused by the show ring, but by the puppy farmers and 'pet' breeders) to knock dog showing does not change anything. The programme highlighted problems in certain breeds and invented others. There is a small number of people on this forum who know the difference because there is only a small number of people on this forum who either show or have the brains to research subjects themselves, not just believe what they are told. Dogs are supposed to be 'fit for function'. I have never met a newfie other than a newfie from show lines that would be classed as fit for function. Most pet newfies have poor hocks, are overweight, too much haw/jowels ect. The majority of unhealthy newfies are pet newfies. To some of the people bitching about the show world on here - if you care that much about dog welfare how about next time you get a dog you don't just go buy the latest 'oodle'? Unless you are telling me that your dogs are from health tested parents and have proven themselves in some way! You want a dog that looks different from other dogs ect? Go to a rescue centre. Theres thousands of dogs sitting in rescue across the country that look different, have different temprements and don't have a breed standard . I would say i'm sorry for being rude but i'm not. It gets extremely annoying hearing the same utter nonsense from the same utter bampots all the time. Most of the people who bash dog shows have never even been to one.


My dogs don't have to prove themselves- why the heck should they?
Fit for function??? yes they are as PETS thank you very much sure most of the country want them as pets!!!

and they were from health tested parents so couldn't give a damn what your small narrow minded brain thinks

Why should people go to rescues they are not suitable for all.

Honestly getting sick of all this rubbish being spouted by ignorant people who think their dogs are far superior than anyone elses and that if someone dares to want anything else they have to go to a rescue.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, that review, as you call it, was already underway, it just provoked an earlier release of the details


Keeping it quiet, were they?

PDE was broadcast in August 2008. The KC announced a review of breed standards on 7th October 2008.

What timeline do you have?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Actually, I take great exception to this. I have never said that you shouldn't have opinions - merely that you don't seem to let the facts get in the way of your opinions, which this post again proves. Is your middle name Jemima by any chance  Ignore the facts and pretend they are opinons if you want to - I couldn't care less really. I just wanted the correct facts to be posted on this open forum, so that all the people who read it will be able to distinguish the facts from your opinions.
> 
> As for my sarcasm - :lol: :lol: :lol:


I couldn't really give two hoots about you or your opinions.:lol::lol::lol:

People are quite able to read and make their own minds up! doesn't need you to control what people read or write on here. Your not running this forum are you?

You may like to think of yourself as knowing all about the best for dogs but I don't think you do.

How rude of you to keep referring me to Jemima- just because my views are not the same as yours. That's twice now.

Still if that's what you need to make you feel like a better person then carry on.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> My dogs don't have to prove themselves- why the heck should they?
> Fit for function??? yes they are as PETS thank you very much sure most of the country want them as pets!!!
> 
> and they were from health tested parents so couldn't give a damn what your small narrow minded brain thinks
> ...


Well i'm hoping you don't want to breed from your dogs because I meant any dogs who are bred from should be fit for function .

Really? What were the health test results ? And could you pm me your breeders email? I'd love to congratulate them on health testing parents before cross breeding them because I personally have NEVER even heard of someone who breeds cross breeds and health tests - haven't you heard most crossbreeders, they don't need health tests because crossbreeding eliminates the problems .

Your moaning about pedigree dogs and their health problems, blaming the show ring when the reality of it is sunshine, the rescues are not crawling with pedigree dogs from top reputable show breeders. They are crawling with crossbreeds and the popular dogs of the moment, with the occasional different dog flung in. There is very little reason to breed cross breeds unless it is for money. They charge stupid amounts of cash for a mongrel, playing with the heart strings of your average joe. They very rarely health test (although APPARENTLY  they do), they very very rarely take their puppies back when someone changes their minds ect. You want me to go on?

I am as far from ignorant as could possibly be on this subject . I don't think my dogs are superior to anyones :lol:. Believe me i've been tempted to trade Barney (my oh so unhealthy unhappy show dog ) for his best mate who is a rescue cross breed down the road many a time. I also made the mistake of funding BYB, puppy farmers, assholes - whatever you want to call them with our first newfie Bronson. Had to have both cruciate ligaments operated on at 12 months old, continuously has ear problems and other health problems, is far too big which puts far too much weight on his bad legs, is cow hocked, too much haw which is causing eye problems, too much jowels which makes him overly slabbery, dry skin no matter what you do, his topline is laughable :lol:. He's a joke of a newfoundland lol! Does that make him any less than my other boys? Do I love him any less of course I bloody don't! He's got the most wonderful temprement and is the boss of our household . However, we know of a litter mate who has already died due to heart problems, two more who have been bred from scince they were 12months old and are now in rescue. That's what breeders like these do, this is a pedigree breed i am talking about but at least there are plenty of good breeders to go to - with crossbreeds your bloody hard done to find a good breeder. Don't come on here and start trying with your nonsense about pedigree dogs and blaming the show ring for the problems of the dog world. Do your research and by god you will see who is really to blame.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> I personally have NEVER even heard of someone who breeds cross breeds and health tests -e.


And this is the basis of your problem... because you don't think they exist its clearly a fact.... do you honestly think you know everything. Most breeders of crosses have to keep themselves to themselves.. not because they are doing anything wrong but because of the saddos who think they have the unquestionable right to stop them breeding. Membership f a private club and set of views does not give anyone any rights.

I posted my breeders details once (not on here.. god forbid) having been asked the same question. After several trips to the Police and a change of phone number he stopped receiving threatening phone calls from "pedigree" breeders and their like.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Well i'm hoping you don't want to breed from your dogs because I meant any dogs who are bred from should be fit for function .
> 
> Really? What were the health test results ? And could you pm me your breeders email? I'd love to congratulate them on health testing parents before cross breeding them because I personally have NEVER even heard of someone who breeds cross breeds and health tests - haven't you heard most crossbreeders, they don't need health tests because crossbreeding eliminates the problems .
> 
> ...


Can't be bothered to read all this drivel :lol::lol: but bits skimmed:

My crosses are from health tested parents and the results and breeders are none of your business. I don't have to prove anything to you?

I know breeders that health test parents, select the right dogs to breed regarding temparment etc... Do question potential owners, do take pups back, do give a 14 day warranty etc...... and they are crossbreeders so not all are bad. So don't make sweeping statements.

Secondly I am not entirely blaming the show breeders if you read my posts in the show/working thread you will see that there is a lot I agree with. I was having a discussion on that I believe that standards are not all about health but a lot are aesthetics too.
I don't agree with PF and agree with health testing blah blah....

Thirdly spent a year looking at rescues blah blah gone over all this loads of times.
and how do you know I don't own pedigrees too? you know nothing about me!

Basically gone over all this stuff so many times am bored with it.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Once again the people who have cross breeds don't have to prove anything so never post their dogs parents health test results and can never give any details of a crossbreeder who health tests for one reason or another. You have the cheek to call me ignorant? Re read your last post and you will see ignorance and down right rudeness. You keep your head in the sand, it must be pretty down there . I, on the other hand will live in the real world and will admit to my mistakes when I make them .


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> And this is the basis of your problem... because you don't think they exist its clearly a fact.... do you honestly think you know everything. Most breeders of crosses have to keep themselves to themselves.. not because they are doing anything wrong but because of the saddos who think they have the unquestionable right to stop them breeding. Membership f a private club and set of views does not give anyone any rights.
> 
> I posted my breeders details once (not on here.. god forbid) having been asked the same question. After several trips to the Police and a change of phone number he stopped receiving threatening phone calls from "pedigree" breeders and their like.


Well I am happy to be educated . Someone give me a reputable crossbreeder who health tests? Really I am not the type to give threatening phone calls and i'm not a pedigree breeder either :lol: x


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Once again the people who have cross breeds don't have to prove anything so never post their dogs parents health test results and can never give any details of a crossbreeder who health tests for one reason or another. You have the cheek to call me ignorant? Re read your last post and you will see ignorance and down right rudeness. You keep your head in the sand, it must be pretty down there . I, on the other hand will live in the real world and will admit to my mistakes when I make them .


I have already told two members in PM's about health tests- however I am not going to be telling all and sundry because it isn't really anyones business.

Don't have to prove anything to you- who the hell are you????

I don't ask for people who own pedigrees health tests as it's their business.

Just because you have a biased view on crossbreeds doesn't mean people that own them have to post private details about breeders and health tests.

If you don't believe me or others then that's your problem.

If I had got a dog that wasn't from health tested parents then I would say so. Not a liar and what would I gain??

I don't keep my head in the sand nor do I have any problem admitting to mistakes

I went out a bought two crossbreeds rather than get a pedigree from a show breeder or a cross from a rescue. Best thing ever and certainly not a mistake.

Actually have made a mistake by getting involved with people on here who think they are the dog squad and only there way is right .

All these so called experts :lol: surprised they are on here and not out meeting fans, signing books and solving the puppy farm crisis that supposedly us pet and crossbreed owners have caused.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I have already told two members in PM's about health tests- however I am not going to be telling all and sundry because it isn't really anyones business.
> 
> Don't have to prove anything to you- who the hell are you????
> 
> ...


Okay your right no problems whatsoever . Now i'm going to enjoy my crippled unhealthy show dog because he is so much better than your oddly  :thumbup:. Not to mention superiour . Give me a gun and a pen and I will gladly shoot some puppy farmers and write ya a book with all my expertise in it - I mean I am a member of the pet forum dog squad after all, I do know best .


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Wow this thread has got legs !! - here's my thoughts - yes breed standards focus on the specifics of what a breed looks like - this is because it is very often the LOOK of a breed that separates one from another - the Cardigan and Pembroke Corgi are both bred for the same function and differ only in looks - as do the Irish Setter and the Red and White Setter - the Norwich and Norfolk Terrier , the Welsh and Lakeland Terrier, the Bichon and the Bolgnese the GSD and the BSD to name just a few breeds bred to do the same job but separated largely only on the way they look - without the detailed specifics of individual breed standards we would lose these differences and eventually lose the individual breeds - a large Shetland Sheepdog and Rough Collie would blur into one generic type as would a a Whippet and Greyhound a Malamute and Siberian etc etc..so yes if we wnat to continue having all these breeds to choose from then it DOES matter that breeds fit their standard ....and that they are maintained by selection on the way they l*ook* to a large degree

As for cross breeding - I'll take the Cavalier cross project as an example - presumably the instigator of this will be breeding for specific traits (i.e soft temperament and a toy spaniel appearance ) once she has the first litter she will choose pups that most closely fit her ideal to breed on from again ..and this will be further refined with each subsequent generation - and take a look at what some are expecting her to achieve by this project :

I


> What I would like ( and what the original breed was) is dog similar to a drop eared papillon , slightly longer ear leathers and blunter nose , with the same coat and a drop tail instead of over the back.
> temperment should be loving intelligent and cheeky . but not hyperactive or aggressive .


 Now tell me how she is to achieve all this WITHOUT using a restricted gene pool ? ...and note the emphasis on the way this cross should LOOK

thus she too will be breeding in *EXACTLY *the same way as any pedigree breeder to achieve her aims or she will never 'recreate' the Cavalier breed - tell me how this is a better option ?

If she ( or any other breeder of cross breeds ) does not follow this route but out crosses each time they would be unable to predict the traits they want - each litter will be a leap in the dark with no way of knowing how it will turn out in temperament , health or looks - all individual breeds of dogs were created in this way and the breed standard is simply the 'route map' of what the original breeders were trying to achieve and a pedigree is a record of how they got there -( and I'm assuming that those that breed cross breeds ethically also keep records of what is behind their dogs - how else would they trace back any problems ? ) ....so eventually we always come back to the system used throughout the world - a breed standard and a pedigree -

if there is a better system for producing dogs ( or indeed any animal) of a specific look, temperament and function reliably then I've yet to hear of it - and those that criticise presumably have no dogs bred by using this selection process - and yes this does include designer crosses !


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> People are quite able to read and make their own minds up! doesn't need you to control what people read or write on here. Your not running this forum are you?:


Giving people the true facts so they can make their own minds up (which is all I have done) is neither controlling anything nor running the forum.  How strange that you would think that 



Cockerpoo lover said:


> You may like to think of yourself as knowing all about the best for dogs but I don't think you do.
> 
> How rude of you to keep referring me to Jemima- just because my views are not the same as yours. That's twice now.
> 
> Still if that's what you need to make you feel like a better person then carry on.


What a peculiar reply! I don't need to call you Jemima to make me feel like a better person - but it shows how your mind works and what makes *you* feel better.  I called you Jemima because in this thread you are doing exactly what she does - ie ignoring the facts that don't fit in with your personal opinions - and not because it makes me feel like a better person or because your views differ from mine.  (and btw - I likened you to Jemima three times, not twice!)

As for rudeness - you are by far the rudest person on this thread. You have resorted to nastiness and personal attack towards both me and Fizzbugs - we can't help it if our knowledge about dogs and what constitutes a healthy dog, or about showing and breed standards, is far greater than yours. The fact that you have to resort to this sort of nastiness just shows how weak your argument is - neither Fizzbugs nor I have had to resort to nastiness to put our point across. Why not try listening to what people with more knowledge than you have to say, instead of going off on a rant? Open your mind - you may just learn something.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Keeping it quiet, were they?
> 
> PDE was broadcast in August 2008. The KC announced a review of breed standards on 7th October 2008.
> 
> What timeline do you have?


The Kennel club didn't need to announce anything, health testing was already underway, breed clubs and the KC were already working together long before Jemima Harrison made herself famous with the PDE programme. The KC were forced to make an announcement to follow up the programme, because of the way the information was presented. The way you're trying to make it sound, is as if the KC had no idea that some of the breeds registered had quite serious health problems within the gene pool, and Jemima Harrison was good enough to highlight it for them, b*llocks!!!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> thus she too will be breeding in EXACTLY the same way as any pedigree breeder to achieve her aims or she will never 'recreate' the Cavalier breed - tell me how this is a better option ?
> 
> If she ( or any other breeder of cross breeds ) does not follow this route but out crosses each time they would be unable to predict the traits they want - each litter will be a leap in the dark with no way of knowing how it will turn out in temperament , health or looks - all individual breeds of dogs were created in this way and the breed standard is simply the 'route map' of what the original breeders were trying to achieve and a pedigree is a record of how they got there -( and I'm assuming that those that breed cross breeds ethically also keep records of what is behind their dogs - how else would they trace back any problems ? ) ....so eventually we always come back to the system used throughout the world - a breed standard and a pedigree -
> 
> if there is a better system for producing dogs ( or indeed any animal) of a specific look, temperament and function reliably then I've yet to hear of it - and those that criticise presumably have no dogs bred by using this selection process - and yes this does include designer crosses !


Spot on. I love how everyone becomes experts because they see a problem and think they can wave a magic wand and fix it. The girl that started the project is 21


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Giving people the true facts so they can make their own minds up (which is all I have done) is neither controlling anything nor running the forum.  How strange that you would think that
> 
> What a peculiar reply! I don't need to call you Jemima to make me feel like a better person - but it shows how your mind works and what makes *you* feel better.  I called you Jemima because in this thread you are doing exactly what she does - ie ignoring the facts that don't fit in with your personal opinions - and not because it makes me feel like a better person or because your views differ from mine.  (and btw - I likened you to Jemima three times, not twice!)
> 
> As for rudeness - you are by far the rudest person on this thread. You have resorted to nastiness and personal attack towards both me and Fizzbugs - we can't help it if our knowledge about dogs and what constitutes a healthy dog, or about showing and breed standards, is far greater than yours. The fact that you have to resort to this sort of nastiness just shows how weak your argument is - neither Fizzbugs nor I have had to resort to nastiness to put our point across. Why not try listening to what people with more knowledge than you have to say, instead of going off on a rant? Open your mind - you may just learn something.


 You and Fizzbugs have been as equally as rude to me so no I am not the nastiest on this thread 

Just because I disagree with some ( not all) of the standards as they are aesthetics ( see shetland lovers show post for example) doesn't mean I disagree with showing.

If a person and the dogs get great enjoyment out of showing, I have no problem with this? everyone like to have a hobby.

Just because you think you have greater knowledge doesn't mean that others that don't are not entitled to their views.

You will find that on the show/working thread which does crossover a lot from this one even though Sleeping lion and I had differences of opinion we did eventually agree on a major point concerning healthy breeding.

You will also find on this show/working thread I tried to make a suggestion on regulating breeding albeit in it's crudest form.

People on here do really need to listen to everybody and take all views on board. Just because I am not an expert doesn't mean everything I write is wrong.
I may dispute some of the facts- actually what facts??? only really disputing that KC breed standards are not all about health but also a lot to do with aesthetics.

Fizzbugs was very anti crossbreeding and basically said that we didn't get them from health tested and had to prove it. Tell me how are these facts? so when I answer and so this is not the case with all then I am spouting opinions not facts!!

Sorry I know where I got my crosses and many others too as belong to another forum just for crossbreeds.

So these are facts.

******* ****


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Wow this thread has got legs !! - here's my thoughts - yes breed standards focus on the specifics of what a breed looks like - this is because it is very often the LOOK of a breed that separates one from another - the Cardigan and Pembroke Corgi are both bred for the same function and differ only in looks - as do the Irish Setter and the Red and White Setter - the Norwich and Norfolk Terrier , the Welsh and Lakeland Terrier, the Bichon and the Bolgnese the GSD and the BSD to name just a few breeds bred to do the same job but separated largely only on the way they look - without the detailed specifics of individual breed standards we would lose these differences and eventually lose the individual breeds - a large Shetland Sheepdog and Rough Collie would blur into one generic type as would a a Whippet and Greyhound a Malamute and Siberian etc etc..so yes if we wnat to continue having all these breeds to choose from then it DOES matter that breeds fit their standard ....and that they are maintained by selection on the way they l*ook* to a large degree
> 
> As for cross breeding - I'll take the Cavalier cross project as an example - presumably the instigator of this will be breeding for specific traits (i.e soft temperament and a toy spaniel appearance ) once she has the first litter she will choose pups that most closely fit her ideal to breed on from again ..and this will be further refined with each subsequent generation - and take a look at what some are expecting her to achieve by this project :
> 
> ...


I don't actually agree with this Cavalier cross project from what points you have picked out from it.

Nor do I agree with some of the crosses that are put together.

Just because I talk about two of my crosses doesn't mean I don't own now or in the past purebreeds.

I just don't agree that crossbreeding shouldn't be done or breeding shouldn't be to produce pets.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> I really dont know how show people do it tbh i couldnt stand there and listen to someone picking faults with my dog because its "slightly imperfect" This is why i always say not everyone can show certainly not a pet owner because a pet owners attachment must be very different to the attachment of a show dog owner because basically i couldnt take it.


I have to disagree - strongly - with you here! My dogs are first and foremost pets but some of them I show - at one point I had 3 champions and a dog on 2CCs at home (all my dogs live in the house, sleep on the furniture etc). I love showing but will only show a dog that I think is worthy of high honours. It certainly doesn't affect how I feel about my dogs, whether they win or not, but I might not be impressed by the judge :lol: And just to add - I don't get rid of my dogs which don't make the grade, show wise!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> because a pet owners attachment must be very different to the attachment of a show dog owner


Can't speak for showing as I don't do it, but I can assure you the bond between a working dog and it's owner is very strong and in most cases far stronger than the bond between pet and owner. And of those that I know who show, what you have said couldn't be further than the truth.



> really dont know how show people do it tbh i couldnt stand there and listen to someone picking faults with my dog because its "slightly imperfect"


Again, your feelings are due to lack of understanding and knowledge. People who show don't love 
their dogs any less, but there is no such thing as a perfect dog (except in our eyes) and it is not picking faults, it is a neutral person giving an assessment. If you can't take this, then you shouldn't be breeding. The fact that the average pet owner who breeds their dog can't see any faults and takes their pet for a vet check and the vet says their healthy is a cause of many problems.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

I found this to be an interesting article, that touches on some of these themes, commenting on the BOB vet checks at Crufts this year.

Crufts Follow-Up: Vet Checks & Purebred Health - National Animal Interest Alliance


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

The problem is that without the following of breed clubs and the kennel club the cavalier project is only going to add another cross to the very long list.
If the breed could be that easily saved I doubt a 21 year old would have been the first to think of it. The cavalier is known for its calm temperament yet she has no idea what this cross would produce. She may never get that temperament. 

I am new to showing and am scared to death, but at the end of it all my dogs to me are the most beautiful and best dogs at any show (though I came very close to doggy napping two chow chow's at a companion dog show).

I have met show dogs that have more love and attention than some pet dogs. Regardless of if they win or lose.


----------



## Luvdogs (Aug 15, 2008)

I have three dogs and 2 are from pet breeders (didn't know any better), and i certainly wouldn't change anything about them, they have many faults conformation wise and are not health tested, ....but they are my babies and i love them just the same as my show dog who is first and foremost a pet...he really is just a pet that goes to shows! ( no big deal)
I can't make him show! he does it all by himself and i have fantastic bond with him as i do with my other two and are all treated the same.
I find a lot of people blame show breeders  (i do think a lot of it is to do with that programme)
I know people who go to our local park, who tut and sigh about the showing world, but haven't even been to a show! 

But since i have only been showing a couple of years..hardly a expert and don't portray to to be one  in that time i have seen some very devoted people invest so much time and money into their chosen breeds and work along side breed clubs, be it health research, showing, working, breed rescue etc etc......
I don't see this level of comitment in Designer cross breeding......


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Luvdogs said:


> .
> I don't see this level of comitment in Designer cross breeding......


This is the problem...

That and the fact that most designer breeds are bred without the approval of the breed clubs involved which means if for whatever reason a (for example) Dalmadoodle breeder got sick and had to give up the dogs the breed club would not want to help.

Recently a breeder in shelties got sick and the breed club helped her find good homes for her dogs.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I watched that programme with an open mind and I didn't think it gave the impression that *all* pedigree dogs were falling apart, just a few breeds that needed some work put in to try to eradicate the bad aspects of the breed. I mean there was no mention of Mals in there or many other breeds.

I don't think the blame falls on the shoulders of show breeders either - if you have standards to adhere to surely you have to breed to them. The only way to improve certain breeds is to change the standards that have been detremental to them and that seems to be being done.

There were some very badly bred dogs on there and their lives were appauling - poor babies - and to save any future suffereing of dogs like that it has to be brought out in to the open. We all love dogs so this isn't about how breeders feel, surely we want whats best for the dog as it doesn't have a say in it's destiny, that's where breeders come in.

I think if a breeder had sat down and been interviewed, admitted there was a problem - as could be clearly seen - and tried to put foward an argument as to how to right the plight of some breeds, they would have come accross in a much better light but the rude, curt responses of a couple they tried to talk to did them no good whatsoever in the eyes of the general public!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Luvdogs said:


> I have three dogs and 2 are from pet breeders (didn't know any better), and i certainly wouldn't change anything about them, they have many faults conformation wise and are not health tested, ....but they are my babies and i love them just the same as my show dog who is first and foremost a pet...he really is just a pet that goes to shows! ( no big deal)
> I can't make him show! he does it all by himself and i have fantastic bond with him as i do with my other two and are all treated the same.
> I find a lot of people blame show breeders  (i do think a lot of it is to do with that programme)
> I know people who go to our local park, who tut and sigh about the showing world, but haven't even been to a show!
> ...


*
*

It never probably was like this initially in the pedigree/show world took many years to get the stage it's at now.

Designer crosses ( hate that word) is relatively a new thing so I think you do need to let them do a bit of catching up!!

If everyone who bred dogs worked together so there wasn't so much of this divided camp situation- then that would only be better for all dogs concerned.

However this is never going to happen if say a crossbreeder of one of my dogs ( cockapoo) is shunned and not allowed to buy a cocker or poodle because show breeders do not want their dogs crossed.

How on earth are crossbreeders of certain crosses ( not all I agree with) allowed to come up to the standards some of you go by if there is such an biased to not selling your dogs to crossbreeders to breed with?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> This is the problem...
> 
> That and the fact that most designer breeds are bred without the approval of the breed clubs involved which means if for whatever reason a (for example) Dalmadoodle breeder got sick and had to give up the dogs the breed club would not want to help.
> 
> Recently a breeder in shelties got sick and the breed club helped her find good homes for her dogs.


Probably in time there will be designer ( as you call it) breed clubs springing up who will offer this support.

All this takes time - all the breed clubs now didn't spring up overnight and designer dogs are still new.

I mean the labradoodle trust was formed to help rehome and that's a designer cross


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I do like some of the crosses that are around now but some are ridiculous and I don't know how they even get them to mate in the first place. Obviously the males are smaller than the females but some crosses are such a strange mix that I wonder if they will even be able to sell them and that's the awful thing in all of this crossing business!


----------



## Luvdogs (Aug 15, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> [/B]
> 
> How on earth are crossbreeders of certain crosses ( not all I agree with) allowed to come up to the standards some of you go by if there is such an biased to not selling your dogs to crossbreeders to breed with?


Because they have spent years building improving their lines and probably take great pride in them i know i would, and the last thing they would want is someone ruining that...by a latest fashion.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I do like some of the crosses that are around now but some are ridiculous and I don't know how they even get them to mate in the first place. Obviously the males are smaller than the females but some crosses are such a strange mix that I wonder if they will even be able to sell them and that's the awful thing in all of this crossing business!


Yes some are weird and wrong I agree.

I am talking more about the ones that are more established like the labradoodle and cockapoo.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

No one with a designer cross would get within a mile of any of my pups. If they owned a breed that poodles are commonly crossed with then I'd be very wary too and they would be getting alot of quesitoning for their reasons for wanting a poodle before they are even considered for one of my pups. Too much hard work goes into getting those pups into the world to let someone come along and ruin it by crossing. I'd rather keep a litter of 6 pups myself than let someone with these silly crosses get their hands on my hard work. My breed is too good to get ruined by selfish money makers.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes some are weird and wrong I agree.
> 
> I am talking more about the ones that are more established like the labradoodle and cockapoo.


Yep, some of the poodle crosses are gorgeous - like yours. 

I can understand the passion of breeders who have given so much time to their breed also. I hate seeing Mals crossed with any other breed, even with a Husky as they are wonderful as they are so what more could you want from them? Mine are all "done" but if they weren't i'd never allow a cross between them and i've only had the breed six years!


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

CheekoAndCo said:


> No one with a designer cross would get within a mile of any of my pups. If they owned a breed that poodles are commonly crossed with then I'd be very wary too and they would be getting alot of quesitoning for their reasons for wanting a poodle before they are even considered for one of my pups. Too much hard work goes into getting those pups into the world to let someone come along and ruin it by crossing. I'd rather keep a litter of 6 pups myself than let someone with these silly crosses get their hands on my hard work. My breed is too good to get ruined by selfish money makers.


Sadly however careful you are unless you keep and neuter your puppies until sold you will never be able to guarantee they won't be used to produced crossbreeds!

People are now combining ALL kinds of breeds, the wackier the better to please those who want something "different/designer" that I doubt anyone could know if someone planned a mating going on existing dog/s 

That's the sad reality ...


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Luvdogs said:


> Because they have spent years building improving their lines and probably take great pride in them i know i would, and the last thing they would want is someone ruining that...by a latest fashion.


So a crossbreeder can't really win then can they? as they need 2 purebreeds to make the cross.
A lot of you are running crossbreeders down but how on earth do you expect them to raise their breeding standards?

Don't say by not having crosses as crossbreeding and outcrossing has produced a lot of todays breeds or kept them going.

Surely improving lines means eventually a very restrictive gene pool and will mean inbreeding a some point?? not a good thing.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Sadly however careful you are unless you keep and neuter your puppies until sold you will never be able to guarantee they won't be used to produced crossbreeds!
> 
> People are now combining ALL kinds of breeds, the wackier the better to please those who want something "different/designer" that I doubt anyone could know if someone planned a mating going on existing dog/s
> 
> That's the sad reality ...


If need be I would do that because I want only whats best for my dogs. It's a risk you take when breeding!


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> So a crossbreeder can't really win then can they? as they need 2 purebreeds to make the cross.
> A lot of you are running crossbreeders down but how on earth do you expect them to raise their breeding standards?
> 
> Don't say by not having crosses as crossbreeding and outcrossing has produced a lot of todays breeds or kept them going.
> ...


Actually alot of cross's come from parents who are not KC registered so there is no proof they are 100% whatever breed.

Also inbreeding is not allowed anymore, line breeding is a common practise in the older people in Shelties. But sticking two random dogs is just as dangerous imo as only a select few cross breeders health test and are not always of sound temperament.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

CheekoAndCo said:


> No one with a designer cross would get within a mile of any of my pups. If they owned a breed that poodles are commonly crossed with then I'd be very wary too and they would be getting alot of quesitoning for their reasons for wanting a poodle before they are even considered for one of my pups. Too much hard work goes into getting those pups into the world to let someone come along and ruin it by crossing. I'd rather keep a litter of 6 pups myself than let someone with these silly crosses get their hands on my hard work. My breed is too good to get ruined by selfish money makers.


You wouldn't know for sure though people can say anything to convince you.

You may send one off you pups off thinking it's going to a good show home and they could be really horrid to it. Just because they gave you the right answers. Sad I know but it can happen 

It's hard to judge people sometimes


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

CheekoAndCo said:


> If need be I would do that because I want only whats best for my dogs. It's a risk you take when breeding!


To be sure you will HAVE too ... Certainly when selling to people that you do not know at all ...


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Actually alot of cross's come from parents who are not KC registered so there is no proof they are 100% whatever breed.
> 
> Also inbreeding is not allowed anymore, line breeding is a common practise in the older people in Shelties. But sticking two random dogs is just as dangerous imo as only a select few cross breeders health test and are not always of sound temperament.


Strangely, despite being banned, you can still breed and register a KC pup that is more inbred than a sibling or parent/child mating.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Strangely, despite being banned, you can still breed and register a KC pup that is more inbred than a sibling or parent/child mating.


Mother - Son.
Dad - daughter.
Brother - Sister

Is not allowed anymore.
Or at least thats what I have been told.

In breeding has taken place, you can tell by looking at my bitch's pedigree about 5 gen ago there was in breeding.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> You wouldn't know for sure though people can say anything to convince you.
> 
> You may send one off you pups off thinking it's going to a good show home and they could be really horrid to it. Just because they gave you the right answers. Sad I know but it can happen
> 
> It's hard to judge people sometimes


Hardly any show people I would sell to if I'm honest. There is probaly about 4 people but other than that I wouldn't because they are kept in kennels, rehomed when too old etc. Even for those I would sell to that show I would be home checking them.

I've been trusted enough to have 2 males without breeding endorsments because people know my views on cross breeding or just breeding for the sake of it. One day I'll get my perfect girl and have a litter of pups. Won't be for awhile!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

CheekoAndCo said:


> No one with a designer cross would get within a mile of any of my pups. If they owned a breed that poodles are commonly crossed with then I'd be very wary too and they would be getting alot of quesitoning for their reasons for wanting a poodle before they are even considered for one of my pups. Too much hard work goes into getting those pups into the world to let someone come along and ruin it by crossing. I'd rather keep a litter of 6 pups myself than let someone with these silly crosses get their hands on my hard work. My breed is too good to get ruined by selfish money makers.


Here here. Agree totally.:thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

CheekoAndCo said:


> No one with a designer cross would get within a mile of any of my pups. If they owned a breed that poodles are commonly crossed with then I'd be very wary too and they would be getting alot of quesitoning for their reasons for wanting a poodle before they are even considered for one of my pups. Too much hard work goes into getting those pups into the world to let someone come along and ruin it by crossing. I'd rather keep a litter of 6 pups myself than let someone with these silly crosses get their hands on my hard work. My breed is too good to get ruined by selfish money makers.


Oh no...does that mean I wont have one?:lol::lol::lol:

I agree tbh, I would keep back every single dog if I had to. But I know at least my 1st litter will mostly be going to other sheltie breeders homes unless its a small litter (1 or 2) then I will more than likely keep both.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Actually alot of cross's come from parents who are not KC registered so there is no proof they are 100% whatever breed.
> 
> Also inbreeding is not allowed anymore, line breeding is a common practise in the older people in Shelties. But sticking two random dogs is just as dangerous imo as only a select few cross breeders health test and are not always of sound temperament.


Line breeding is the mating of dogs from the same family though and can cause problems like grandaughter to grandfather.

So when people say that a breeder doesn't want to muck up their line breeding by selling to a crossbreeder because of a fashion- then it's ok to use a limited gene pool which may have affects on the offspring!! :-( for example I found this :

A real linebreeding example:

Let's look at a real example of line breeding dogs in the light of basic dog breeding genetics to see what the implications of this practice might be.

In this example, two outstanding show dogs appear several times in the one 4 generation pedigree. One is the daughter of the other who on his own assumes the position of 5 ancestors in the pedigree.

Consider this scenario:

•	This super male dog carries a genetic defect i.e. genes are Dd. Because most defects are recessive, he will appear healthy and the defect will be completely unapparent and unexpressed.

•	Every other dogs in the pedigree, including his super daughter who appears twice in it , is genetically free of the gene i.e. genes are DD (unlikely though that is!).

•	The defective gene is inherited by 50% of the offspring (which is what would happen normally under the laws of inheritance).

Here's the scenario represented as a pedigree:

You can see that while every dog in the ancestors of the resultant litter are perfectly healthy, no doubt with many show winners amongst them, half of the litter resulting from this pedigree scenario would be affected by the genetic disease i.e. dd (and the other half would be carriers for it i.e. Dd).
The Message Here...

The incidence of genetic diseases in purebred dogs is relatively high.

When dogs carrying the same genetic weakness (highly likely in closely related animals of the same breed) are mated together, the risk that they will have offspring that actually expresses and therefore suffers from the weakness is very high.

So, while line breeding does produce some "outstanding" show animals, it also results in just as many defective "duds" not suited to any purpose, least of all as innocent people's beloved pets.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Mother - Son.
> Dad - daughter.
> Brother - Sister
> 
> ...


Yes, that right but it's simplified approach to inbreeding. It's far more accurate if you calculate the Coefficient of Inbreeding of the offspring of a mating.

All the matings you mentioned result in a COI of 25%.

If you mate half siblings, you obviously have to common parents. If this common parent is also a parent of the two other parents then you have a COI of 28%. So therefore more inbred than the above, yet entirely acceptable for KC registration.

If you've got some inbreeding further back in your pedigree, then it will be negligible. I have with a brother sister mating in about 4th or 5th gen and her COI is about 1.9%.

Linbreeding is really just inbreeding with a less significant effect on the COI, pretty much the other end of a sliding scale.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Line breeding is still common practise in some breeds and is in the older members of my breed. However I dont agree with any sort of close breeding, I was once advised to breed Alaska to her granddad and I said no. However linebreeding is just as risky as sticking two random un-health tested breeds together imo.

I am right in thinking that for example sticking a unhealth tested poodle and a unhealth tested cocker spaniel would give a huge risk of PRA in the offspring.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

There are always imports to widen the gene pool. There are many Mals over here from other parts of Europe, because the breed is relatively new to the UK - say forty years or so - they have had to import to improve the lines and not line breed.

A long wait for a pup but breeders are more than willing to wait, some are brought over just to work from very good Europen working lines with no intention of breeding at all.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Line breeding is the mating of dogs from the same family though and can cause problems like grandaughter to grandfather.
> 
> So when people say that a breeder doesn't want to muck up their line breeding by selling to a crossbreeder because of a fashion- then it's ok to use a limited gene pool which may have affects on the offspring!! :-( for example I found this :
> 
> ...


If you're suggesting that the parents are DD + Dd then the resulting offspring would be 50% carrier and 50% clear, none would be affected.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Malmum said:


> Yep, some of the poodle crosses are gorgeous - like yours.
> 
> I can understand the passion of breeders who have given so much time to their breed also. I hate seeing Mals crossed with any other breed, even with a Husky as they are wonderful as they are so what more could you want from them? Mine are all "done" but if they weren't i'd never allow a cross between them and i've only had the breed six years!


Thanks 
Yes don't get me wrong I do understand the dedication involved and probably if I was a breeder my view may be different.

But I really think that we need to realise that people want different dogs as dog types evolve and change to go along with society.

More working and hunting dogs years ago than today??? All the way through society there have been dog trends.

Crossbreeds are not going to disappear infact they will probably grow.

It's just a shame like I said that all breeders can't co-exist and work together for the good of all dogs.

My two are fantastic pets full of character so I personally think the poodle part in them has really enhanced the spaniel part.

I had a Cavalier as a teenager. Lovely gentle boy very loving.

I have a Cavapoo girl now just as sweet and loving but real bouncy full of fun and mischief which I reckon is the poodle part :lol:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> If you're suggesting that the parents are DD + Dd then the resulting offspring would be 50% carrier and 50% clear, none would be affected.


No mum and dad Dd
d being the faulty gene

so dd would be having the genetic disease and Dd a carrier


----------



## Luvdogs (Aug 15, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> So a crossbreeder can't really win then can they? as they need 2 purebreeds to make the cross.
> A lot of you are running crossbreeders down but how on earth do you expect them to raise their breeding standards?
> 
> Don't say by not having crosses as crossbreeding and outcrossing has produced a lot of todays breeds or kept them going.
> ...


Just quickly got to go walkies 

I have not run cross breeds down, there will always be cross breeds and that's life, i have been brought up with them, i just don't understand designer breeds.....the prices some charge are more then for a well bred pedigree dog....money makers! how can this be justified when they are a cross breed?

In my breed we are constantly bringing in new blood from abroard.
Improving lines i meant by keeping type, or eradicating faults...etc (all dogs have these)
the last thing a responsible breeder would want is a badly bred labrador used on their well bred poodle or vice versa....just to make a few bucks! all that hard work.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Luvdogs said:


> Just quickly got to go walkies
> 
> I have not run cross breeds down, there will always be cross breeds and that's life, i have been brought up with them, i just don't understand designer breeds.....the prices some charge are more then for a well bred pedigree dog....money makers! how can this be justified when they are a cross breed?
> 
> ...


Yes even though I own two so called "designer breeds "I agree the prices are high and should be the same as that of either one of their purebreed parent.

I also agree that no breeder would want to allow their dog to be mated with a badly bred one.

But if they were to be bred with a healthy one is that bad?

Would you not be proud that your dog is not only producing pups of it's own kind but healthy wonderful pups from the cross?

As I keep saying need to all work together and co-exist and allow the real caring genuine crossbreeders the opportunity to breed.

Not talking about ones who don't give a damn and that goes for all breeders pure and cross.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes even though I own two so called "designer breeds "I agree the prices are high and should be the same as that of either one of their purebreed parent.
> 
> I also agree that no breeder would want to allow their dog to be mated with a badly bred one.
> 
> ...


I'd be disgusted if someone used one of my pups with a crossbreed. In the poodle show world you won't find anyone wanting to work along side cross breeders. People are trying to ruin our breed and we will do everything we can to keep them purebred. Including throwing people out of breed clubs for using their dogs on other breeds. People have done it because they needed the money but they end up regretting it because no one wants to know them. My dogs pedigree and history will always come before a stud fee.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> No mum and dad Dd
> d being the faulty gene
> 
> so dd would be having the genetic disease and Dd a carrier


If its Dd and Dd you would get 50% carrier, 25% clear and 25%. Not 50% affected.

Sorry, your example didn't express a Dd & Dd mating as you said that the entire pedigree consisted of DD dogs with exception of the Dd male:

_" This super male dog carries a genetic defect i.e. genes are Dd. Because most defects are recessive, he will appear healthy and the defect will be completely unapparent and unexpressed.

 Every other dogs in the pedigree, including his super daughter who appears twice in it , is genetically free of the gene i.e. genes are DD (unlikely though that is!)."_


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

CheekoAndCo said:


> I'd be disgusted if someone used one of my pups with a crossbreed. In the poodle show world you won't find anyone wanting to work along side cross breeders. People are trying to ruin our breed and we will do everything we can to keep them purebred. Including throwing people out of breed clubs for using their dogs on other breeds. People have done it because they needed the money but they end up regretting it because no one wants to know them. My dogs pedigree and history will always come before a stud fee.


Very true.
Taking pride in your dogs and their offspring is more important than money.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

CheekoAndCo said:


> I'd be disgusted if someone used one of my pups with a crossbreed. In the poodle show world you won't find anyone wanting to work along side cross breeders. People are trying to ruin our breed and we will do everything we can to keep them purebred. Including throwing people out of breed clubs for using their dogs on other breeds. People have done it because they needed the money but they end up regretting it because no one wants to know them. My dogs pedigree and history will always come before a stud fee.


Not trying to be funny, genuinely curious, can you articulate what is it about a poodle mix/cross that disgusts you?


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

jenniferx said:


> Not trying to be funny, genuinely curious, can you articulate what is it about a poodle mix/cross that disgusts you?


Just don't like them atall. Stick to my pedigrees. Nothing wrong with poodles the way they are and all people are doing is ruining them. Then you get the thick owners asking me 'Is that a proper poodle?'  My dogs alot more of a poodle than yours will ever be.

Would you like spending lots of money and years of research for some brainless person to come along and ruin it?


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

I'm sorry but unless someone gives me a decent reason for crossbreeding (other than they want a dog that looks different and don't want a pedigree ) then I will never agree with it. Theres no point in living in la la land where most cross breeders health test their dogs before they breed from them, vet potential homes, take back any puppies whose owners can no longer care for them no matter what age they are, have homes lined up for them before they are born and so on because the reality of it is most of them do not and the few who do are the exception, not the rule. Most of them are breeding for money, with little or no regard to the welfare of their puppies. 

As for 'oh health test results are no one elses business'. Well that's where your wrong you see, you can find pedigrees health test results very easily on the internet, the good and the bad have to be outed in order to better the breed and breeders are very proud of the good health test results. They have nothing to hide. I can happily list you names of good malamute and newfie breeders and all their health test results are on their websites. Health test results are very much everyones business.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> If its Dd and Dd you would get 50% carrier, 25% clear and 25%. Not 50% affected.
> 
> Sorry, your example didn't express a Dd & Dd mating as you said that the entire pedigree consisted of DD dogs with exception of the Dd male:
> 
> ...


It was an example for the internet not my own and unfortunately couldn't do the genetics diagram which would have shown it better.

But yes your right Dd and Dd would produced DD.

Perhaps I shouldn't have wanted to save time and did the example myself :lol:

Was just trying to show that linebreeding is a form of inbreeding which can contribute to defects.

As was being told that a person who linebreeds would not want to let their dogs breed with crosses and was trying to show that line breeding isn't always a good thing.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> I'm sorry but unless someone gives me a decent reason for crossbreeding (other than they want a dog that looks different and don't want a pedigree ) then I will never agree with it. Theres no point in living in la la land where most cross breeders health test their dogs before they breed from them, vet potential homes, take back any puppies whose owners can no longer care for them no matter what age they are, have homes lined up for them before they are born and so on because the reality of it is most of them do not and the few who do are the exception, not the rule. *Most of them are breeding for money, with little or no regard to the welfare of their puppies. *
> 
> As for 'oh health test results are no one elses business'. Well that's where your wrong you see, you can find pedigrees health test results very easily on the internet, the good and the bad have to be outed in order to better the breed and breeders are very proud of the good health test results. They have nothing to hide. I can happily list you names of good malamute and newfie breeders and all their health test results are on their websites. Health test results are very much everyones business.


I think all that was agreed earlier in the thread, and it was also agreed that the same is true of badly bred pedigrees, with or without papers, and there are a fair few around.

I think you can probably say as well, that there are more ethical breeders of pedigree dogs, than those who cross breed.

Whether people agree or not, because of the way we live, and want to have pet dogs, there does, I think, need to be enough ethical breeders to supply that demand, otherwise people will turn to those who choose to just bung two dogs together as frequently as they can get away with it, to make money. Some people do want cross breeds, and I think we have to try and think why? Is it fashion, it certainly is in some instances, and is swayed by gimmicks such as the name, the rarity, which celebrity owns one, etc, or is it a genuine desire to own a particular cross? I personally don't understand the latter, but just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean it can't happen, particularly for some of the longer established cross breeds.

Right, I'm off to go and get my dogs out, and ponder the whole issue, whilst getting battered by the wind and rain which is just awful here, yuck!


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

CheekoAndCo said:


> Just don't like them atall. Stick to my pedigrees. Nothing wrong with poodles the way they are and all people are doing is ruining them. Then you get the thick owners asking me 'Is that a proper poodle?'  My dogs alot more of a poodle than yours will ever be.
> 
> Would you like spending lots of money and years of research for some brainless person to come along and ruin it?


Hmmmn we are ideologically opposed on the term "ruin" so it's not something I can relate to. Presumably the effort and research is set within a broader context of health and wellbeing as well as type, so I couldn't regard the investment to be a loss if it resulted in healthier pups of any type, if you know what I mean.

I think basically people fall into one of two broad camps that are never going to see eye to eye because they are fundamentally at odds.

A1) Crossbreeds, mongrels, Heinz 57's should not exist. 
Subgroup A2) Outcrossing OK but only to improve pedigree breeds.

B) Conscientious crossing/mixing is fine ie: health testing, compatible breed choice ie: no Dane-Chi's.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> I'm sorry but unless someone gives me a decent reason for crossbreeding (other than they want a dog that looks different and don't want a pedigree ) then I will never agree with it. Theres no point in living in la la land where most cross breeders health test their dogs before they breed from them, vet potential homes, take back any puppies whose owners can no longer care for them no matter what age they are, have homes lined up for them before they are born and so on because the reality of it is most of them do not and the few who do are the exception, not the rule. Most of them are breeding for money, with little or no regard to the welfare of their puppies.
> 
> As for 'oh health test results are no one elses business'. Well that's where your wrong you see, you can find pedigrees health test results very easily on the internet, the good and the bad have to be outed in order to better the breed and breeders are very proud of the good health test results. They have nothing to hide. I can happily list you names of good malamute and newfie breeders and all their health test results are on their websites. Health test results are very much everyones business.


No my dogs health tests are no-ones business other than mine unless I was going to breed.

Not all people have websites to put info on nor do all people wish to register info with the KC either.

Doesn't mean that they don't health test! and they are happy to show documentation to prospective owners when they enquire about buying a pup.

You are just so anti cross breeding that you won't listen when people tell you that whilst there are bad breeders there are good one too.

Just because you don't agree with crossbreeding ( where do you think all the pedigrees came from??) there are many more of us who do and if someone prefers a cross (I like both equally) they don't have to justify their reasons to people on here.

People own crosses so get over it


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think all that was agreed earlier in the thread, and it was also agreed that the same is true of badly bred pedigrees, with or without papers, and there are a fair few around.
> 
> I think you can probably say as well, that there are more ethical breeders of pedigree dogs, than those who cross breed.
> 
> ...


There are so many good, reputable breeders of pedigrees out there fighting to better there breed and squash the puppy farmers ect. I don't care what anyone says, in cross breeds, reputable breeders are the minority. There are plenty of ethical breeders supplying pedigree pet dogs, not to mention the rescue centre - you just have to know where to look, aka not just pick up the free ads and start phoning the ones that are closest! If I found someone who was breeding cross breeds through KC registered, health tested parents and not just for the £££ signs or the fact they want a 'cute little puppy' just like his daddy or whatever then i'd take my hat off to them. I will not just accept that theres lots and lots of reputable cross breeders simply because someone says there is. Give me proof, just like I can give you proof .

Enjoy your walk . The weathers rather nice here lols, cold though! x


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

jenniferx said:


> Hmmmn we are ideologically opposed on the term "ruin" so it's not something I can relate to. Presumably the effort and research is set within a broader context of health and wellbeing as well as type, so I couldn't regard the investment to be a loss if it resulted in healthier pups of any type, if you know what I mean.
> 
> I think basically people fall into one of two broad camps that are never going to see eye to eye because they are fundamentally at odds.
> 
> ...


Poodles are a very healthy breed as they are they don't need to be turned into crosses to be made healthier.

So say some miricale happened and these silly 'oodles' etc become recognised breeds.. What category would they fit into under the KC groups?


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

jenniferx said:


> Hmmmn we are ideologically opposed on the term "ruin" so it's not something I can relate to. Presumably the effort and research is set within a broader context of health and wellbeing as well as type, so I couldn't regard the investment to be a loss if it resulted in healthier pups of any type, if you know what I mean.
> 
> I think basically people fall into one of two broad camps that are never going to see eye to eye because they are fundamentally at odds.
> 
> ...


You're probably right.

I personally do not agree with crossbreeding to satisfy a pet market at all, there are mongrels in rescue of every possible shape, size and age. I find it very hard to believe that someone cant find a puppy to suit them in rescue if all they want is a cute crossbreed. I also think that the vast majority (if not all) of people breeding these "designer dogs" are doing it purely for the money. Even the few who are doing the basic health testing then add a premium onto the price of the pups because of this, which is wrong IMO.

BUT, having said all that, im not against cross breeding for a purpose. For example, my family have owned and bred working gundogs for a fair few generations. They most had labs and spaniels but occassionally would cross two good working dogs of similar types (so im told, this was long before my time) in an aim to produce strong working pups. I have no problem with that sort of crossing within the working world, from health tested parents as long as they stay within a working environment - so the homes they have been bred for. Incidentally, the dogs that were bred by my family went to other farmers, money never exchanged hands  Its the same with lurchers, no one can deny they serve a purpose in the field  But, doing it purely to produce a dog that looks a certain way i dont agree with when there are plenty of pedigrees that look any way you could want!

But, i dont think anyone can deny there are bad breeders of pedigrees too, right from the very top breeders to the puppy farmers. Its almost impossible to police so I dont think things will ever change unless BUYERS start educating themselves more and ask more of the breeders before they hand over the money.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

CheekoAndCo said:


> Poodles are a very healthy breed as they are they don't need to be turned into crosses to be made healthier.


I wasn't referring to crossing poodles to making them healthier, I was responding to your comment saying how would I feel if years of time and research was ruined by crossing- I wouldn't consider any of that to be ruined by a cross because the fruits of the effort would still ultimately be producing healthier dogs if that had been an objective of the original research.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> No my dogs health tests are no-ones business other than mine unless I was going to breed.
> 
> Not all people have websites to put info on nor do all people wish to register info with the KC either.
> 
> ...


Well that my friend is one reason why reputable pedigree breeders will NEVER stand beside cross breeders. Publicising health test results, the good and the bad are necessary to better the breed. They should not be hidden from anyone and documentation can easily be falsified.

Yes I am very anti cross breeding until someone gives me PROOF of these amazing health test results from brood bitches and stud dogs, that they are bred from KC reg parents - you know the score. I will not just accept people telling me it, sorry but I won't. I don't expect people to just accept my point of view either without proof of the countless cross breeders that don't health test ect and the countless reputable pedigree breeders who do if anyone wants it .

Pedigrees were specifically cross bred over years for specific reasons - not just two breeds flung together because they looked cute. We have more than enough dogs in the world now without adding cross breeds to the mix. They are unnecessary other than by people with the 'i want something different and i want it now' attitude.

When more cross breeders health test and are reputable, good breeders then i'll get over it .


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Ridgielover said:


> I have to disagree - strongly - with you here! My dogs are first and foremost pets but some of them I show - at one point I had 3 champions and a dog on 2CCs at home (all my dogs live in the house, sleep on the furniture etc). I love showing but will only show a dog that I think is worthy of high honours. It certainly doesn't affect how I feel about my dogs, whether they win or not, but I might not be impressed by the judge :lol: And just to add - I don't get rid of my dogs which don't make the grade, show wise!


Never said that you did get rid of your dogs, neither did i say that they didnt live in your house with all the comforts of a pet dog, but i do think the attachment is different, neither did i say that the attachment to a show dog wasnt as good, conclusions have been jumped to here.

I have to say that not all unhealthy dogs are crossbreeds or pet bred dogs, ive had 2 have 1 now from unhealth tested parents and have 2 from very good breeding all mine are from proven working, field trial lines but what has been implied by many show dog owners is that they are the healthiest i think is stretching it a bit.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Hey Fuzzbugs!x I know of a very reputable Malamute breeder who lifted endorsements on one of her bitch puppies with a hip score of 28 for breeding and I bet you know who i'm talking about too.  All on the KC health test register to see - now that's not being a responsible breeder - is it?


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Luvdogs said:


> Because they have spent years building improving their lines and probably take great pride in them i know i would, and the last thing they would want is someone ruining that...by a latest fashion.


I have to say i do agree with this to a point, but can someone answer this how did a pedigree dog become a pedigree dog? They were crosses at one time i believe


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I think if a breeder had sat down and been interviewed, admitted there was a problem - as could be clearly seen - and tried to put foward an argument as to how to right the plight of some breeds, they would have come accross in a much better light but the rude, curt responses of a couple they tried to talk to did them no good whatsoever in the eyes of the general public!


The problem is it wouldn't have been sensationalist enough - that's why it wasn't included in the final program. I do know someone who was approached re labradors, and it would have been very much like you describe as a concerned, balanced, informed response - but that wouldn't have had the effect Jemima wanted the program to have. She has admitted as much on another forum. When they came to put the programme together they would have chosen the few extreme examples in order to get the most impact.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think all that was agreed earlier in the thread, and it was also agreed that the same is true of badly bred pedigrees, with or without papers, and there are a fair few around.
> 
> I think you can probably say as well, that there are more ethical breeders of pedigree dogs, than those who cross breed.
> 
> ...


How refreshing that you are least trying to understand peoples choices and maybe if more crossbreed owners gave input on here it may help to understand that the stereotypical points brought up time and time again are wrong.

I think fashion, rarity and celebs owning goes for pedigrees too so shall we rule that one out as it's not specific to crosses?

Ok I hadn't had a dog for a long long time and after lots of discussion with hubby felt time was right.

I do have a love of cocker Spaniels so that was top of the list. Love bulldog too but too expensive. Hubby loves huskies but we are not the right owners for that breed.
Initially looked on internet at cockers and purely by accident came across a cockapoo.

initially drawn to it's looks then reading up on it's character/health/grooming etc... thought it was a good choice for us. loved the character traits of both poodle and cocker so thought yes this is a dog to go for.

The dog is the right size for our home and loves play and walking which we were looking for. Really loving dogs and very good with children.

We were ready to take on the grooming with the added bonus that there was every chance of it be either non or low moulting. ( and he was).

I don't regret my choice of him one bit and after trying the rescue route and it not working for us got our second poodle cross which is my Cavapoo ( see avatar).
I do have a penchant for curly dudes and scruffy ones so this mix just suits my preference.

I do go on another forum dedicated to these crosses and many on there have 2 -5 of them!! Once they get one they want another.

We are all helpful and supportive and many of the dogs have such similar traits despite being a cross. A lot do agility classes and one of our forum members has 2 pet health assisted cockapoos.
Some of these members also have pedigrees too and they all get along fine.

Obviously cockapoos have been bred since the 50/60/s in America and so not as new as some might think.

Don't know any one who likes the name- we all laugh at about it and take it for what it is a descriptive term.

These are my reasons, other crossbreed owners may have a different story.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Hey Fuzzbugs!x I know of a very reputable Malamute breeder who lifted endorsements on one of her bitch puppies with a hip score of 28 for breeding and I bet you know who i'm talking about too.  All on the KC health test register to see - now that's not being a responsible breeder - is it?


Yes but I would never recommend that person as a reputable breeder ! Which is exactly why people have to look past the show titles ect and find our properly about breeders! I won't even touch on the temprement of that person's dogs . & the fact that they are on the KC health test register has led to other people not buying a puppy from them and not approaching them to discuss prospective breedings! I'm sure you know that there are plenty of people in the breed who are definately not fans of that person :lol:. I hope we are actually talking about the same people lmao :lol: x


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Well that my friend is one reason why reputable pedigree breeders will NEVER stand beside cross breeders. Publicising health test results, the good and the bad are necessary to better the breed. They should not be hidden from anyone and documentation can easily be falsified.
> 
> Yes I am very anti cross breeding until someone gives me PROOF of these amazing health test results from brood bitches and stud dogs, that they are bred from KC reg parents - you know the score. I will not just accept people telling me it, sorry but I won't. I don't expect people to just accept my point of view either without proof of the countless cross breeders that don't health test ect and the countless reputable pedigree breeders who do if anyone wants it .
> 
> ...


You still needed cross breeding for your pedigree dogs though 

As for too many dogs that goes for pedigrees too- so why not stop breeding some of the least popular dogs?

As for being bred for a specific reason that's was years ago when dogs were used for hunting and working dogs. The reasons today are totally different and most want dogs for pets and working dogs.

Agility and show are hobbies and I don't see that as being more important than being bred for a pet.

So what reason have you got your dogs for?


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

If it's the same person who has more UK/ European/international champs than anyone else in the UK, then yes we probably are. 

Don't know about temperament though, lots on the Mal forum have them and have no problems. I'd have one if I had the room, given half the chance!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

CheekoAndCo said:


> Poodles are a very healthy breed as they are they don't need to be turned into crosses to be made healthier.
> 
> So say some miricale happened and these silly 'oodles' etc become recognised breeds.. What category would they fit into under the KC groups?


None of us want our oodles to be recognised by KC.:scared:

We don't want our breeds to be inbred and ruined so they have to fit a set standard based more on aesthetics.

Some people like dogs to be slightly different and not carbon copies.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> You still needed cross breeding for your pedigree dogs though
> 
> *As for too many dogs that goes for pedigrees too- so why not stop breeding some of the least popular dogs?*
> 
> ...


Most breeds that are around today were once cross bred so that they could be better at their job's or to get rid of certain health problems. Something that you dont need to do with a poodle at this current time.

I think over bred breeds like staff's should not be bred really or limited to only the best breeders until the unwanted ones in rescues are rehomed.

There is only one issue with the statement I put in bold...poodles are popular breed(s) so if breeders had stopped breeding poodles you 100% would not have the two dogs you have now.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> None of us want our oodles to be recognised by KC.:scared:
> 
> We don't want our breeds to be inbred and ruined so they have to fit a set standard based more on aesthetics.
> 
> Some people like dogs to be slightly different and not carbon copies.


They are eventually going to get inbred at some point if they get bred together. All dogs are inbred anyway since they all come from the same background.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Most breeds that are around today were once cross bred so that they could be better at their job's or to get rid of certain health problems. Something that you dont need to do with a poodle at this current time.
> 
> I think over bred breeds like staff's should not be bred really or limited to only the best breeders until the unwanted ones in rescues are rehomed.
> 
> There is only one issue with the statement I put in bold...*poodles are popular* breed(s) so if breeders had stopped breeding poodles you 100% would not have the two dogs you have now.


Don't understand this??? I said stop breeding the LEAST popular.

and if my dogs were not being bred , there are plenty of others that I like too.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Don't understand this??? I said stop breeding the LEAST popular.
> 
> and if my dogs were not being bred , there are plenty of others that I like too.


Sorry misread it.

What breeds do you class as least popular?:confused1:


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> If it's the same person who has more UK/ European/international champs than anyone else in the UK, then yes we probably are.
> 
> Don't know about temperament though, lots on the Mal forum have them and have no problems. I'd have one if I had the room, given half the chance!


Haha yes I think they are . I've met some lovely natured ones but i've met more than a few whose behaviour is unnacceptable with people, there have been some very near misses at dog shows . We were due to have what would hopefully be a show puppy from them (second pick of the litter) but changed our minds and withdrew at the last minute. Beautiful dogs, but I wouldn't risk having a dog with people issues. You'll find that alot of people on the mal forum won't post about their dogs issues, especially if they show them. It's when your actually at shows or know people at the same ringcraft as them that things start to become clearer! Some of the imported mallies are lovely now though with outstanding natures lol, its nice to see the gene pool getting bigger :thumbup: xx


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

CheekoAndCo said:


> They are eventually going to get inbred at some point if they get bred together. All dogs are inbred anyway since they all come from the same background.


are you talking about f2's????

well if you are saying all dogs are inbred and going to get inbred then why worry about where you poodles are going to end up!!!


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> None of us want our oodles to be recognised by KC.:scared:
> 
> We don't want our breeds to be inbred and ruined so they have to fit a set standard based more on aesthetics.
> 
> Some people like dogs to be slightly different and not carbon copies.


Really? That's not what people who I meet with cross breeds normally say? I normally get 'oh they are going to be a kc registered breed soon enough' - yes love and oh look theres a flying piglet .

oOoo look at the sweeping statement about pedigree dogs what a surprise ! Would you like to see my dogs pedigrees !? Other than my awfully bred boy, there is no inbreeding/line breeding throughout their 5 gen ped .

Yes and some people like their dogs to come from health tested stock to give them the best possible chance in life and not line the pockets of muppets.

You know what the worst thing about you is ! I actually like Cockapoos :lol:. They are very sweet little dogs and very good natured from what I have met - however, I have yet to have proof of a reputable breeder of them so I cannot agree with the breeding of them . In the words of a very famous meerkat - SIMPLES ! x


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> are you talking about f2's????
> 
> well if you are saying all dogs are inbred and going to get inbred then why worry about where you poodles are going to end up!!!


I don't understand all that f rubbish tbh.

Well if people are saying all pedigrees used to be crosses I'm just saying all dogs must come from the same pair of wolves or whatever way way back. Same as humans. Really everything is inbred to some extent.

Don't think my friend would be happy at being told her usual breed should stop being bred because it's unpopular


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> You're probably right.
> 
> I personally do not agree with crossbreeding to satisfy a pet market at all, there are mongrels in rescue of every possible shape, size and age. I find it very hard to believe that someone cant find a puppy to suit them in rescue if all they want is a cute crossbreed. I also think that the vast majority (if not all) of people breeding these "designer dogs" are doing it purely for the money. Even the few who are doing the basic health testing then add a premium onto the price of the pups because of this, which is wrong IMO.
> 
> ...


Although it doesn't sit easily with me, if you think about the number of people who buy pups every year, from the number of adverts around, pups rarely end up in rescue in comparison to older dogs, more so over the last couple of years than I've seen before, but are more likely to be bought. That number of puppy buyers is never going to be able to source all their pups from the number of breeders we have currently that breed ethically. And if the demand is there for some cross bred dogs, I would prefer to see someone who at the very leasts health tests, and uses dogs that have a good temperament, to breed to supply the pet market.



Cockerpoo lover said:


> How refreshing that you are least trying to understand peoples choices and maybe if more crossbreed owners gave input on here it may help to understand that the stereotypical points brought up time and time again are wrong.
> 
> I think fashion, rarity and celebs owning goes for pedigrees too so shall we rule that one out as it's not specific to crosses?
> 
> ...


I had to sit next to someone at an event last year, who churned out all the usual rubbish about her cockerpoos I'm afraid, and people were drawn to the name, and asked about it. It's definitely used as a sales gimmick by some 



Cockerpoo lover said:


> None of us want our oodles to be recognised by KC.:scared:
> 
> We don't want our breeds to be inbred and ruined so they have to fit a set standard based more on aesthetics.
> 
> Some people like dogs to be slightly different and not carbon copies.


I'm afraid that's the sort of thing I hate seeing, it's that huge sweeping generalisation about pedigrees being inbred and unhealthy again, and being bred purely for aesthetic reasons. That just hasn't been my experience I'm afraid, my unhealthiest dog to date was a cross breed. For that reason, I'm highly unlikely to want to ever own one, except, if the OH ever wants a lurcher, in which case, it will be carefully sourced from a good breeder.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The Kennel club didn't need to announce anything, health testing was already underway, breed clubs and the KC were already working together long before Jemima Harrison made herself famous with the PDE programme. The KC were forced to make an announcement to follow up the programme, because of the way the information was presented. The way you're trying to make it sound, is as if the KC had no idea that some of the breeds registered had quite serious health problems within the gene pool, and Jemima Harrison was good enough to highlight it for them, b*llocks!!!


Was there a review of breed standards being undertaken prior to October 7th 2008 (because that is what you claimed - not that they were "working together")?

I'm certainly not implying that the KC were unaware of serious problems within pedigree dog breeding prior to the screening of PDE. I'm absolutely sure they were but they didn't conduct a review of breed standards and they didn't implement a raft of other measures and initiatives until _after_ their shortcomings were highlighted in Aug 2008.

Here's a BBC report from Oct 7th to remind ourselves:



> _The Kennel Club has said that it will review the standards of every pedigree dog in Britain, following concerns about genetic disease.
> 
> The club, which organises Crufts, has acted following a BBC documentary which claimed many pedigree dogs suffer ill-health caused by years of inbreeding.
> 
> A spokeswoman said the club had listened to public concerns and now agreed that more needs to be done. _


BBC NEWS | UK | Pedigree dog rules to be reviewed


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> You still needed cross breeding for your pedigree dogs though
> 
> As for too many dogs that goes for pedigrees too- so why not stop breeding some of the least popular dogs?
> 
> ...


No we don't. There is no need to cross breed anymore, unless someone is attempting to very carefully invent a new breed for a specific reason or out breed certain problems in certain breeds (the dalmation being the only one i agree with).

You will find that the least popular breeds will be bred reputably by passionate owners. It's not reputable breeders who have to stop - it's the ones who aren't, which like I said until I get reasonable proof, I believe cross breeders to be.

Most dogs were originally bred as working dogs . I know in newfies and malamutes many people, if not most still work their dogs in harness, weight pulling and water trials ect. So the dogs still need to bred to be fit for function, the function being the original reason they were bred.

You don't seem to understand. In a litter of 14 newfoundland puppies, not all of them will be suitable for show homes. Say three go to show homes, the rest will go to pet homes. Reputable pedigree breeders are breeding to supply people with top quality pets, as well as bettering the breed and hopefully gaining a puppy they can show as well. You also don't seem to understand that most show dogs are first and foremost pets.

I got Bronson because we love newfies and he was a gorgeous little puppy and we fell for the 'breeders' cock and bull story. We then got Barney because we wanted the same wonderful temprement but in a dog that was much healthier and much more capable. He was bought as a pet, but after we decided to take him to some champ shows for fun, he has turned into a very good show dog. We got Hudson because I am in love with malamutes, everything about them is amazing and I wanted a breed that I could show, but also hike ect with. Our most recent addition was Blue bear, who we got because we have wanted another puppy for a long time and the situation was right now. We went back to the same breeder as Barney and we were very lucky to be given pick of the litter. We had to wait a while, but he was most definately worth it - he has the most wonderful nature and I can't wait to show him because he loves the environment.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Haha yes I think they are . I've met some lovely natured ones but i've met more than a few whose behaviour is unnacceptable with people, there have been some very near misses at dog shows . We were due to have what would hopefully be a show puppy from them (second pick of the litter) but changed our minds and withdrew at the last minute. Beautiful dogs, but I wouldn't risk having a dog with people issues. You'll find that alot of people on the mal forum won't post about their dogs issues, especially if they show them. It's when your actually at shows or know people at the same ringcraft as them that things start to become clearer! Some of the imported mallies are lovely now though with outstanding natures lol, its nice to see the gene pool getting bigger :thumbup: xx


There's a fair amount of snobbery on there so it doesn't surpise me that it's not all out in the open, their dogs are faultless and mine are just pets, lol! 
Still i'd have one but there are some lovely dogs coming over too. I have an idea who i'd contact for a pup though if I ever wanted one, she's a lovely lady, always wears red and her dogs are stunning - wonder if you recognise her, tee hee!


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> There's a fair amount of snobbery on there so it doesn't surpise me that it's not all out in the open, their dogs are faultless and mine are just pets, lol!
> Still i'd have one but there are some lovely dogs coming over too. I have an idea who i'd contact for a pup though if I ever wanted one, she's a lovely lady, always wears red and her dogs are stunning - wonder if you recognise her, tee hee!


Yep there definately is lol! Half the people didn't start talking to us until Hudson started winning . Don't think they realise the harm they are doing to the breed by keeping problems behind closed doors!

I love some of the imports, it's what the UK mallies need, I felt like it was becoming the same lines over and over again sadly! And yes I think I know who you are talking about ! Is she Polish? If it's the same woman her dogs are amazing! Hudson's breeder is using her black and white boy at stud this year .. very tempted haha :lol: xx


----------



## Luvdogs (Aug 15, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> I have to say i do agree with this to a point, but can someone answer this how did a pedigree dog become a pedigree dog? They were crosses at one time i believe


Yes but they were bred for specific purposes.....i think poodles being crossed with nearly ever breed is not the way to do it, especially when it is just for money, it seems that there isn't a week that goes by that there isn't a new cross.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Luvdogs said:


> Yes but they were bred for specific purposes.....i think poodles being crossed with nearly ever breed is not the way to do it, especially when it is just for money, it seems that there isn't a week that goes by that there isn't a new cross.


I agree completely.

What I dont get is when people say "pedigree's are not for me"....but have a dog from two pedigree parents.

I once ran into a lady who had a pap cross pom and we got talking, she told me how she had found no pedigree's right for her but her dog came from two kc registered dogs. When I asked if she had ever spent enough time with either a pap or a pom she said that she had not and would not as she wanted the pap ears with the pom coat and would settle for nothing less.

When I asked her what she would have done if there was no cross breeding she went onto say she would "settle for a pom" and live without the ears.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Wonder did she do the research and realise papillons are more like toy-sized border collies than anything else and aren't to be bought on a whim or because you want their ears on a pomeranian


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Luvdogs said:


> Yes but they were bred for specific purposes.....i think poodles being crossed with nearly ever breed is not the way to do it, especially when it is just for money, it seems that there isn't a week that goes by that there isn't a new cross.


Ok thanks for that it wasnt an argument i genuinely wondered.
Ime the first to say about these designer breeds it really does annoy me when people buy them because they are designer i do wonder when they become not so designer will some move on to another new designer dog What equally annoys me is when all crossbreed owners of the "poo's" or "doodles" are tarred with the same brush i know a a few doodle owners and sprocker owners and they wernt bought with the "designer" status in mind at all and i would myself feel insulted like at the moment i really feel for cavpoo because she obviously loves her dog for what he is, think crossbreed owners need a break.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Although it doesn't sit easily with me, if you think about the number of people who buy pups every year, from the number of adverts around, pups rarely end up in rescue in comparison to older dogs, more so over the last couple of years than I've seen before, but are more likely to be bought. That number of puppy buyers is never going to be able to source all their pups from the number of breeders we have currently that breed ethically. And if the demand is there for some cross bred dogs, I would prefer to see someone who at the very leasts health tests, and uses dogs that have a good temperament, to breed to supply the pet market.
> 
> *I had to sit next to someone at an event last year, who churned out all the usual rubbish about her cockerpoos I'm afraid, *and people were drawn to the name, and asked about it. It's definitely used as a sales gimmick by some
> 
> I'm afraid that's the sort of thing I hate seeing, it's that huge sweeping generalisation about pedigrees being inbred and unhealthy again, and being bred purely for aesthetic reasons. That just hasn't been my experience I'm afraid, my unhealthiest dog to date was a cross breed. For that reason, I'm highly unlikely to want to ever own one, except, if the OH ever wants a lurcher, in which case, it will be carefully sourced from a good breeder.


wow thanks for that- I told you my story and you said it was rubbish.
How rude is that?


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Yep there definately is lol! Half the people didn't start talking to us until Hudson started winning . Don't think they realise the harm they are doing to the breed by keeping problems behind closed doors!
> 
> I love some of the imports, it's what the UK mallies need, I felt like it was becoming the same lines over and over again sadly! And yes I think I know who you are talking about ! Is she Polish? If it's the same woman her dogs are amazing! Hudson's breeder is using her black and white boy at stud this year .. very tempted haha :lol: xx


Yep you got it - she is lovely and what I like about her is she is so friendly, has been with me and I don't have a dog who'd she would know and I don't show, so she could ignore (bit like some others) but she hasn't.

Her boy is to die for - please be tempted, i'm sure you won't regret it!


----------



## Luvdogs (Aug 15, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> Ok thanks for that it wasnt an argument i genuinely wondered.
> 
> Sorry should have put one of these babies on the end


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Yep you got it - she is lovely and what I like about her is she is so friendly, has been with me and I don't have a dog who'd she would know and I don't show, so she could ignore (bit like some others) but she hasn't.
> 
> Her boy is to die for - please be tempted, i'm sure you won't regret it!


Yeah she is great, she was one of the first people to speak to us at Hudson's first show and was so happy for us when he started to do really well! Her dogs all have great natures too! Although Hudson and her boy have had words before :lol:. They are not fans of each other, silly mallie boys lol!

Hudson's breeder is always on the phone saying gooo on so i'm pretty sure we will end up with another little mallie toerag :lol:. xx


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Great but you must let me know if you get one of her's - it'll be a good shower I bet! 

Knew she was a gem!


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Great but you must let me know if you get one of her's - it'll be a good shower I bet!
> 
> Knew she was a gem!


I definately will ! Well i'd have everything crossed he would be, it would be fun to show a mallie puppy ! Would be a boy we took, no girlies in this house lol! x


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Ok thanks for that it wasnt an argument i genuinely wondered.
> Ime the first to say about these designer breeds it really does annoy me when people buy them because they are designer i do wonder when they become not so designer will some move on to another new designer dog What equally annoys me is when all crossbreed owners of the "poo's" or "doodles" are tarred with the same brush i know a a few doodle owners and sprocker owners and they wernt bought with the "designer" status in mind at all and i would myself feel insulted like at the moment i really feel for cavpoo because she obviously loves her dog for what he is, think crossbreed owners need a break.


If you meant me ( cockerpoo lover) then thanks. I love both my crossbreeds: cockapoo and Cavapoo.

I really have said a lot and things on here and now we are just going round in circles saying same things over again.

I have decided not to get caught up in anymore posts that are anti- cross breeding because I am finding it rather upsetting to be judged so harshly and my lovely dogs.

After trying to be honest and telling Sleeping Lion why I initially chose my cockapoo and her saying it's all the usual rubbish has just about finished me off. I really though she was wanting to know but looks like a ruse for yet another slap in the face 

And just because you may not all be saying things directly to me- slating poodle crosses and crosses in general is offensive when you own one.

The only thing I have said about pedigrees is that I don't agree that all the standards are health related and gave examples, and that line breeding isn't always seen as a good thing.

Time and time again I have tried to say about working together and co-exsisting and even then it's a slap in the face.

So you can all in future argue amongst yourselves as I am no longer going to partake in these types of threads.

Most of you are probably glad anyway.

I know a few crossbreeders owners who have PM me saying they are to scared to post on here.

Probably like us all to go away and have the forum all to yourselves.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> wow thanks for that- I told you my story and you said it was rubbish.
> How rude is that?


She didnt say anything of the sort, she said it was a lady she met at an event last year :confused1:


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> If you meant me ( cockerpoo lover) then thanks. I love both my crossbreeds: cockapoo and Cavapoo.
> 
> I really have said a lot and things on here and now we are just going round in circles saying same things over again.
> 
> ...


Grow up and stop being such a child. No one is slating you or your dogs, and if anyone is too afraid to post on here then by god they must stay in their house all day everyday, because if they can't handle this then theres no way they can handle real life. There has been alot of comments and sweeping statements about pedigrees that many could take offensively - I have more back bone than that. I like all dogs, I find it difficult walking by any dog from top champions to scruffy little mongrels without wanting to pet them. It's not the dogs I have a problem with, it's the unethical breeding of them (mongrels and pedigrees!) and the people who attempt to justify it. You are so sensitive it is unreal - I severly doubt Sleeping Lion specifically aimed that at you, more that other people they have spoke to have hit them with the usual rubbish. I didn't see anything about you speaking rubbish, tbh I think you are just taking things way too much to heart. No one denies that you love and care for your dogs and if they really are from reputable breeders then well done, if not and you were to ask me if you should get another one eventually? Well I think you know what my answer would be. There is so many problems on this forum caused by over sensitive little souls who through their toys out the pram the minute people disagree with them. You were the initial person to start being rude to others, now you can't handle and are looking for some sympathy. Well jog on because you will not be getting it from me.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Oh I love the boys Fuzzbugs, the only one who creates havock here is Kali the bitch, without her the place would be sooo much more peaceable, lol. She's lovely with people though!


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Oh I love the boys Fuzzbugs, the only one who creates havock here is Kali the bitch, without her the place would be sooo much more peaceable, lol. She's lovely with people though!


Awww she looks so beautiful and innocent in her pic as well .Yeah I can imagine our place would become a little more chaotic if we brought a bitch in having three unneutered males :lol:. Ahh that's all that matters then so long as I can get a mallie hug from her lols - she can beat all the boys up all she wants i'm sure they deserve it in some way lol :thumbup: :lol: xx


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> She didnt say anything of the sort, she said it was a lady she met at an event last year :confused1:


After all my story she put that the lady next to her churned out all the rubbish about her cockapoo so I took that as she meant I was saying the same??

As if it wasn't I thought she might have put another comment 

anyway I'm off this thread now.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> After all my story she put that the lady next to her churned out all the rubbish about her cockapoo so I took that as she meant I was saying the same??
> 
> As if it wasn't I thought she might have put another comment
> 
> anyway I'm off this thread now.


I think you are jumping to conclusions. What SL said does not imply in any way that she was talking about you. This is how arguments start, when people dont read what is written


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Don't be upset CL - your dog's a darling and i'd have one any day. 

As for Mallie cuddles FB, you'd have to prize Kali off of you, i'm now training her with treats to make her leave people in the street alone, she could be so easily dogknapped that it worries me!


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover if the thread is upsetting you then you are better off staying off the thread, no ones intentions on this thread is to upset anyone. Its not really worth getting upset over.

You posted this before:



Cockerpoo lover said:


> None of us want our oodles to be recognised by KC.:scared:
> 
> We don't want our breeds to be inbred and ruined so they have to fit a set standard based more on aesthetics.
> 
> Some people like dogs to be slightly different and not carbon copies.


Which is highly offensive to pedigree owners but its your opinion and as this is a discussion/debate we all have to accept others views regardless if we agree or not.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Don't be upset CL - your dog's a darling and i'd have one any day.
> 
> As for Mallie cuddles FB, you'd have to prize Kali off of you, i'm now training her with treats to make her leave people in the street alone, she could be so easily dogknapped that it worries me!


Haha she sounds lovely !! Just my type of dog, i'll dog nap her anyday . Our puppy Blue is kind of the same he gets very sad if someone just walks by without petting him :lol: xx


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I have pedigree's as well as crossbreeds and i'm not offended.  I know there are some "issues" in some pedigree breeds and there's no denying that. Mals are not predisposed to HD at the mo but many are showing it now. I blame byb's & pf's as I know many good breeders who health test and do it right. 
My own mistake gave me Flynn - a double hip replacement before the age of three and it's breeding like this that is providing bad health issues.

At least my whole litter is now spayed/neutered, so my mistake has ended any more being brought into the world but it doesn't help my poor Flynn.
I have great issues with indescriminate breeding and had it not been so late would have terminated this litter. Saying that, all the other pups appear to be fine - so I would have killed seven healthy pups because of one! 

To see your beautiful dog go through tough surgery is not nice and it has been proven to me that health tests are so important, especially as i've seen it all first hand now.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Haha she sounds lovely !! Just my type of dog, i'll dog nap her anyday . Our puppy Blue is kind of the same he gets very sad if someone just walks by without petting him :lol: xx


He gets exhausted easily though doesn't he. Falls asleep at the judges feet :lol: Bet he will look huge again compared to when I last saw him!


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Haha she sounds lovely !! Just my type of dog, i'll dog nap her anyday . Our puppy Blue is kind of the same he gets very sad if someone just walks by without petting him :lol: xx


B*gger! I so want a pup again!


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

CheekoAndCo said:


> He gets exhausted easily though doesn't he. Falls asleep at the judges feet :lol: Bet he will look huge again compared to when I last saw him!


Yes it's because he's an unhealthy show dog :lol:. Well really it's because he's a lazy little get at times and at other times a total loonball . Haha ya going to ringcraft on tuesday? xx


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Yes it's because he's an unhealthy show dog :lol:. Well really it's because he's a lazy little get at times and at other times a total loonball . Haha ya going to ringcraft on tuesday? xx


Mine are so unhealthy too aren't they 

Yep will be there on Tuesday because someones supposed to be brining a table for me.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> B*gger! I so want a pup again!


You can have our horrible little newfie pup if ya want .

ps. only till he grows up then i would like him back again :lol:. i don't like puppies :lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Malmum said:


> B*gger! I so want a pup again!


You sure about that?:lol:

We have cracked the crate training and Aiden is now great in the crate or so you think....then if you or anyone else leaves the room regardless of if there are still people in the room he will yap...as soon as you come back in the room he goes back to sleep.

YouTube - Aiden barking
That sound...is....deadly..:lol:

I think he will be alot better once he can go out for walks.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> You can have our horrible little newfie pup if ya want .
> 
> ps. only till he grows up then i would like him back again :lol:. i don't like puppies :lol:


I'll have him.:lol:
Is his bark more manly than my pups? If so yes please...:thumbup:


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> If you meant me ( cockerpoo lover) then thanks. I love both my crossbreeds: cockapoo and Cavapoo.
> 
> I really have said a lot and things on here and now we are just going round in circles saying same things over again.
> 
> ...


Its disgracefull really to be made to feel like this, i remember posting on a health test thread when i said my 2 (i only have 1 now) from unhealth tested parents i was slated the same, ile be honest and say when we got monty then 18months later got his brother, harvey our eldest now i knew nothing about health testing.
My other 2 are from htested parents and are KC registered and are no better dogs as monty was and harvey is, ok we are lucky they didnt have any breed specific ilnesses although monty did die quite young, but ask for anything else monty was a super dog and harvey is the same.
Shame when these arguments get out of hand.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I'll have him.:lol:
> Is his bark more manly than my pups? If so yes please...:thumbup:


Hey - get in the queue - i've got first refusal, lol. 
I love everything about pups, the smell of their fur, their sharp little nippers, their playful naughty ways - I even don't mind their lil (or big) puppy puddles. Have already told my kids, no grandchildren, just puppies please, lol! 

PS. Aiden is gorgeous and i'd rather have him barking than a baby crying any day and i've had four so I know what i'm talking about, lol.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

CheekoAndCo said:


> Mine are so unhealthy too aren't they
> 
> Yep will be there on Tuesday because someones supposed to be brining a table for me.


Yes they are  Especially that jack his bouncing like a loonball is a sign of bad health :lol:.

Aw nice one, will see you there  x


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

haeveymolly said:


> Its disgracefull really to be made to feel like this, i remember posting on a health test thread when i said my 2 (i only have 1 now) from unhealth tested parents i was slated the same, ile be honest and say when we got monty then 18months later got his brother, harvey our eldest now i knew nothing about health testing.
> My other 2 are from htested parents and are KC registered and are no better dogs as monty was and harvey is, ok we are lucky they didnt have any breed specific ilnesses although monty did die quite young, but ask for anything else monty was a super dog and harvey is the same.
> Shame when these arguments get out of hand.


Have you read what I put in post #196.

CL said somethings that would upset many pedigree owners a sweeping statement about pedigree's being carbon copies, inbred and ruined.

Its a type of thread that people disagree in however its also one of those threads that shouldnt be taken to much to heart. No one has slagged off cross breeds but about the breeding that goes into cross breeding.

Everyone makes mistakes (for example buying from unhealth tested lines) however you learn. I certainly learnt alot from being on here.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I'll have him.:lol:
> Is his bark more manly than my pups? If so yes please...:thumbup:


You'll be sending him back :lol:. But yes he has a very manly bark, he already thinks he's a guard dog and barks before the big boys when the door goes  x


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> You'll be sending him back :lol:. But yes he has a very manly bark, he already thinks he's a guard dog and barks before the big boys when the door goes  x


I love big dogs so I have no idea how I ended up with small dogs.:lol:
Aiden makes sounds like a little girl. How I miss man barks.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Hey - get in the queue - i've got first refusal, lol.
> I love everything about pups, the smell of their fur, their sharp little nippers, their playful naughty ways - I even don't mind their lil (or big) puppy puddles. Have already told my kids, no grandchildren, just puppies please, lol!
> 
> PS. Aiden is gorgeous and i'd rather have him barking than a baby crying any day and i've had four so I know what i'm talking about, lol.


Yes but remember newfie puppies come with the added spilling or water bowls and their puppy puddles tend to be bigger than most :lol:. Why in the name of god did we get another bloody newfie :lol:? I don't like children either lmao :lol:. x


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Yes but remember newfie puppies come with the added spilling or water bowls and their puppy puddles tend to be bigger than most :lol:. Why in the name of god did we get another bloody newfie :lol:? I don't like children either lmao :lol:. x


Aiden spill's his water dish constantly. Though Aiden's wee wee puddles are tiny so I guess thats a bonus.



Malmum said:


> PS. Aiden is gorgeous and i'd rather have him barking than a baby crying any day and i've had four so I know what i'm talking about, lol.


Really? My ears dont agree with you.:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Have you read what I put in post #196.
> 
> CL said somethings that would upset many pedigree owners a sweeping statement about pedigree's being carbon copies, inbred and ruined.
> 
> ...


Ive 3 pedigrees, but i have to admit i agree with whats been said to a point many, many pedigrees have been ruined.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

haeveymolly said:


> Ive 3 pedigrees, but i have to admit i agree with whats been said to a point many, many pedigrees have been ruined.


A select few breeds have yes. But many breeds are healthy, happy breeds who have not been ruined at all.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I love big dogs so I have no idea how I ended up with small dogs.:lol:
> Aiden makes sounds like a little girl. How I miss man barks.


We were going to get a pomeranian before we got newfies :lol:. Swap ya !
Blue makes sounds like a gremlin . We have degus and a guinea pig and a malamute - i think hes confused as to what he is lols! xx


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> We were going to get a pomeranian before we got newfies :lol:. Swap ya !
> Blue makes sounds like a gremlin . We have degus and a guinea pig and a malamute - i think hes confused as to what he is lols! xx


Hahaha awwwh.
I fostered two poms...never again. Their bark still haunts me.
Alaska thought she was a cat until she turned 7 months old...she used to try and pluck and could work out why she couldnt fit in the hooded litter tray.:lol:


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Definitely SL - Babys don't stop but puppies will stop if ya cuddle them, the lil cuties. 

And FB - that's the beauty of big dog pups, so incredibly clumsy and adorable! 

God this must stop, I sooo want a pup even more now! Gonna go and make some coffee, get this talk out of my head.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Was there a review of breed standards being undertaken prior to October 7th 2008 (because that is what you claimed - not that they were "working together")?
> 
> I'm certainly not implying that the KC were unaware of serious problems within pedigree dog breeding prior to the screening of PDE. I'm absolutely sure they were but they didn't conduct a review of breed standards and they didn't implement a raft of other measures and initiatives until _after_ their shortcomings were highlighted in Aug 2008.
> 
> ...


The BS for many breeds has been reviewed a number of times, it is a continual process, but the KC obviously felt compelled to implement a hasty announcement, and, with the involvement of breed clubs, to try and combat the PDE misinformation.

It is the breed clubs in combination with the KC that review, and judge, and that oversee the pedigree breeds, it is not the KC in isolation. The health testing that was in place before PDE was even conceived, had been supported by the breed clubs, and the KC was involved from the beginning.

The blame, if you believe it, for the poor health of some pedigrees, following the PDE programme lies firmly at the foot of those who breed KC pedigree show dogs. Two of the dogs used in the programme were not shown, and were not from breeders who show. So why were they used as an example? And why weren't the full facts about them disclosed?

What it boils down to is people always want someone else to blame, and in this case, the KC and show people/breeders, fit the bill for one particular person who had the means to make a sensationalist programme. No-one who has an ounce of ethical integrity would deny that some people who show pedigree dogs and breed, are unethical, there are bound to be some who aren't, that's the nature of us as humans, good and bad in all walks of life and all that. But what Jemima did with her programme was not for the good of dogs, if you believe that, then you are more naieve than I thought possible for someone who comes across as a very astute poster normally.



Cockerpoo lover said:


> wow thanks for that- I told you my story and you said it was rubbish.
> How rude is that?


?? Sorry, I did mean it literally as in the person next door to me at a show, nothing to do with anything you've posted 



haeveymolly said:


> Ive 3 pedigrees, but i have to admit i agree with whats been said to a point many, many pedigrees have been ruined.


How many pedigrees have been ruined then, what percentage? Even though there's a huge split with Labs, I wouldn't go anywhere near saying they are ruined, nor would I with springers or cockers, where there appears to be an even greater split.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> We don't want our breeds to be inbred and ruined so they have to fit a set standard based more on aesthetics.


This comment shows just a complete lack of knowledge about the breed standard.



> Some people like dogs to be slightly different and not carbon copies.


Some people like dogs to be slightly different? you mean like ones designed? LOL - hence ....... designer dogs


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> Some people like dogs to be slightly different? you mean like ones designed? LOL - hence ....... designer dogs


But I find that oodle and poo dogs all look a like.(although cute).

Goldendoodle:









Labradoodle.









Cockapoo.









Cavapoo.









Going for a dog that doesnt look like a carbon copy would be a real heinz 57 that never look alike.

Or at least thats how I see it.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> But I find that oodle and poo dogs all look a like.(although cute).
> 
> Goldendoodle:
> 
> ...


They are gorgeous but tbh they pretty much just remind me of unshaved poodles .


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> They are gorgeous but tbh they pretty much just remind me of unshaved poodles .


They are cute but they all look the same tbh. So it cant be because they want something unique looking.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> But I find that oodle and poo dogs all look a like.(although cute).
> 
> .





Fuzzbugs!x said:


> They are gorgeous but tbh they pretty much just remind me of unshaved poodles .


Gotta agree with you both. They're very cute, but what's the point? You might as well have poodles, and then at least you can trace their lines and be sure of their health and temperament.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> They are gorgeous but tbh they pretty much just remind me of unshaved poodles .


Ohhhh... consistency at last, a breed standard... excellent... I'm off to start a breed club and get my "Superior" T shirt.

Funny thing is we're not that bothered about the "breed" thing but it seems to eat you lot up something terrible.....that we dare to invent (as you invented your dog's names) a collective noun for our dogs....

....


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Ohhhh... consistency at last, a breed standard... excellent... I'm off to start a breed club and get my "Superior" T shirt.
> 
> Funny thing is we're not that bothered about the "breed" thing but it seems to eat you lot up something terrible.....that we dare to invent (as you invented your dog's names) a collective noun for our dogs....
> 
> ....


You keep saying 'we' but the majority of people I actually meet with these kinds of crosses are always determined that they are a breed .

You really aren't understand what anyone is saying. They look just like unshaved poodles, they are very gorgeous dogs but what is the point in the breeders breeding them if not for money? Give it a fancy name and you can bump up the price. I mean a cockapoo goes for much more than a cocker spaniel x poodle. Even you cannot be so blind as to see why that name was invented.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> You keep saying 'we' but the majority of people I actually meet with these kinds of crosses are always determined that they are a breed .
> 
> You really aren't understand what anyone is saying. They look just like unshaved poodles, they are very gorgeous dogs but what is the point in the breeders breeding them if not for money? Give it a fancy name and you can bump up the price. I mean a cockapoo goes for much more than a cocker spaniel x poodle. Even you cannot be so blind as to see why that name was invented.


What is the point in a dozen different type of sheepdog, various ratters, hounds, retrievers etc etc

You say "the majority of people you meet"... one thing I can be sure of is I meet a lot more people with "doodles" than you and all bar one or two have no interest in the registration of a breed... partly because that isn't the point and partly because of all the issues (KC, breed standards/restrictions, health problems) that come with it.... add to this the ardent snobbery obvious from forum conversations such as this and why bother???

You assume far too much...


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> What is the point in a dozen different type of sheepdog, various ratters, hounds, retrievers etc etc
> 
> You say "the majority of people you meet"... one thing I can be sure of is I meet a lot more people with "doodles" than you and all bar one or two have no interest in the registration of a breed... partly because that isn't the point and partly because of all the issues (KC, breed standards/restrictions, health problems) that come with it.... add to this the ardent snobbery obvious from forum conversations such as this and why bother???
> 
> You assume far too much...


I assume far too much :lol:. You just assumed you meet more doodly watsits than me :lol:!

Yes but all those dogs have a purpose! They were bred for a purpose! Your dogs are bred for nothing other than money! I'm not getting at you or your dogs, they are adorable but they were bred to line someones pockets and until someone gives me evidence otherwise than your right that is what I will assume! The facts are that the majority do not health test, they do not breed from KC reg parents so have no clue what they are actually breeding, they do not take back puppies if certain situations arise - so the only other explanation is that they breed for the £££ signs. Which is no reason to breed, be it a pedigree or a cross breed and is the cause for the amount of dogs in rescue and the amount of severly ill dogs across the country - not the show ring, no matter how much you would like to blame it.

No one is being snobby. Jesus christ, if you seen one of my pedigree newfoundlands there is no reason to be snobby about him :lol:. The problem people on this thread have is not with the dogs themselves, it's with the breeders and the people who try to justify these breeders without giving any proof whatsoever!

I know the kennel club is terrible . Imagine being able to view any health test results from any dog online . Simply awful. Breed standards are an aim to which breeders should use in order to better their breed and produce healthier dogs. There are no 'unhealthy' breed standards, only certain judges and breeders unhealthy perceptions of them. But yes breed standards are terrible too . And you don't seem to understand that health problems do not disappear when you cross two breeds .


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> What is the point in a dozen different type of sheepdog, various ratters, hounds, retrievers etc etc


Not sure about retrievers and so on (maybe Sleeping_Lion can answer that bit a little better) I can however speak for sheepdogs/shepherds (both are used for the same purpose).

Usually the name of the shepherd/sheepdog will contain the country it originates from. German shepherd, old english sheepdog, shetland sheepdog, Australian shepherd many countries bred their own sheepdog. Because they differ in looks too as well as health they are shown in different class's rather than put old english sheepdogs in with shetland sheepdogs.

Maybe people that know other types of breed can answer the terriers, hounds and retrievers bit.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Not sure about retrievers and so on (maybe Sleeping_Lion can answer that bit a little better) I can however speak for sheepdogs/shepherds (both are used for the same purpose).
> 
> Usually the name of the shepherd/sheepdog will contain the country it originates from. German shepherd, old english sheepdog, shetland sheepdog, Australian shepherd many countries bred their own sheepdog. Because they differ in looks too as well as health they are shown in different class's rather than put old english sheepdogs in with shetland sheepdogs.
> 
> Maybe people that know other types of breed can answer the terriers, hounds and retrievers bit.


I think youre missing the point. There is no need for more than one type of sheepdog, people just want them,which seems to be ok unless its us.

Many kc breeds are given names that have nothing to do with the actual do,australian sheepdogs are not from australia, so t
hey are given names so they will be attractive or exotic and people will buy them.........nothing new


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

Lets make sure that this debate stays a debate I haven't read it all yet, so just a reminder to not get personal in the debating its about the dogs not the humans...Oh and I own both pure and cross bred dogs....Jill


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I think youre missing the point. There is no need for more than one type of sheepdog, people just want them,which seems to be ok unless its us.
> 
> Many kc breeds are given names that have nothing to do with the actual do,australian sheepdogs are not from australia, so t
> hey are given names so they will be attractive or exotic and people will buy them.........nothing new


I am not missing hte point at all.

Australian Shepherd - from the USA.









Shetland sheepdog - from Shetland Islands.









German shepherd - from Germany. 









Maremma Sheepdog - From Italy









Old English Sheepdog - From England.









Pyrenean Sheepdog/Shepherd. From France.









Polish Lowland Sheepdog from Poland.









Belgian Shepherd from Belgium.









Anatolian Shepherd Dog from Turkey.









All from different countries all different in looks and different health.
All bred in their countries for a herding/looking after their flock.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Well I don't know about anyone else but i'm smitten by all of those lil guys. Poodles, lovely as they are, are not my kind of dog - a bit too fancy and dainty looking for me but when mixed like the ones above, a little more stockiness say, I think they're adorable. Labs, also gorgeous but again I like the curly or rough coat of the poodle mix.

I think the poodle is popular to mix as the coat is so curly and adds to the beauty of these other mixed breeds, couple that with their intelligence and it's no wonder they are so in vogue.

These crosse look beautiful but some are just silly mixes.


----------



## Patterdale_lover (Sep 25, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> I am not missing hte point at all.
> 
> Australian Shepherd - from the USA.
> 
> ...


Would rep ya but gotta spread the lurrrv :arf:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I dont understand why you posted that. The sheep dont know the difference so most of the breeds only exist because people want them to


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I dont understand why you posted that. The sheep dont know the difference so most of the breeds only exist because people want them to


Each breed was bred for a purpose...to herd sheep in their native country. 
Thats why there is more than 1 breed of sheepdog.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I bet the Old English Sheep Dog doesn't look like that when he's working - all ponced up, lol!


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Malmum said:


> I bet the Old English Sheep Dog doesn't look like that when he's working - all ponced up, lol!












1914.










Now..


----------



## Patterdale_lover (Sep 25, 2008)

There are different breeds in the gundog group because they all perform different jobs

Spaniels - finding and flushing game 

Retrievers - Clue is in the name they retrieve whatever has been shot

Pointers and setters - Again clue in the name they are often used with birds of prey and or ferrets and they "point" or "set" to where the game is.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Surely they are show dogs being photographed, can't see any field of sheep in the background. I think some dogs at shows look so much uglier than they do when out with owners on the street. I know they have to be presented in a certain way but some look awful IMO. There again I don't show so have little idea about what judges want to see and am aware it takes a lot of grooming to get them to look their best.

Give me a natural looking dog any day, one that hasn't been back combed to high heaven and is the way nature intended - hang on I have them, they're called Malamutes, lol!


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Surely they are show dogs being photographed, can't see any field of sheep in the background. I think some dogs at shows look so much uglier than they do when out with owners on the street. I know they have to be presented in a certain way but some look awful IMO. There again I don't show so have little idea about what judges want to see and am aware it takes a lot of grooming to get them to look their best.
> 
> Give me a natural looking dog any day, one that hasn't been back combed to high heaven and is the way nature intended - hang on I have them, they're called Malamutes, lol!


You'd be mortified if you see what certain people put on their show Alaskan Malamutes . I'd love to see them without it all lol :lol:. x


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Malmum said:


> Surely they are show dogs being photographed, can't see any field of sheep in the background. I think some dogs at shows look so much uglier than they do when out with owners on the street. I know they have to be presented in a certain way but some look awful IMO. There again I don't show so have little idea about what judges want to see and am aware it takes a lot of grooming to get them to look their best.
> 
> Give me a natural looking dog any day, one that hasn't been back combed to high heaven and is the way nature intended - hang on I have them, they're called Malamutes, lol!


I dont back comb my dogs...they dont need it they have big enough hair.

You wanted sheep/field in background..

















There are some video's of them herding too but they are clipped.
YouTube - Puffy OLD ENGLISH SHEEPDOG hearding


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> The sheep dont know the difference so most of the breeds only exist because people want them to


 Breeds were developed in the past from local dogs best suited. That is why you get differences and why, when people say that all dogs were cross breeds once, they are inaccurate. Yes, another breed may be introduced into the breed because it has a characteristic that would be useful for the job it was to do, but people didn't sit down and think ... 'I like this dog and I like that dog so a mix between the two would be nice and will look cute' in the way designer dogs are now.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Thought while I was looking I would add up some pictures of working shelties.

































Alaska's dad works...









And once my uncle's new farm house is built my lot and me will be going up to try them out. They have had a taster but we want to try full on.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I dont back comb my dogs...they dont need it they have big enough hair
> There are some video's of them herding too but they are clipped.
> YouTube - Puffy OLD ENGLISH SHEEPDOG hearding


Ah that's better - thats' how I like to see a dog, I know they should have big hair but I love them trimmed a little. Your dogs are lovely as they are so no need for making them look any different. 

FB - I have never seen a Malamute look very different even at a show than they are normally and I don't want to, lovely as they are. God forbid they ever try to "improve" the breed! 
Nah, they wouldn't would they?


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Malmum said:


> Ah that's better - thats' how I like to see a dog, I know they should have big hair but I love them trimmed a little. Your dogs are lovely as they are so no need for making them look any different.


Thank you. Right I best get off to bed otherwise I wont be up in the morning. Good night and I look forward to reading the discussion tomorrow.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Ah that's better - thats' how I like to see a dog, I know they should have big hair but I love them trimmed a little. Your dogs are lovely as they are so no need for making them look any different.
> 
> FB - I have never seen a Malamute look very different even at a show than they are normally and I don't want to, lovely as they are. God forbid they ever try to "improve" the breed!
> Nah, they wouldn't would they?


Yep thats what we thought until we took hudson to his first show without any products in him whatsoever. The difference as he stood beside them was unreal . They use volumising cream and mouse to make the coat look bigger and look as if they have more bone, whitening powder and cream and chalk plus cream to hold the chalk in place to make them look as white as possible, hair spray to hold it all in place, plus a hell of a lot of them are trimming now which is madness considering they are only allowed to trim the feet. The difference between an OTT product dog and a more raw dog is very noticable - personally, i hate the amount of products some use on them. I love malamutes because they are a raw breed, but they are looking more and more perfect and polished now. We show newfies too and although they have those astounding coats there is no products on barney other than shampoo. When we go to a show with barney we take a comb and a bottle of shine and comb that smells nice and gives his coat that extra little bit . We were just as shocked when we found out what goes onto a lot of the show mals. I'll try and find some pics of Hudson in his class last year at manchester - you'll definately see what i'm talking about lol! xx


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Ooow - that's a shocker! I thought they just had lovely full coats. I need some of that stuff for Flynn right now, he's nearly finished blowing his coat and he's a leggy boy as it is - now he's looking like Wiley Coyote from buggs bunny, - scruffy little urchin, lol.

Catch up later - night, night.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

I thought chalk and whitening was not allowed or is that not so in the UK. I would prefer if dogs were only allowed to be brushed and trimmed for the ring no poofing...


----------



## Jonesey (Dec 30, 2010)

I think part of the problem is that most purebred pedigrees are purchased for their breed and not to work. There aren't enough jobs for the poor things and people don't research what they're getting into when purchasing a dog bred for work.

Cross breeds are less expensive than pedigrees here so I don't think they're bred just for money. Although most people breeding are certainly looking to get paid for their pups aren't they? Really I think there should just be a lot less breeding in general, there are too many dogs for people. Whether you're breeding a pedigree or a cross I think you should have to apply and pay for a license to breed otherwise mandatory sterilization should be in place.

A lot of the reason all the oodles are so popular is that people don't necessarily want a pedigree, but they do want some of the characteristics of a pedigree plus non-shedding and somewhat hypoallergenic. Really the people that piss me off are the ones that want a dog as an accessory, something to cart around and use to get attention rather than a pet.

We got our cross breed (golden retriever/mini poodle) for size and allergies. We didn't want a tiny breakable dog nor a big dog although I love the big guys. Given my choice I would have had a big goldendoodle or a standard poodle, but I knew we couldn't give it enough exercise. Both myself and my husband have allergies and this seemed like the right dog for our family. And just a BTW, but I recognized our dog out of the pictures posted, she is NOT a labradoodle or cockapoo! 

I really don't believe there's any chance of the purebred lines becoming extinct although as it was pointed out they originated from crossing breeds. And in the far past who gave a sh^t or even knew about genetics/inbreeding - also I'm sure there was pain and suffering creating these tiny dogs or dogs with small snouts. But there really is no need to 'create' new pedigrees as the need for working dogs has diminished. I believe there is a place for both pedigree and crossbreed, just as there's always been a place for mutts.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Hmmm. actually I don't have a problem with new breeds being created from a mix of other established breeds - the Cesky Terrier is an example of new breeds created in this way - the difference is in the ethics of their breeders take a look at the Cesky breed club website :

Health

note the empahsis on health testing and health data collection - note the importance of tracing problems back and working on a breeding programme aimed at *improving* what they are producing - this is seen for breeders of other recently created 'designer mixes such as Eurasiers and those in the throes of development such as the Klee Klai and the Silken Windhound - their breeders breed with a defined pupose and with meticulous record keeping and health testing and by forming a club with other breeders and owners to share information and compare what they are producing just look at this timeline showing thethought and care that's gone into the development of the Silken Windhound 
ISWS - International Silken Windhound Society

This just does'nt seem to be happening with many other crosses including all the Oodle crosses - this is a great shame in my opinion as they obviously have a great deal to offer the dog buying public - those of you that own Cockerpoos and Cavashons ( my personal favourite of all the designer crosses ) should really be pushing for the SAME kind of breeding standards and ethics for the dogs you love - is there an existig 'Oodle club' ? if so why not begin by collecting health data - get your dogs hip scored and eye tested at the vey least and share this information, highlight the good ethical breeders of these crosses and keep records the lines behind your dogs - work together to improve the way that these dogs are produced because quite frankly at the moment the overwhelming majority of them are bred by those with no other interest than profit - there is a crying need for the same passion and commitment to be shown by those breeding Cockerpoos etc as is shown by ethical breeders in most other breeds - I simply don't see any evidence of this at the moment.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Each breed was bred for a purpose...to herd sheep in their native country.
> Thats why there is more than 1 breed of sheepdog.


So why is there more than one sheepdog in this country, in Europe, why does the Australian one come from the US... I'd love to think the romantic argument is correct but plaining it isn't.

There are 'pedigree' dogs whose names are made up for the sole purpose of making them sound more exotic in order to the sell them - the exact same accusation levelled at "doodle" owners because we choose to use a name/acronym instead of explaining the exact cross.

I fail to see why you all get so out of your pram about it... don't see an anti- Pharaoh Hound thread on here but they're about as ancient Egyptian as me (OK.. I'll live with ancient)


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Well tbh ime suprised this thread is still running.

What amuses me here is that there are so many that wouldnt entertain a "doodle" a "poo" and many other crossbreeds, no interest, wouldnt touch one with a barge poll, but you all seem to know a huge ammount about how they are bred, why they are bred and even the reasons for people buying them ect, wow for people that have no interest in them you seem to know an awful lot.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

canuckjill said:


> I thought chalk and whitening was not allowed or is that not so in the UK. I would prefer if dogs were only allowed to be brushed and trimmed for the ring no poofing...


Completely true . Your allowed to put whatever you like in and on the dogs coat before hand but it must not be present in the coat when they enter the ring. However, some exhibitors want perfection lol! I agree with you, I don't mind a little bit but it's a wonder some of the dogs aren't leaving a little chalk trail behind them! I don't like trimming in malamutes either - it's not in the breed standard and shouldn't be done imo. Makes them look much less like a working breed and more like an overly large toy breed! It's very pointless as well because it is so noticeable that they have done it, but most of the time just makes them look worse, not better. x


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

haeveymolly said:


> Well tbh ime suprised this thread is still running.
> 
> What amuses me here is that there are so many that wouldnt entertain a "doodle" a "poo" and many other crossbreeds, no interest, wouldnt touch one with a barge poll, but you all seem to know a huge ammount about how they are bred, why they are bred and even the reasons for people buying them ect, wow for people that have no interest in them you seem to know an awful lot.


Once again your mistaking people for having a problem with the dogs, it's not the dogs it's the unethical breeding of them. I am very interested in unethical breeding, be it pedigree or cross breed or cat tbh :lol:. It's very silly to suggest that because people don't have a cross breed that they know nothing of their breeding at all. It's not difficult to put in the research. Normally the first thing I do when I see a breed or cross breed I have never met before i'll take note of the name and google it and/or ask around. It's just like saying you can't possibly know a plausible thing about cats because you don't own one. I know a hell of a lot about penguins but I don't own and shall never own a penguin . & you'll probably find most people on here would own a crossbreed (myself included) from a rescue centre, they would just never go to a breeder to specifically buy a crossbreed.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Oyou'll probably find most people on here would own a crossbreed (myself included) from a rescue centre, they would just never go to a breeder to specifically buy a crossbreed.


That probably sums many peoples feelings up :thumbup:

Why encourage breeders out simply to line their pockets and feed the latest fashion trend ...


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> It's very silly to suggest that because people don't have a cross breed that they know nothing of their breeding at all.


I actually find it rather amazing that some cross breed owners have not actually asked the Breeder of their dog WHY they actually bred the litter in the first place?.
This is one of the questions I have always asked when I have bought dogs along with the usual ones of course eg health tests etc..
I would actually like to hear some answers given from cross breed breeders as it would be interesting to say the least.
Another question I ask is WHY did you specifically choose the Stud you did?

Can I ask any Crossbreed owner on this thread if they asked those questions and if so what was the answer given.

It may make me change my mind that most of these breeders are indeed not just breeding for money as imo 
Most litters advertised are 1st crosses.
Most own the Bitch-be it a Labrador, Cavalier, Jack Russell etc...and not the actual crossbreed first
Some also indeed own the Stud of different breed from Bitch
Most do not imo own the actual crossbreed itself so why did they decide one day to breed their Pedigree Bitch to another Pedigree breed

I also wondered much the same as Bijou really in that why do the owners of crossbreed dogs not get involved in the Pedigree parents Breed Clubs and actually learn about their choosen type of dogs background, new health issues or anything else that appears within the breeds. IMO it may be beneficial to owners much more than the Net is now

ps My dogs are pedigree and bought as pets, I do not show etc but am a member of a Breed Club as I like to keep up to date of my choosen breed


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

gladass said:


> I actually find it rather amazing that some cross breed owners have not actually asked the Breeder of their dog WHY they actually bred the litter in the first place?.
> This is one of the questions I have always asked when I have bought dogs along with the usual ones of course eg health tests etc..
> I would actually like to hear some answers given from cross breed breeders as it would be interesting to say the least.
> Another question I ask is WHY did you specifically choose the Stud you did?
> ...


Great post . Hopefully someone will answer your questions! However, i'm still waiting on anyone to even pm the details of a decent cross breeder or even a dogs parents health test results. Apparently it's 'none of my business', yet i'm expected to just believe that these amazing health test results are real and these wonderful cross breeders exist.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Jonesey said:


> .
> 
> We got our cross breed (golden retriever/mini poodle) for size and allergies. We didn't want a tiny breakable dog nor a big dog although I love the big guys.


You also said you would have loved a Standard Poodle but due to the size you got your choosen dog. Poodles come in different sizes and how did you know what size your pup would be as it may have taken the size of a Golden Retriever rather than the mini poodle


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

gladass said:


> It may make me change my mind that most of these breeders are indeed not just breeding for money as imo
> Most litters advertised are 1st crosses


You could ask all the questions in the world but they could simply be telling you what they think you want to hear, surely? They could have chosen said stud dog as it was a friends dog, the won't tell you that, even I could make up some decent answer with a bit of research. Doesn't mean that they aint done it to make money.

It makes me laugh, this argument applies to all dogs, cross breeds or pedigrees.

My breeder health checked both his dogs before breeding (I didn't actually know this at the time as I didn't ask, wasn't clued up about it and simply didn't care. I'd researched loads into an Old English Sheepdog, about the things they should be tested for , but I'd completely fallen in love with that little puppy and he was coming home with me cross or no cross!)

My breeder has had 2 litters from his bitch and she's now been spayed. He sold all his pups for £50 each and asked us to make a voluntary donation to the local rescue centre, which we gave as £25. So all in all he cost us £75 but the breeder got £50 of that. In Ruperts litter there were 5 pups and in the one before 4.

If the costs of breeding and health checks are what everyone says they are, I doubt he made much out of it all.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Great post . Hopefully someone will answer your questions! However, i'm still waiting on anyone to even pm the details of a decent cross breeder or even a dogs parents health test results. Apparently it's 'none of my business', yet i'm expected to just believe that these amazing health test results are real and these wonderful cross breeders exist.


I asked my breeder out of curiosity a while back what was done on Roo's mum and he told me that he didn't hip score as he was told that there was no standard established for a Westie, as they were not considered a dog to be prone to dysplacia. I've done a bit of digging on this and the opinions are split. Some do it, some don't.

She was tested for luxating patella, negative and aparently is also on the CERF although I've never bothered to look to be quite honest with you.

He was talking gobbledegook until I went away and looked it all up. I beleive what he was saying as I know him now as a person and I truly like the bloke. He knows where everyone of his pups went to and is still in touch with 5 of us on a regular basis.

Didn't ask about his dads results, sure he would tell me I asked, to be quite honest I don't care. I've bought the pup, he's happy, healthy (apart from a broken toe...but last time I checked that wasn't hereditary...) and we were not ripped off, IMHO.

There's no way I'd pay over the odds for any dog to be quite honest with you. I'd love an Old English Sheepdog or a St Bernard one day and yes, that will be the time for me to start saving and doing extensive research into them and what I would want them testing for etc.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I'd love an Old English Sheepdog or a St Bernard one day and yes, that will be the time for me to start saving and doing extensive research into them and what I would want them testing for etc.


...but why the double standards ...why would you ask all the right questions for an Old English Sheepdog but not for a cross bred pup ? - it's because puppy buyers DON'T ask these questions that there are so few ethical breeders of designer crosses - come on folks you should be expecting ALL breeders to breed as well as they can - just because it's an 'oodle' pup does'nt mean that it's does'nt need to be bought with *exactly* the same amount of research and care .


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Bijou said:


> ...but why the double standards ...why would you ask all the right questions for an Old English Sheepdog but not for a cross bred pup ? - it's because puppy buyers DON'T ask these questions that there are so few ethical breeders of designer crosses - come on folks you should be expecting ALL breeders to breed as well as they can - just because it's an 'oodle' pup does'nt mean that it's does'nt need to be bought with *exactly* the same amount of research and care .


Because I didn't know at the time. I'd looked into getting an OES as I knew some had issues, but as I was uneducated I had swallowed the whole "crosses are generally better health wise" line,

I didn't know about half the stuff I do now and would certainly ask, so its not a case of double standards, just a case of me getting the right info and education. There will be plenty of people that have done the same as me, bought for the right reasons, but without the right knowledge. Doesn't make them bad people but the way certain people harp on about it on this forum, and with the attitude some display is it any wonder none of them will admit it?

You can't learn without making mistakes and asking for advice. I'm thick skinned and have been called far worse. Some however won't like it so they just tell you to "mind your own business".

Same goes for some who have bought pedigree dogs before without knowing fully about BYBs as well. Exactly the reason there are so many unethicall breeders of those too, not just so called designer crosses.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So why is there more than one sheepdog in this country, in Europe, why does the Australian one come from the US.


Because many different breeds entered the UK when their owners moved here or were brought in to show since dog showing is a world wide hobby it makes sense not to just show dogs from the UK but from other countries to.

There are two different theories on the history of the Australian shepherd but it partly explains the name:
Australian Shepherd Club UK

Its not that the dog itself is from Australia, but the dogs which were combined to create said Aussie were all of Australian descent. Not a made up name to attract buyers at all.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Not a made up name to attract buyers at all.


But a made up name coined from the originating parent dogs all the same, which is what most cross breed names are.

IMHO people buying dogs "because they look nice" is just as stupid. A Saint might look nice but I know that I've no chance of keeping it in my house as there isn't the room.

I'd much rather have the debate about how long it is before said cross breeds actually become registered, if ever. I mean think about it, ALL dog breeds have evolved from selective breeding and crossing of 1 to another down the line.

What makes it right in some cases, and what happens to then get that breed registered? I mean what if a labradoodle is mated to another labradoodle, and this happens again and again for generations...

(curious, that's all, no idea how it works).


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> If the costs of breeding and health checks are what everyone says they are, I doubt he made much out of it all.


Hey 

Just wanted to see what you meant by this health check or health test?

Westies dont have a recommended health test and JRT are not a KC reg breed (they dont have test recommendations) I am guessing that he did health checks? Unless they were eye tested?

Health checks are just a general check up from your vet.

Not having a dig just asking. You know I would steal roo off you anyday...:thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> But a made up name all the same. Which, IMHO is no different.
> 
> Whilst I agree with a lot of what is said about stupid names and unethical breeders but the idea that simply calling a dog a stupid name is the reason people go and buy it, really doesn't wash with me. I'd have bought Rupert no matter what the ruddy hell his cross was called. Simply because a dog is called a cockapoo or whatever the hell you want to call it is simply an amalgamation/shorterning of the two breeds. Not something I would bother with as to me they are all mutts/crossbreeds but I won't jump on the back of anyone using it to describe their dog, its just a term they use. Each to their own.
> 
> IMHO people buying dogs "because they look nice" is just as stupid. A Saint might look nice but I know that I've no chance of keeping it in my house as there isn't the room.


Not made up:



> Its not that the dog itself is from Australia, but the dogs which were combined to create said Aussie were all of Australian descent. Not a made up name to attract buyers at all.


No different to the shetland sheepdog or west highland terrier.

One of the posts on this thread said that pedigree's were ruined and that they were all carbon copies. When you look at the pictures of the oodles, poo's they all look similar just as similar as walking into a room full of any pedigree dog.

I have no issue with anyone buying a cross or...designer dog however when they make statements like "I want a unique looking dog" for the reason for getting one it makes me wonder.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> What makes it right in some cases, and what happens to then get that breed registered? I mean what if a labradoodle is mated to another labradoodle, and this happens again and again for generations...
> 
> (curious, that's all, no idea how it works).


Breed clubs have to be on side for a start....which with these designer cross's most breed clubs are upset. You also have to have the kennel club on side.

The thing is if and when people start mating lets say a cavapoo to a cavapoo there is going to be a certain risk of in breeding as they do not come with papers and some breeders breed them from un-KC registered parents.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Hey
> 
> Just wanted to see what you meant by this health check or health test?
> 
> ...


I was interested as to what he said when I'd read on here about them, and as I'm still in touch with him I asked and got told...



Horse and Hound said:


> he didn't hip score as he was told that there was no standard established for a Westie, as they were not considered a dog to be prone to dysplacia. She was tested for luxating patella, negative and aparently is also on the CERF although I've never bothered to look to be quite honest with you.


I believe the CERF is an eye test register so his mum was eye tested. Now, I'm not sure how often as to stay on the register I think you have to be done yearly so he might not have kept it up after having her spayed and I don't know the dates or anything like that, as It was simply a passing question I asked him when it sparked my interest. So I don't know, whatever you want to call it, tests or checked.

With Roo's dad I didn't ask what tests/checks he'd had done. I really wasn't overly interested as I'd already bought Roo so at the time it didn't matter.

If I was to purchase another pup though they are things I would ask, and I'd make sure I knew what was expected/tests available for each breed.

But that's the beauty of LEARNING. Not double standards as suggested by someone else above. I make no apologies for not knowing any better, some people don't and simply slagging them off won't help.

You see it all the time, people come on here asking for advice and although on the whole some people are helpful, there's always that certain minority that are supreme beings on all things dog and can't wait to tell that person what a rubbish owner they are/will be!

Really hacks me off at times.

**phew, rant over**.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Breed clubs have to be on side for a start....which with these designer cross's most breed clubs are upset. You also have to have the kennel club on side.
> 
> The thing is if and when people start mating lets say a cavapoo to a cavapoo there is going to be a certain risk of in breeding as they do not come with papers and some breeders breed them from un-KC registered parents.


Thing is, and just playing devils advocate, you get pedigree dogs without papers as well, people breed from those. Stupid people, I may add.

If you took 2 crosses and mated them, knowing that their parents were different dogs, etc, what would happen if that carried on? Do you personally think there will ever come a time where we recognise a new dog breed?

Just curious, that's all, as all dogs have essentically started as crosses somewhere then bred to the best examples to weedle out any issues (supposedly) so what made it different all that time ago to start a cross off as such to now?


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Not made up:
> 
> No different to the shetland sheepdog or west highland terrier. .


I edited the post because it didn't read right. What I meant to say still a coined name, coined from the origins of the dog, as you pointed out, no different to Shetland Sheepdog/Westie.

King Charles Cavs, named after, funnily enough, King Charles. (NOw if that isn't a case of ego mania then dunno what is).

All still "made up" or "coined" or whatever you want to call it from the history of the dog. A Labradoodle is a lab x poodle, 2 dogs of origin used to describe it. Personally, I can't see much of a difference and can understand why/what people say.



shetlandlover said:


> "I want a unique looking dog" for the reason for getting one it makes me wonder.


There is an element of suprise though, as I've always been excited to know what Roo is going to turn out like but I do look at pics of him and Heidi and they are very, very similar bar in colour. That wasn't the reason I bought him though, the reason I bought him is because he chose me!

But I'd never met another JRT x Westie before.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I wasn't going to post on here but Shetland lover I need to clear something up with you.

You have quoted me out of context in regards to the carbon copy statement and I should have expanded what I wrote.

Cheeko wrote this : *So say some miricale happened and these silly 'oodles' etc become recognised breeds.. What category would they fit into under the KC groups?*

and I was replying those comments you have quoted me on twice now specifically to that comment not as a general statement!! so to clarify( perhaps I should have done this at the time whoops )

we don't want oodles to be KC recognised and carbon copies because we like that they have different coats or some might be more poodly than others.

Also with inbreeding it is wrong in a lot of cases and to become a KC breed standard for " oodles" they would insist on certain aesthetic traits which would mean probably some form of inbreeding or line breeding ( same thing really).

and sorry but saying silly oodles isn't being funny it's being said as a put down.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> I edited the post because it didn't read right. What I meant to say still a coined name, coined from the origins of the dog, as you pointed out, no different to Shetland Sheepdog/Westie.
> 
> King Charles Cavs, named after, funnily enough, King Charles. (NOw if that isn't a case of ego mania then dunno what is).
> 
> ...


Your cross isnt a designer cross designed to look the same.
We are on about designer cross's that have a certain look, roo is a mix that no two dogs look alike.

I will put this up again for you:

Goldendoodle:









Labradoodle.









Cockapoo.









Cavapoo.









Going for a dog that doesnt look like a carbon copy would be a real heinz 57 that never look alike.

Cavalier King charles got their name from :



> The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel of today is the direct descendant of the small Toy Spaniels seen in so many of the pictures of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. Toy Spaniels were quite common as pets of the Court ladies in Tudor times but in this country it was under the Stuarts that they were given the Royal title of King Charles Spaniels. History tells us that King Charles II was seldom seen without two or three or more at his heels.


The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club - History of The Breed

The problem is with oodles, poo's their names were made strictly to sell dogs.

As rocco pointed out the guy who came up with cross a lab and poodle called them "lab cross poodle" and they didnt sell...he made the name "labradoodle" up and they are now the next hot thing, that's why the guy regrets making that name up because now we have all sorts: labradooodle, cavapoo, dalmadoode, pugalier, goldendoodle and so on.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I wasn't going to post on here but Shetland lover I need to clear something up with you.
> 
> You have quoted me out of context in regards to the carbon copy statement and I should have expanded what I wrote.
> 
> ...


Thank you for clearing that up, I like the looks of oodles and poo's.
but you saying pedigree's are ruined isnt putting pedigree's down?
There are many healthy fit breeds and breeders and breed clubs do everything they can to maintain that.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

There are plenty of fit, healthy pedigree breeds out there doing a job EVERY day. They were bred for a purpose and the breed standard was set out so everything about their conformation and temperment is understood to create a dog *fit for function*. Going on and on about how the breed standard is purely for aesthetics shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the breed standard itself. Looks dont come into it for 99% of breeds, everything from the shape of the feet to the texture of the coat is there for a purpose to help the dog do the job it was intended for.



shetlandlover said:


> Thank you for clearing that up, I like the looks of oodles and poo's.
> but you saying pedigree's are ruined isnt putting pedigree's down?
> There are many healthy fit breeds and breeders and breed clubs do everything they can to maintain that.


Interesting how the "oodle" owners think its ok to insult pedigrees, calling them inbred carbon copies  Yet if a word is said against the oodle breeders its suddenly really unfair :lol:


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Labradoodles do have a breed standard Labradoodle Breed Standard
There are also numerous independent registries around the world. These two things suggest that they wish to develop them as a breed not simply a cross. They also cease being a cross breed once they go beyond an F1 cross and into F1b stage, when the F1 is put back to a full pedigree parent breed. This may or may not involve inbreeding. This process of ongoing selection for traits is how breeds start. I've only had a look at one labradoodle pedigree and the poodle was horribly inbred


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

The images you posted are not carbon copies as they are all different

They would of course have some similarity being as that they are all poddle crosses :lol:

As puppies they may look more similar but not when they are fully grown.

My Cavapoo looks nothing like the one you have posted???

All this name stuff about the names has been done to death and it's really only your opinion as I have said I know loads of poodle cross owners who DID NOT GET THEIR DOGS FOR THE NAME.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Thank you for clearing that up, I like the looks of oodles and poo's.
> *but you saying pedigree's are ruined isnt putting pedigree's down?*
> There are many healthy fit breeds and breeders and breed clubs do everything they can to maintain that.


I have never said this have I


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Your cross isnt a designer cross designed to look the same.


Ha, there's nothing designer about Roo, that's for certain! Scruffy little get, but then again if I wanted a beautifully, crafted dog that looked like a perfect example of its breed I'd have been going for a pedigree! That's the point isn't it? They are bred to look the same and look a certain way.

I can see your point therefore about people breeding crosses that are designed therefore to look the same but still stand by what I said about the name thing, my poiny about Cavs is that they got their name from someone/something that happened. Prior to that they were known as something else. Just goes to show that coining a name can happen in any breed, that's all. People would have to be really stupid to buy a dog because of what it is called, same way people would have to be really stupid, IMHO to buy a pedigree because "they look nice!"

Plus you're looking at someone that doesn't really like Poodles anyway (no offence poodle owners, just not my thing!) so any kind of "oodle" cross puts me right off full stop! But each to their own.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The BS for many breeds has been reviewed a number of times, it is a continual process, but the KC obviously felt compelled to implement a hasty announcement, and, with the involvement of breed clubs, to try and combat the PDE misinformation.


There was no wholesale review of breed standards being conducted prior to the airing of PDE (if you still maintain differently then please show your evidence). The KC made changes to 78 breed standards between Oct 2008 and January 2009 and added a clause warning against exaggerations to every other standard. Compare that to how many standards were amended in, say, the twelve months prior to the broadcast.

Other changes since the broadcast of PDE include the banning of close inbreeding (parent/child and sibling/sibling) and the removal of the recommendation to cull healthy (but ridgeless) puppies from the The Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of Great Britain's "code of ethics". Two examples of many changes that were simply not on the agenda prior to PDE.

The KC's 'Fit for function, fit for life' campaign, its embracing of the principles of Dog Breeding Stakeholder Group, its acceptance of Lua dalmations, its withdrawal of CC's from GSDs in 2012, its commisioning of Bateson's independent report into dog breeding, its new Canine Genetics Centre, improved training of judges, etc are examples of measures that the KC acknowleded were needed and implemented subsequent to the public outcry following the broadcast of PDE. "New" measures, mind, not existing measures hastily announced. "New" - I'm putting quotation marks around it because that was Kisko's own word (in the article I linked to earlier) - "new".



> The health testing that was in place before PDE was even conceived, had been supported by the breed clubs, and the KC was involved from the beginning.


I'm glad you raised health testing because here too we see a positive impact from PDE. Since the broadcast the KC has announced it will produce a health plan for every breed including an assessment of genetic diversity, since the broadcast the number of cavaliers being MRI scanned for syringomyelia has increased three-fold and the Animal Health Trust says it has had a "huge increase in breeders" wanting to help in the development of new DNA tests since the programme. Good stuff, eh?


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Snoringbear said:


> Labradoodles do have a breed standard Labradoodle Breed Standard
> There are also numerous independent registries around the world. These two things suggest that they wish to develop them as a breed not simply a cross. They also cease being a cross breed once they go beyond an F1 cross and into F2 stage, when the F1 is put back to a full pedigree parent breed. This may or may not involve inbreeding. This process of ongoing selection for traits is how breeds start. I've only had a look at one labradoodle pedigree and the poodle was horribly inbred


Thanks for that, that's what I was wondering about how they do become a so called pedigree or whatever eventually.

Is it the same with any cross, say for instance if Roo was entire and I put him to a pedigree westie? :confused1:


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> The images you posted are not carbon copies as they are all different


Okay....here are some shelties...do they look like carbon copies to you?


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> None of us want our oodles to be recognised by KC.:scared:
> 
> *We don't want our breeds to be inbred and ruined so they have to fit a set standard based more on aesthetics.*
> 
> Some people like dogs to be slightly different and not carbon copies.





Cockerpoo lover said:


> I have never said this have I


Yup. You did.......


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Okay....here are some shelties...do they look like carbon copies to you?


Those shelties look similar, but its easy to see differences, but that's the point of breeding a certain breed, isnt' it? But to me I can see differences in pictures of lab poodle crosses though:










TO me those look similar, but different, same as the shelties you posted.

Perhaps I'm missing something.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> Those shelties look similar, but its easy to see differences, but that's the point of breeding a certain breed, isnt' it? But to me I can see differences in pictures of lab poodle crosses though:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's the point. You can tell they are the same breed but are not carbon copies YET cockerpoo lover thinks pedigree's are carbon copies when oodles, poo's look just as "alike" as dogs of the same breed.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> There are plenty of fit, healthy pedigree breeds out there doing a job EVERY day. They were bred for a purpose and the breed standard was set out so everything about their conformation and temperment is understood to create a dog *fit for function*. Going on and on about how the breed standard is purely for aesthetics shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the breed standard itself. Looks dont come into it for 99% of breeds, everything from the shape of the feet to the texture of the coat is there for a purpose to help the dog do the job it was intended for.
> 
> *Interesting how the "oodle" owners think its ok to insult pedigrees, calling them inbred carbon copies  Yet if a word is said against the oodle breeders its suddenly really unfair :lol:*


*
*

If you read the above you can see that I didn't really put it in that context did I 

I really don't want to get drawn into all this again.

I have never ever said that the breed standards were ALL aesthetics so please don't say that I have. I have many times agreed with a lot of comments made by pedigree and show owners and even some of the negative comments about crosses.

I may disagree with some of your standards as some see as health I see it as aesthetics but I am entitled to my opinion and I did go through the standards of the Cav to this effect.

I have not got at any pedigree dog so please don't make out that I have. I have no problems with the dogs themselves but with some of the reasoning behind why you think your dog should exist and mine shouldn't.

I have only disagreed with the standards in relationship to the arguments with crosses and have not gone and singled out any breeds apart from the cav as I own a Cav cross.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> That's the point. You can tell they are the same breed but are not carbon copies YET cockerpoo lover thinks pedigree's are carbon copies when oodles, poo's look just as "alike" as dogs of the same breed.


Right, gotcha. Thought you were saying lab x poodles are carbon copies of one another, was going to say surely not!

Similar but different! I like that description...Roo is just different, the big wierdo. Know what he did last night? Tried to jump from one chair to the other, caught him just in time before he did some more damage to his foot, the big idiot.

He's more work than Harvey at the mo, but that's because he hasn't been walked since Thurs. Driving me up the wall.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> There was no wholesale review of breed standards being conducted prior to the airing of PDE (if you still maintain differently then please show your evidence). The KC made changes to 78 breed standards between Oct 2008 and January 2009 and added a clause warning against exaggerations to every other standard. Compare that to how many standards were amended in, say, the twelve months prior to the broadcast.
> 
> *
> Breed standards are reviewed by the kennel club continually, it is not a new thing at all.*
> ...


*I think you will find that health testing was a big priority for the majority of responsible breeders prior to the PDE programme. To suggest that the programme is responsible for breeders health testing is a bit unfair to those of us who have always gone above and beyond to ensure the health of our dogs.*


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> [/B]
> 
> If you read the above you can see that I didn't really put it in that context did I
> 
> ...


Whatever context you put it in you are clearly saying that pedigrees are "inbred, carbon copies" as that is the reason you dont want your crossbreed to be recognised.

I mean, come on, this comment speaks for itself no matter what context you put it in  Clearly you are saying that pedigree dogs (ie the ones breeders are trying to breed as close to the standard as possible) are inbred and ruined.

"We don't want our breeds to be inbred and ruined so they have to fit a set standard based more on aesthetics."

No one has "got at" crossbreed dogs either, just the money grabbing breeders.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but if you are going to give such a contraversial opinion to those of us who own and breed pedigrees, you cant expect to then have a tantrum when someone gives an equally contraversial opinion about your choice of breeder.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> That's the point. You can tell they are the same breed but are not carbon copies Y*ET cockerpoo lover thinks pedigree's are carbon copies when oodles, poo's look just as "alike" as dogs of the same breed.*




HOw many more times geez 

I mean we don't want our oodles to be all the same as in carbon copies all having the same coat for example. Some like wavy coats others curly and we don't have a problem with this.

Now if you go through your KC breed standards then each breed has a specified coat

Look at the Cav standards- now they are wanting the coat a certain way so if it is too wavy then it's classes as a fault. So to get all the coats a certain way means that each dogs got would follow these standards and be identical.

That's what I mean got it now 

We don't want our poodle crosses coats to be the same that is what I meant by carbon copies.

So stop twisting things: carbon copies = identical and nothing more.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Actually to add one more thing one minute your are saying that no one can tell how a poodle cross is going to look like ( from other posts and threads) the next you are saying they are all alike 

What it is to be then ???


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> Thanks for that, that's what I was wondering about how they do become a so called pedigree or whatever eventually.
> 
> Is it the same with any cross, say for instance if Roo was entire and I put him to a pedigree westie? :confused1:


Yes, the terminology can be applied to any animal.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> Labradoodles do have a breed standard Labradoodle Breed Standard
> There are also numerous independent registries around the world. These two things suggest that they wish to develop them as a breed not simply a cross. *They also cease being a cross breed once they go beyond an F1 cross and into F2 stage, when the F1 is put back to a full pedigree parent breed*. This may or may not involve inbreeding. This process of ongoing selection for traits is how breeds start. I've only had a look at one labradoodle pedigree and the poodle was horribly inbred


I don't understand this but then I am not a breeder. Could you explain please?

I know someone who breeds F2 cockapoo crosses?? why are they not considered a cross?


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> [/B]
> 
> HOw many more times geez
> 
> ...


I am guessing you never re-searched border collie, rough collie, smooth collie.

Or the fact that a Weimaraner can have long or short.

Or retrievers that have curly coated and flat coated they are placed in different standards like rough collies, smooth collies.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Jess2308 said:


> *I think you will find that health testing was a big priority for the majority of responsible breeders prior to the PDE programme. To suggest that the programme is responsible for breeders health testing is a bit unfair to those of us who have always gone above and beyond to ensure the health of our dogs.*


There's a nice point about that unfairness in the article I linked earlier:

Crufts Follow-Up: Vet Checks & Purebred Health - National Animal Interest Alliance

_"Many purebred dog breeders have not only put themselves under the microscope in an effort to breed dogs with fewer defects, they have bought and paid for the microscope. By this, I don't mean they are paying for biased research. I mean they are the people who are trying to understand their breed's disorders and deal with them responsibly. The breed clubs are funding excellent, independent research to understand the disorders that may plague their breed. They are supporting the development of DNA and other tests to aid in their ability to screen for disorders, to work their way out of disorders that have occurred in their breed. So this is a double-edged sword for this group  the same tool that they have helped to develop to "improve" their breed is now being used against them to take them down. Does this seem unjust to anyone besides me?"_


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Actually to add one more thing one minute your are saying that no one can tell how a poodle cross is going to look like ( from other posts and threads) the next you are saying they are all alike
> 
> What it is to be then ???


No I have only ever said you never know if they are going to be "hypo-allergenic" or not so its wrong for breeders to claim they are all hypo-allergenic.

They do look alike...I guess like all poodles and cockers look alike.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I don't understand this but then I am not a breeder. Could you explain please?
> 
> I know someone who breeds F2 cockapoo crosses?? why are they not considered a cross?


I got my example slightly wrong, it should have been F1b not F2 :lol:

F2 is the result of mating two F1 dogs.

Traditionally a crossbreed refers to a offspring of two pedigree breeds. Once you breed that offspring to something else you get a mongrel, which doesn't sound as nice as F2 cockerpoo.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Yup. You did.......


I am talking about my crosses being ruined not pedigrees!!!!

I don't want them to have to follow say a coat conformation because that is not in anyway improving the dogs health or function.

Your dogs have a coat standard probably due to their origins/function. I don't know sorry as don't know your breed.

If say it was proven that a curly coat was better health wise for my cockapoo then a wavy one for example- then I wouldn't see that as ruining their looks but better for their long term health.

If it was on the other hand just because they preferred a curly coat to a wavy one then sorry but that is ruining this lovely breed.

and to be frank these " standards" have caused a lot of problems over the years for many a dog: bulldogs and Cavaliers etc.........


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

At the end of the day it comes down to the fact that on this thread there have been some people who are very misguided in their 'facts' on the health of pedigree dogs and the show ring. Pedigree dogs are not unhealthy, carbon copies and if you own one then you are snooty and think you are above others or whatever . The majority of pedigree breeds are extremely healthy, there is a small minority who have health problems and some of the breeds mentioned in PDE aren't on that list. In order for people to better the welfare and breeding of dogs in this country they have to stop going to unethical breeds (no health tests, no kc reg ect ect) and lining their pockets because such and such was so cute and it was just meant to be. Rubbish - believe me I made the same mistake and we bought Bronson our big brown newfie and he is riddled with health problems and although we would never change what we done, we would never do the same thing twice. We then went to view another litter before we got Barney, were sceptical about the breeder and although I had my heart set on a certain puppy, we walked away and chose Barney's breeder instead and were over the moon with Barney. The sad reality is that most people who cross breed do not health test and do it for the money. That doesn't mean the people who buy them do not care for the dog and don't love the dog, but if they want to stop unethical breeders, puppy farmers and BYBs then people must stop buying from these idiots. If people who own these dogs try to justify their breeders then i'm sorry, but they clearly do not care for dog welfare as a whole.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I am talking about my crosses being ruined not pedigrees!!!!
> 
> I don't want them to have to follow say a coat conformation because that is not in anyway improving the dogs health or function.
> 
> ...


Whatever kind of oodles you own - they are not a breed. I severly doubt they will ever be a KC reg breed, so there you go that should keep you happy. Newfies can have wavy coats, they will not be knocked for it, they can be black but have bronze tinges ect ect. It's more about the texture of the coat than the actual look of it - you would know that if you read through a couple of breed standards.

These 'standards' haven't caused problems for any dogs. It's certain judges and breeders perspectives on the breed standard that has caused some health problems - although I have to say I know many show bulldogs and they most definately are not unhealthy, from what I have seen it tends to be the puppy farmers, pet breeders ect who are causing severe health problems in their breed.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> *Breed standards are reviewed by the kennel club continually, it is not a new thing at all.*


I didn't say it was new. I said that the PDE programme provoked a wholesale review of breed standards that was not being undertaken prior to the programme's broadcast.



> *The Ridgeback Club didnt "recommend" culling, it said that puppies could be culled or just sold on neutering contracts as pets. I dont agree with culling of puppies as long as they are healthy, but of the ridgeback breeders I know, not one of them would cull a pup just because it didnt have a ridge.*


You are not correct.

The wording of the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of Great Britain's Code of Ethics was thus:

_Any mismarked puppies shall be described as such and sold as not to be shown or bred from. This shall be reflected in the price. Ridgeless puppies shall be culled at birth ;_

You may not know of any breeders that are happy to reveal to you that they would cull ridgeless puppies but PDE had little difficulty in finding one. However this is to miss the point - I have no doubt that culling of undesirable but healthy puppies occurs in many breeds after all unethical breeders are not restricted to just this breed or that but _in this instance _this despicable practice was enshrined and countenanced by the Club's own Code of Ethics - _that_ is the point. Not that some breeders are unethical. We know that. It is an inescapable fact of life. But that the practice of culling healthy but mismarked puppies was considered ethical and desirable by the KC affiliated breed club. Some ethic, eh?



> * To suggest that the programme is responsible for breeders health testing is a bit unfair to those of us who have always gone above and beyond to ensure the health of our dogs.*


What I suggested was that the programme had a positive impact on the numbers of breeders availing themselves of health tests. I made no comment regarding those who have always done so.

I am moved to observe that I do not consider health testing to be act which is 'above and beyond' what any responsible breeder should do.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> *Whatever kind of oodles you own - they are not a breed. I severly doubt they will ever be a KC reg breed, so there you go that should keep you happy.* Newfies can have wavy coats, they will not be knocked for it, they can be black but have bronze tinges ect ect. It's more about the texture of the coat than the actual look of it - you would know that if you read through a couple of breed standards.
> 
> These 'standards' haven't caused problems for any dogs. It's certain judges and breeders perspectives on the breed standard that has caused some health problems - although I have to say I know many show bulldogs and they most definately are not unhealthy, from what I have seen it tends to be the puppy farmers, pet breeders ect who are causing severe health problems in their breed.


yep it does :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

anyway off now as don't want to get involved in all this again and said I wasn't going to post on threads like this.

Just wanted to come on this morning to clarify a point with Shetland Lover.

Anyway off now as this lovely pedigree dog sitting next to me wants to play ball


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> yep it does :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
> 
> anyway off now as don't want to get involved in all this again and said I wasn't going to post on threads like this.
> 
> ...


Okay you have fun :lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Whatever kind of oodles you own - they are not a breed.


That's why people get confused. There was a lady on here a few weeks back who had put money down on a pugalier and thought it came with papers.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> I didn't say it was new. I said that the PDE programme provoked a wholesale review of breed standards that was not being undertaken prior to the programme's broadcast.
> 
> You are not correct.
> 
> ...


By "above and beyond" I was meaning that responsible breeders will very often go above and beyond the recommended health testing. Like, two of my breeds. Most pug breeders are now testing for hemivertebra (and have been for some years) which is a problem in a minority of pugs. And basenjis, the majority of breeders are testing for fanconi, hips and eyes. There are no KC recommended health tests for these breeds at the moment because they havent had a high enough percentage of them for it to be considered a problem in the breed, but as breeders know of the potential for these diseases and care about their breeding and their dogs, they are going "above and beyond" what is recommended to ensure that they are producing the healthiest pups. This was all going on well before the PDE programme. And I stand by what I said, all of the breeders of RRs I know (and i do know a few) would never cull a healthy puppy, its an old fashioned way of thinking and is very very rarely done now.

Whilst i think the programme highlighted some valid issues, it was one sided and biased. It didnt mention that the dogs shown (except for a couple of exceptions) were non-kc reg and therefore not show breeding. It also managed to pick out the "bad" (unethical if you like) breeders and focus on them without showing the flip side - the huge amount of work being done by breed clubs and GOOD breeders.

It has given puppy farmers the ammunition they needed to run down good show breeders and attract puppy buyers who were taken in by the scaremongering tactics used by the PDE programme. Jemima Harrison herself has admitted this.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Jess2308 said:


> It has given puppy farmers the ammunition they needed to run down good show breeders and attract puppy buyers who were taken in by the scaremongering tactics used by the PDE programme. Jemima Harrison herself has admitted this.


The puppy farmers and BYB's must have been rubbing their grubby hands together when they watched it. It did way more harm than good sadly 

Well done Jemima


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Good breeders health tested way before PDE and I agree 100% with what Jess2308 said.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So why is there more than one sheepdog in this country, in Europe, why does the Australian one come from the US... I'd love to think the romantic argument is correct but plaining it isn't.
> 
> There are 'pedigree' dogs whose names are made up for the sole purpose of making them sound more exotic in order to the sell them - the exact same accusation levelled at "doodle" owners because we choose to use a name/acronym instead of explaining the exact cross.
> 
> I fail to see why you all get so out of your pram about it... don't see an anti- Pharaoh Hound thread on here but they're about as ancient Egyptian as me (OK.. I'll live with ancient)


I can't think of one pedigree dog with a name that was made to actually just sell it. The pharoah hound is called that, because it's an ancient breed of dog from Egypt originally, doesn't matter which country it currently lives in, the name suits it's origins.



haeveymolly said:


> Well tbh ime suprised this thread is still running.
> 
> What amuses me here is that there are so many that wouldnt entertain a "doodle" a "poo" and many other crossbreeds, no interest, wouldnt touch one with a barge poll, but you all seem to know a huge ammount about how they are bred, why they are bred and even the reasons for people buying them ect, wow for people that have no interest in them you seem to know an awful lot.


Doesn't that show you something? That the people on here actually care about the breeding of dogs, how it's done, and want to see everyone supporting ethical breeding.



Johnderondon said:


> I didn't say it was new. I said that the PDE programme provoked a wholesale review of breed standards that was not being undertaken prior to the programme's broadcast.
> 
> You are not correct.
> 
> ...


Many breeders used to cull a number of pups from a litter, it was thought that this was a good way to ensure the remaining pups had a better start in life. Of course that view is outdated and old fashioned now, but it happened less than a hundred years ago.

I was appalled, btw, at the attitude of the woman who bred ridgebacks, and insisted on culling ridgeless pups, and wouldn't defend that type of person in a month of Sundays. But out of all those I've met online and in the real world who breed dogs, not one of them would cull pups at birth for an aesthetic reason, only for medical reasons where it was necessary.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I can't think of one pedigree dog with a name that was made to actually just sell it. The pharoah hound is called that, because it's an ancient breed of dog from Egypt originally, doesn't matter which country it currently lives in, the name suits it's origins.


Exactly the point I was trying to get across...maybe I didnt get it across correctly.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Good breeders health tested way before PDE and I agree 100% with what Jess2308 said.


You are missing the point that _more_ breeders are testing since PDE. In the case of cavs, a three-fold increase. Is that not a good thing?


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> You are missing the point that _more_ breeders are testing since PDE. In the case of cavs, a three-fold increase. Is that not a good thing?


Is that a fact in all breeds? :confused1:


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Johnderondon said:


> You are missing the point that _more_ breeders are testing since PDE. In the case of cavs, a three-fold increase. Is that not a good thing?


Of course it is but that program caused all sorts of other problems.
The level of "designer dogs" has rocketed since the program. And the excuse the breeders I contacted was "cross's are more healthy than pedigree's".

That program opened up a whole stupid misconception that show/pedigree breeders are all bad and show/pedigree dogs are all unhealthy which is untrue.

So they want a german shepherd, instead of going to a good show breeder who health tests they toddle off and find a local byb with the belief they are healthy because they are not shown.

Or they go off to any old cross breeder and buy a cross because pedigree's are just so unhealthy.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jess I was going to ask exactly the same thing, because most of the people I know with Labradors, were making use of health testing schemes available before PDE came along. 

Which begs the question, if there were already responsible, ethical breeders making use of the tests before PDE, who are all the new people suddenly making use of them, and are they actually using the health test results in the best way for the breed? It's not good enough to just health test, and make breeding decisions going on the dog in front of you with it's current results, responsible and ethical breeding entails far more research. So you could argue, actually, no, it's not a good thing that people are possibly making breeding decisions relying solely on the health test results for the dog in front of them, it might actually even turn out to be detrimental to a breed.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> If people who own these dogs try to justify their breeders then i'm sorry, but they clearly do not care for dog welfare as a whole.


Sorry but I can "justify" my breeder, if you want to call it that, and have done on this thread.

To suggest doing so means I don't care about dog welfare is, IMHO, out of order.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> I assume far too much :lol:. You just assumed you meet more doodly watsits than me :lol:!
> 
> Yes but all those dogs have a purpose! They were bred for a purpose! Your dogs are bred for nothing other than money! I'm not getting at you or your dogs, they are adorable but they were bred to line someones pockets and until someone gives me evidence otherwise than your right that is what I will assume! The facts are that the majority do not health test, they do not breed from KC reg parents so have no clue what they are actually breeding, they do not take back puppies if certain situations arise - so the only other explanation is that they breed for the £££ signs. Which is no reason to breed, be it a pedigree or a cross breed and is the cause for the amount of dogs in rescue and the amount of severly ill dogs across the country - not the show ring, no matter how much you would like to blame it.
> 
> ...


Well I know over 800 owners so I shouldn't have assumed that you know less...

.. not all dogs have a purpose - why so many breeds of sheepdog etc... one would have done...

... I also know loads of breeders of crosses... I assume you know more...

... you continued to make assumptions...


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Tapir said:


> I thought the programme was very enlightening. I think it outed the truth about MANY breeders and the breed standards of the KC.


No not many...there are a select few who do not health test, do not care however did you not notice how there was no loving show/pedigree breeders?
Nothing saying how they sit up all night with their bitch giving birth, rushing 1 day old pups to the vet, spending £100's on health tests, traveling across the country to find the right stud dog, traveling across the country to shows to show off their amazing dogs, cudding up on the sofa full of dog hair?

Maybe tis because they "forgot" to put that bit in.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The pharoah hound is called that, because it's an ancient breed of dog from Egypt originally,


Sorry to burst your bubble on this but its neither ancient nor Egyptian.... its from Malta and was originally called a "rabbit hound"... but they changed the name (in the 20th century) as no one wanted to buy one with a name like that.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Tapir said:


> I find it very very hard to believe that 'a select few' are bad breeders. I'm sure there are a lot of breeders like yourself and who do all the things you stated, but I'm sure there are also a damn lot who don't. I'm not against showing, or breeding, or really, the KC. I am against some points of all three.


If there was so many bad breeders ALL breeds would be in a bad state. There are loads of healthy breeds who are still more than fit to do the job they were first created for.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Whatever kind of oodles you own - they are not a breed. I severly doubt they will ever be a KC reg breed, so there you go that should keep you happy. Newfies can have wavy coats, they will not be knocked for it, they can be black but have bronze tinges ect ect. It's more about the texture of the coat than the actual look of it - you would know that if you read through a couple of breed standards.
> 
> These 'standards' haven't caused problems for any dogs. It's certain judges and breeders perspectives on the breed standard that has caused some health problems - although I have to say I know many show bulldogs and they most definately are not unhealthy, from what I have seen it tends to be the puppy farmers, pet breeders ect who are causing severe health problems in their breed.


From a newspaper article when the bulldog breed standards were under scrutiny:
Iconic British bulldog to be scrapped as Kennel Club overhauls breeding rules
By DANIEL BATES
Last updated at 11:03 PM on 14th January 2009

*The Kennel Club has bowed to criticism that its rules were resulting in the breeding of deformed and unhealthy dogs. 
It has changed its standards for dozens of pedigree breeds. 
One of the those most affected will be the British bulldog, whose excessive Churchillian jowls are said by critics to interfere with its breathing. 
*

Marc Evans RSPCA's Chief Ver advisor said ( quote) " Many characteristics considered desirable as defined by breed standards are actually shocking deformities which affect the welfare and quality for hundred and thousands of dogs"

The KC then began looking at revising a lot of their breed standards.

So if people like me and others on this forum and in the dog world don't question these standards then nothing would change would it and certain breeds would still suffer.

I know my crosses are not KC recognised breed by the way when I say breed it is just used when discussing.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble on this but its neither ancient nor Egyptian.... its from Malta and was originally called a "rabbit hound"... but they changed the name (in the 20th century) as no one wanted to buy one with a name like that.


WTF would you call it the Pharoa Hound though, that's such a random thing to change it to!!

Acc to this: Pharaoh Hound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia what is said above is true: then according to this link American Kennel Club - Pharaoh Hound its not, but then according to this link doesn't help in deciding either Pharaoh Hound Enthusiast and Breeder: Naha Pharaoh Hounds

What a good example though, guess we'll never know.

Unless anyone has a Tardis?


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> .. not all dogs have a purpose - why so many breeds of sheepdog etc... one would have done....


How many times do I need to say this?

There are some many because they are from different countries. At the time these breeds were created importing was either not available or was to difficult to keep doing.

Now, they are bred in every country because of showing.

Why so many oodle's? I mean...going by your logic surely only 1 poodle cross would do.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble on this but its neither ancient nor Egyptian.... its from Malta and was originally called a "rabbit hound"... but they changed the name (in the 20th century) as no one wanted to buy one with a name like that.


Not according to the history shown on the breed club website:

Breed History

I'm not sure why you come across as so vehement towards people, surely you are just as for ethical breeding as anyone else, it's just the details that differ?


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Tapir said:


> Yes I'm not denying that, but you can't deny the state of Cavs, English Bulldogs, GSD's etc?


But look at how healthy labs, rough collie's, shetland sheepdog and poodle's to name but a few.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> If there was so many bad breeders ALL breeds would be in a bad state. There are loads of healthy breeds who are still more than fit to do the job they were first created for.


To be fair, not sure I agree. Bad breeders for me are not just ones that breed dogs with bad genes, but you're talking about the ones that are in it to make money as well, BYBs as so many cross breeders are called.

They could have 2 perfectly healthy, well scored parents and breed them to death and produce decent pups. Doesn't make them a healthy breeder.

Can I ask though, for those of you who do ask breeders questions, what steps do you take to make sure they are telling the truth? I mean I could tell you that I was breeding to make sure I got a better pup/enhance my line etc, when to be perfectly honest I had no intention of keeping a pup whatsoever.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> From a newspaper article when the bulldog breed standards were under scrutiny:
> Iconic British bulldog to be scrapped as Kennel Club overhauls breeding rules
> By DANIEL BATES
> Last updated at 11:03 PM on 14th January 2009
> ...


That is a newspaper article :confused1: Not exactly an expert opinion :lol: And that vet who said the most ridiculous things on PDE was not long after replaced as the RSPCA vet advisor :lol:

But, breed standards are continually revised and breed clubs can and do propose changes as they see fit. It is not the KC who write the breed standards.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> To be fair, not sure I agree. Bad breeders for me are not just ones that breed dogs with bad genes, but you're talking about the ones that are in it to make money as well, BYBs as so many cross breeders are called.
> 
> They could have 2 perfectly healthy, well scored parents and breed them to death and produce decent pups. Doesn't make them a healthy breeder.
> 
> Can I ask though, for those of you who do ask breeders questions, what steps do you take to make sure they are telling the truth? I mean I could tell you that I was breeding to make sure I got a better pup/enhance my line etc, when to be perfectly honest I had no intention of keeping a pup whatsoever.


The issues raised in PDE was the health, why would such bad breeders health test?

Also the kennel club limit the amount of litters a bitch can have, it was 6 now its 4. (and they can only be bred once a year)

At least the kennel club are trying to stop over breeding by refusing to register pups from a bitch who has had more than 4 litters, who regulates the cross breeders and back yard breeders?


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> Is that a fact in all breeds? :confused1:


I've no idea but I very much doubt it holds true for breeds such as the pug as there are _still_ no KC-recommended tests. I am reporting a three-fold increase in MRI-scaned dogs on the Cav club's website and a "huge increase in breeders" wanting to assist the Animal Health Trust in the development of DNA tests since the programme (which breeders were represented in this increase was not specified).



shetlandlover said:


> Of course it is but that program caused all sorts of other problems.
> The level of "designer dogs" has rocketed since the program. And the excuse the breeders I contacted was "cross's are more healthy than pedigree's".


As an approximation, they are. However the fashion for 'designer dogs' is a continuation of a trend that pre-dated the programme so I don't see how you can quantify the programme's effect in this regard.



> That program opened up a whole stupid misconception that show/pedigree breeders are all bad and show/pedigree dogs are all unhealthy which is untrue.
> 
> So they want a german shepherd, instead of going to a good show breeder who health tests they toddle off and find a local byb with the belief they are healthy because they are not shown.
> 
> Or they go off to any old cross breeder and buy a cross because pedigree's are just so unhealthy.


Did the programme actually maintain that show bred pedigree dogs are less healthy than non-show bred pedigree dogs? If so I must of missed it. If not then why critise the programme for a position it did not hold?


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Not according to the history shown on the breed club website:
> 
> Breed History
> 
> I'm not sure why you come across as so vehement towards people, surely you are just as for ethical breeding as anyone else, it's just the details that differ?


Bit of a strange one, but this website states that they don't know for certain:

Pharaoh Hound Enthusiast and Breeder: Naha Pharaoh Hounds



> Others argue vehemently that the breed originated in Malta and the similarity to the artwork of ancient Egypt is coincidence.


Ooooh a mystery!


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> I've no idea but I very much doubt it holds true for breeds such as the pug as there are _still_ no KC-recommended tests. I am reporting a three-fold increase in MRI-scaned dogs on the Cav club's website and a "huge increase in breeders" wanting to assist the Animal Health Trust in the development of DNA tests since the programme (which breeders were represented in this increase was not specified).


Ah, so your guessing it applies for all breeds :thumbup:

The pug currently has no recommended health tests, though as I said in a previous post, any GOOD breeder of pugs is xraying their dogs and have been for a long time, well before the PDE. You see, people who know their breeds dont need a sensationalised TV programme to tell them whats right for their dogs :lol: The breed club are also pushing for it to be a recommended health test from the KC and again, have been for some time


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Johnderondon said:


> Did the programme actually maintain that show bred pedigree dogs are less healthy than non-show bred pedigree dogs? If so I must of missed it. If not then why critise the programme for a position it did not hold?


Showing dogs in the ring with their backs at horrid angles, showing a woman with her sick dog in the ring still "apparently using him at stud".

Not exactly like they went to the back yard breeders who pump out a great deal of unhealth tested "pedigree" dogs with all sorts of health problems, I would say they do more damage than most show breeders.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Tapir said:


> If I remember rightly, one of the Cavs who won a show on the PDE programme, had a bad heart? Goes to show that as long as he looked good, doesn't matter if he is ill? Again, I don't know much about it but this may have changed now?


This was my argument, you can breed a show standard dog all you want, it can look the part but they don't test in a show ring for whats going on inside, do they?

That's what I don't personally get. Everyone goes on about breeding to "show standard" but if that doesn't actually mean a healthy dog, then why do it?


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> From a newspaper article when the bulldog breed standards were under scrutiny:
> Iconic British bulldog to be scrapped as Kennel Club overhauls breeding rules
> By DANIEL BATES
> Last updated at 11:03 PM on 14th January 2009
> ...


Mark Evans is a waste of space, and has done as much, if not more, damage than Jemima Harrison. It was his words in the PDE programme that made the public run away from those who breed KC pedigree dogs, and particularly show dogs, and straight into the hands of the unethical breeders. It was him who stated that they were all inbred mutants, which is absolute rubbish!!

Just as an aside, as the BS keeps getting mentioned, some were changed to a greater extent, but this wasn't because the breed standard was wrong as such, but the interpretation of the standard had been taken to too great an extreme. For example, with the Labrador BS, it was made clear that the shape barrel shaped chest should not be made up with excess weight, and amended to include text indicating this:

_Chest of good width and depth, with well sprung barrel ribs - this effect not to be produced by carrying excessive weight. Level topline. Loins wide, short-coupled and strong._

So the aim isn't to change the breed standard as such, but to move away from rewarding exaggerated features in some breeds. There was nothing wrong with the old breed standard, just the interpretation of it, and the changes made have reflected that, I hope that makes sense, I'm dashing around all over the place today and meeting myself going the other way!!


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Showing dogs in the ring with their backs at horrid angles, showing a woman with her sick dog in the ring still "apparently using him at stud".
> 
> Not exactly like they went to the back yard breeders who pump out a great deal of unhealth tested "pedigree" dogs with all sorts of health problems, I would say they do more damage than most show breeders.


Also, if you look at the clips on youtube and read the comments, certainly the viewing public have come to the conclusion from the programme that show dogs are unhealthy. And that really is the proof, the general public watching it and the feelings they came away with. Very sad.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Tapir said:


> I wouldn't say labs are particularly healthy...I was under the impression that labradors suffer from hip and elbow dysplacia? Obviously the good breeders are only breeding dogs with good hips but not all. I don't know anything about rough collie, shetlands or poodles so I can't really comment.
> 
> I have already said, I don't deny that there are still healthy breeds, but having ANY unhealthy breeds is inexcusable in my oppinion. Man has interfered and messed around with dogs to make unhealthy animals, and that is not acceptable. Giving these dogs rossettes is crazy. If I remember rightly, one of the Cavs who won a show on the PDE programme, had a bad heart? Goes to show that as long as he looked good, doesn't matter if he is ill? Again, I don't know much about it but this may have changed now?


Many breeds are prone to developing HD and ED, not just Labradors, and actually, overall they are pretty healthy. The worst incidences of HD are from bybs, puppy farmers and the like, who are just churning dogs out without any thought. The majority of those who health test and try to breed appropriately, either show, or work their dogs, although I think the working folk are behind in this instance.

I think the problem with Labs is overestimated by peoples' experiences on the internet. How often do you come across a post saying someone's Lab has got HD or ED? More frequently I'd say than someone who's posted saying my Lab doesn't have HD or ED, because they don't have any reason to. So the perception, in our minds, becomes skewed, and it seems to be a much bigger problem within a breed than it is in real life. I bet if you got a hundred random Labs in a room, a much smaller proportion than you would think, actually suffer from either condition.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Jess2308 said:


> Also, if you look at the clips on youtube and read the comments, certainly the viewing public have come to the conclusion from the programme that show dogs are unhealthy. And that really is the proof, the general public watching it and the feelings they came away with. Very sad.


Some are unhealthy though, same as some crosses are unhealthy.

Be interesting to see everyone's reaction if they had made a programme about cross breeds, and shown them up to be unhealthy and made sweeping general statements about them, bet there wouldn't be half the uproar this programme caused!

And my point stands, they don't test for stuff at a show do they? How do you know what's going on inside a dog just from looking at it?


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Some are unhealthy though, same as some crosses are unhealthy.
> 
> Be interesting to see everyone's reaction if they had made a programme about cross breeds, and shown them up to be unhealthy and made sweeping general statements about them, bet there wouldn't be half the uproar this programme caused!
> 
> And my point stands, they don't test for stuff at a show do they? How do you know what's going on inside a dog just from looking at it?


Of course some will be unhealthy, but thats why you health test before breeding  It is a well known fact that careful breeding and health testing has vastly improved the health of some breeds and, in some cases, removed diseases from the breed altogether.

A show is purely judging a dog to a breed standard and ensuring any parts of its conformation dont hinder its health. The judges are not vets, they cant be expected to assess a dogs health for things that cant be seen. It is the OWNERS responsibility to know what health testing needs to be done and to carry that out before considering passing that dogs genes on to future generations.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> And my point stands, they don't test for stuff at a show do they? How do you know what's going on inside a dog just from looking at it?


I dont agree with showing dogs in poor health. I am sure I posted on this thread (in the early pages) saying that I would rather show a dog that is slightly taller than breed average height than a dog in poor health.

However the level of healthy dog's being shown outweighs those in poor health since alot of show breeders have health test results on the internet for all to see.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Jess2308 said:


> Of course some will be unhealthy, but thats why you health test before breeding  It is a well known fact that careful breeding and health testing has vastly improved the health of some breeds and, in some cases, removed diseases from the breed altogether.
> 
> A show is purely judging a dog to a breed standard and ensuring any parts of its conformation dont hinder its health. The judges are not vets, they cant be expected to assess a dogs health for things that cant be seen. It is the OWNERS responsibility to know what health testing needs to be done and to carry that out before considering passing that dogs genes on to future generations.


But, you are relying on all showers and owners to have health tested prior to breeding their dogs, or people to have bought a dog from a health tested breeder. Is that the case? Do you have to prove this before showing? If so HOW DO YOU KNOW therefore that those dogs in that ring are healthy?

I don't know how it works, what documents you have to produce or anything as its something I've never, ever fancied at all. I enjoy fun shows but the whole serious side of it doesn't float my boat.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Tapir said:


> But it should be. A dog who looks fantastic and fits the breed standard prefectly, but has a heart condition, should not win prizes! Maybe judges should take into consideration any health issues in the particular dogs they are judging, or simply don't let dogs with inherited health defects show at all...afterall, some showing breeders will take short cuts, cut corners and still get prizes. Good breeders will take responsibility and test, and that is wonderful, but I personally think it should be made so that these good breeders are the only breeders who can show.


You could look at a dog and tell it has a heart condition could you? :confused1:


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I dont agree with showing dogs in poor health. I am sure I posted on this thread (in the early pages) saying that I would rather show a dog that is slightly taller than breed average height than a dog in poor health.
> 
> However the level of healthy dog's being shown outweighs those in poor health since alot of show breeders have health test results on the internet for all to see.


Exactly, outweighs it, but doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. That's my point. It does, and people on here are making a big scream about it not doing, when there's no point denying it.

Dogs can be bred unhealthy be it pedigree, cross or whatever.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Tapir said:


> Do dogs HAVE to be health tested to show? Do you think it'd be a good idea to maybe make it so that the dogs MUST be health tested before showing, and the judge should have access to this information? Like you say in many cases, this happens, but should it be compulsary?


If I ran the kennel club I would force anyone showing/breeding to health test.



Horse and Hound said:


> Exactly, outweighs it, but doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. That's my point. It does, and people on here are making a big scream about it not doing, when there's no point denying it.
> 
> Dogs can be bred unhealthy be it pedigree, cross or whatever.


I never said that pedigree's couldnt be unhealthy....did I?:confused1:


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> Ah, so your guessing it applies for all breeds :thumbup:


Where did I say it applied to all breeds? Feel free to quote me.



> I said in a previous post, any GOOD breeder of pugs is xraying their dogs and have been for a long time,


No. what you said in your previous post is that "most" pug breeders were testing for hemi-vertebra. I meant to ask at the time how you could know this to be true. Do you also undertake genetic testing for dengerative myelopathy? I ask because there is a test available but you haven't mentioned it?



> You see, people who know their breeds dont need a sensationalised TV programme to tell them whats right for their dogs :lol:


Laugh away but wouldn't you agree that Beverly Costello "knew her breed"? She was certainly very sucessful in it. Would you not also agree that she could have benefited from some instruction in what is right?



> The breed club are also pushing for it to be a recommended health test from the KC and again, have been for some time


Presumably you mean that the club has been pushing the KC to include it in the recommended tests for their Accredited Breeder Scheme. Are you saying that the KC have been resisting this for some time despite the club's willingness? Have the club implemented it for their own membership?


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Jess2308 said:


> You could look at a dog and tell it has a heart condition could you? :confused1:


No, nor can you look at it and tell that it doesn't.

And that's the point.

Shetland Lover is right, the health of the dog should matter most, not if it "looks" right.

But some showers, argue all you want, won't think like that.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Tapir said:


> Do dogs HAVE to be health tested to show? Do you think it'd be a good idea to maybe make it so that the dogs MUST be health tested before showing, and the judge should have access to this information? Like you say in many cases, this happens, but should it be compulsary?


I know thats not directed at me, but I personally believe dogs should have to pass certain health tests relevant to their breed before being allowed to be registered. Ideally we would have the american style registery where the dogs could be put on a show/working/breeding registry if health tests are good and just on a pet/neuter registry if not. Poor test results doesnt automatically mean poor breeding, it can be environmental factors that cause it, especially with things like HD/ED but I do believe that the KC could do more to ensure dogs are tested. That sort of scheme would make sure that everything in the ring and working is healthy. At the moment theres nothing, anyone can show any dog, thats why you have to rely on breeders honesty, BUT health test results are now published on the KC website for all to access so its easy to see who is and isnt testing.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> If I ran the kennel club I would force anyone showing/breeding to health test.
> 
> I never said that pedigree's couldnt be unhealthy....did I?:confused1:


No hun, I'm simply pointing out that some people are saying that show dogs are healthy and the programme was completely wrong.

I didn't see it, I refused to watch it.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Tapir said:


> I see. I knew that many, if not most breeds of dog are susceptiable to HD and ED, but I did believe labs were quite high on the list. Thanks for explaining.


Labs will be high on the list, for another very obvious reason, there are more of them than any other breed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a high percentage of Labradors develop HD and/or ED


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Jess2308 said:


> BUThealth test results are now published on the KC website for all to access so its easy to see who is and isnt testing.


But I think the issue I'm getting at is are those NOT testing still allowed to show?

IMHO they shouldn't be.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Where did I say it applied to all breeds? Feel free to quote me.
> 
> *You said that the show had increased health testing.*
> 
> ...


*The breed club recommend x raying for hemivertebra for all their members. I dont know why the KC have not included it, i am not on the clubs health committee so only know what i read in the clubs publications and the breed notes. But, it is known that the club want this to be made a recommended health test for ALL breeders (as HD, eye testing etc etc is for other breeds) with the KC and the results published as other breeds results are. I believe some of the problem is that it is currently unclear what the genetic link may be and, without a DNA test, there is no way of telling what dogs may carry the genes that may cause it as the xray only shows whether a dog is affected or not. There is argument that it is not genetic at all and is just a deformity that happens when the pup is growing in the womb. There is currently a lot of research being done into it, I imagine that is contributing to the KCs resistance as they need more definitive information about the problem.*


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> But I think the issue I'm getting at is are those NOT testing still allowed to show?
> 
> IMHO they shouldn't be.


Yes at the moment anyone can show. But without bringing in different registry levels as I said, i cant see how it can be policed.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Tapir said:


> Where did I say I could...?
> A vet could, and I think this information should be available to judges.


:lol:

A vet cant diagnose a heart condition just from looking at the dog!!

I have had heart testing done on dogs and it requires a proper test


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> Thanks for that, that's what I was wondering about how they do become a so called pedigree or whatever eventually.
> 
> Is it the same with any cross, say for instance if Roo was entire and I put him to a pedigree westie? :confused1:


IMO They will nevefr become registered as there are too many people breeding and selling simply for the money now. Here is a link on how a new breed is recognised
Recognition of new breeds - The Kennel Club


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Jess2308 said:


> Yes at the moment anyone can show. But without bringing in different registry levels as I said, i cant see how it can be policed.


You register for a show, you have to produce the documents to prove health tests before you are allowed/sent your tickets or whatever else it is that you get sent.

I don't see what's hard to police about it?


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

gladass said:


> IMO They will nevefr become registered as there are too many people breeding and selling simply for the money now. Here is a link on how a new breed is recognised
> Recognition of new breeds - The Kennel Club


Thanks for that! Off to have a look!


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> You register for a show, you have to produce the documents to prove health tests before you are allowed/sent your tickets or whatever else it is that you get sent.
> 
> I don't see what's hard to police about it?


What about puppies? Many health tests cant be done before 1 year, some before 2years...

It would be difficult to have one rule for some breeds and one for others.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Tapir said:


> Oh I know...I didn't mean a vet can just look and know! I think all dogs should be tested for things like that. That was only an example as I remembered a Cav on PDE won shows and was used as a stud even after discovering a heart condition.


Yes, that is a disgrace to the breeder and the breed as a whole as there are many good cav breeders who genuinely care about the breed. That person obviously doesnt.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Jess2308 said:


> What about puppies? Many health tests cant be done before 1 year, some before 2years...
> 
> It would be difficult to have one rule for some breeds and one for others.


Why would you have one rule for one and one for others? You see what health checks should be done for those dogs and make sure they are done.

Puppies, ok fair enough. You produce certs that show lineage, which show parents tests. Then you can show until they can be Health checked, but once old enough should be Health Checked, as I presume no breeder of those pups would breed anyway without doing the health checks, if what people are saying is true, so they won't mind, surely.

I don't think it would be hard to enforce and if everyone is in it for the right reasons, then they wouldn't object, IMHO. I know I wouldn't.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> *You said that the show had increased health testing.
> *


Which it has. I didn't say it applied to all breeds so you are incorrect to say that I was guessing that it did so.



> *I know that most good breeders (which is what i said) are testing*


That's not what you said (it appears I am more attentive to your posts than you are to mine). You didn't mention the word 'good', you said...



Jess2308 said:


> *Most pug breeders are now testing for hemivertebra *.


Anyhoos, from your answer it now appears that what you meant was 'most of the pug breeders you know' or 'most of the pug breeders in your club' both of which is somewhat different to 'most pug breeders'.

Thank you for the interesting take on hemi-vertebra. Much more informative than the Pug Dog Club's website which doesn't appear to mention it at all.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

A hell of a lot of people who show don't breed though ? Me included? What would be the point in having to have all show dogs health tested before they are allowed to be shown? You couldn't even do that in many breeds until they were at least 18 months. Most dogs who are shown are health tested anyway - in fact, i literally do not know of any in Alaskan Malamutes and Newfoundlands who are shown and are not health tested unless they are too young . All the health test results are then put on the KC database whether the owners like it or not, for all to see so that everyone knows. You may not be able to tell if a dog has a heart issue from looking at it, but thats one of the few things you can't judge from looking at it and going over the dog. Personally, I think the KC should refuse to register litters from parents whos test results are over the average for that specific breed. As for the bulldogs who apparently cannot breathe, I have met many at dog shows and they have never looked in any discomfort to me - been quite happy to bounce about with the malamute.

Elmo - You know 800 doodle owners? Running a doodle forum or whatever you do does not constitute knowing someone imo. People can and do very easily lie on forums as i'm sure you are aware. If you know so many why can't you give me some examples of people who breed them reputably. I'm still finding that concept very difficult to grasp. 

The fact of the matter is that people who want doodles want them because they look different and are apparently 'unique' when the reality is like any dogs of similar breeding they look very similar and aren't all that unique - they are pretty common imo. No different from people who are breeding for a certain look or type that they believe will do well in the show ring - expect the majority of these breeders are reputable, the cross breeders are not. Yes there are a minority of breeds in which there are certain people who have a different perspective of the breed standard and are breeding towards that perspective which is resulting in dogs with health problems. Not everyone in those breeds. A lot of the breeds which people are believing to be unhealthy due to the show ring are actually extremely healthy dogs and its the pet, byb and puppy farmers who seem to be breeding the ones with the most serious health and temperment problems. 

The show did raise awareness in a very minimal number of breeds, but most of the dogs they used as examples weren't even KC registered. Clearly not the work of a show breeder. At the end of the day the show was created for entertainment, for the shock factor. Although it may have done some good in breeds such as the cavilier, it has done a world of damage in pushing people towards bad breeders and giving those breeders a gimmick. Health issues go on in both pedigree and cross breed - the difference as I have said many a time, there are much much more people health testing and attempting to better their breed with every mating in pedigrees than in cross breeds. That is the problem most people have with them, not the dogs in question, just like that's the problem people have with pedigree breeders who do not health test.

I don't understand half the people on this forum. They apparently care about dogs, but it appears to me they only care about their own dogs. They are happy to shut their eyes to the dog problems of the world that me as a market for breeders have created. WE are the problem because we continue to buy from unethical breeders. Horse and Hound, you seem to be one of a minority because you are the only person who has justified (for want of a better word) your dogs breeding. Everyone complains when someone comes on and says oh ive bred my cokalabpoo to next doors labradoodle and other people go through them for it, because it has been done unethically ect. Although there are ways to say things there is no point in sugar coating it - bad breeding in bad breeding and we as consumers have to avoid that as much as possible. It does my head in when someone pops up on here with a puppy from unhealth tested parents from the breeder 10 mins up the road after saying a week earlier they were looking into reputable kc reg pedigree breeders. It's laziness and lack of research. People keep going on about all these unhealthy pedigrees, when there are actually very few unhealthy pedigrees. Yes there has to be something done about those few and it is being done. Oh and didn't that programme say you would be lucky to find any cavilier in the uk that didnt have that illness to some degree? That says to me that it quite clearly is not only the show breeders problem.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> A hell of a lot of people who show don't breed though ? Me included? What would be the point in having to have all show dogs health tested before they are allowed to be shown? You couldn't even do that in many breeds until they were at least 18 months. Most dogs who are shown are health tested anyway - in fact, i literally do not know of any in Alaskan Malamutes and Newfoundlands who are shown and are not health tested unless they are too young . All the health test results are then put on the KC database whether the owners like it or not, for all to see so that everyone knows. You may not be able to tell if a dog has a heart issue from looking at it, but thats one of the few things you can't judge from looking at it and going over the dog. Personally, I think the KC should refuse to register litters from parents whos test results are over the average for that specific breed. As for the bulldogs who apparently cannot breathe, I have met many at dog shows and they have never looked in any discomfort to me - been quite happy to bounce about with the malamute.
> 
> Elmo - You know 800 doodle owners? Running a doodle forum or whatever you do does not constitute knowing someone imo. People can and do very easily lie on forums as i'm sure you are aware. If you know so many why can't you give me some examples of people who breed them reputably. I'm still finding that concept very difficult to grasp.
> 
> ...


I agree with you but hope you aren't going to be ranting like this at ringcraft tonight with our inbred, deformed, ruined by a breed standard dogs :lol:


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

CheekoAndCo said:


> I agree with you but hope you aren't going to be ranting like this at ringcraft tonight with our inbred, deformed, ruined by a breed standard dogs :lol:


No I think I may have got it out my system, your ears are safe tonight :lol:.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> A hell of a lot of people who show don't breed though ? Me included? What would be the point in having to have all show dogs health tested before they are allowed to be shown? You couldn't even do that in many breeds until they were at least 18 months. Most dogs who are shown are health tested anyway - in fact, i literally do not know of any in Alaskan Malamutes and Newfoundlands who are shown and are not health tested unless they are too young . All the health test results are then put on the KC database whether the owners like it or not, for all to see so that everyone knows. You may not be able to tell if a dog has a heart issue from looking at it, but thats one of the few things you can't judge from looking at it and going over the dog. Personally, I think the KC should refuse to register litters from parents whos test results are over the average for that specific breed. As for the bulldogs who apparently cannot breathe, I have met many at dog shows and they have never looked in any discomfort to me - been quite happy to bounce about with the malamute.
> 
> Elmo - You know 800 doodle owners? Running a doodle forum or whatever you do does not constitute knowing someone imo. People can and do very easily lie on forums as i'm sure you are aware. If you know so many why can't you give me some examples of people who breed them reputably. I'm still finding that concept very difficult to grasp.
> 
> ...


Lovely post. Regarding people also saying Pedigree Dogs are unhealthy etc... Maybe if Crossbreed owners and Breeders health tested and results available like Pedigree ones the true statistics re the unhealthy/ healthy debate would be interesting imo as I know quite a few oodles suffering from HD etc..


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> A hell of a lot of people who show don't breed though ? Me included? What would be the point in having to have all show dogs health tested before they are allowed to be shown?


Because I don't believe that you should be allowed to show dogs that are unhealthy/something wrong. Eeryone is going on about not breeding from them, but people do, sad fact, and to me it doesn't sit right that you can go to a show and get congratulated for having an unhealthy dog. Perhaps the other way round it, like you say, is to refuse to KC register litters from un health checked parents, that way you couldn't show then. That could work, maybe? I dunno, I just don't like the idea that dogs can be shown if unhealthy. If everyone was as responsible as you then fine, but they are not and that is personally why the whole showing/kc registering thing doesn't sit right with me. Because people do these things doesn't mean their dogs are well, if that makes sense.



Fuzzbugs!x said:


> It's laziness and lack of research.


Perhaps to some extent, yes it is. But for me I still stand by what I said. Had I known better, perhaps I would have done things differently. BUT I wouldn't change or go back though for the world because I wouldn't have Rupert. I can understand how frustrating it must be for you and those that breed but I still maintain that jumping on people's backs for buying a puppy and calling them irresponsible and suggesting they don't care about dogs is not the way to do it, all you'll do is get their backs up. At the end of the day the people that anger should be directed at is the scummy BYBs, (in ALL breeds, pedigree or not) that breed. Its ok saying that "if people stopped buying from them they'd give up" but they shouldn't be allowed to even enter the market in the first place. And to be perfectly honest, I went to a puppy farm, I'd want to get a pup to take it out of the horrible place, I couldn't walk away and leave it there, I'd be heart broken. They'd get a piece of my mind and reporting though.

Put it this way, you don't know any better. You see KC registered labs at £300 or KC reg ones at £400. You don't care about show lines or what not, you just want a lab. 9 out of 10 will go for the cheaper lab. Its the way people work. 
Education is the way forward, not condeming someone for something they have done. You learn from your mistakes, can't before you make any.

There are things that need stopping yes, but venting at people who buy their dogs as pets and want a dog to love, for whatever their reason, is in my opinion misplaced anger.

Oh, and re your comment about "all they seem to care about is their own dogs" well sorry, but my dogs come first. I would do anything I could to ensure my dogs are happy, healthy and loved, come hell or high water. And I would put them before anyone elses. If another dog had an illness that Roo/Harvey had and there was only one available cure left, I'd want them to have it! Not because I don't care about any other dog, but because I care for mine more. That's the way it works and hands on heart tell me you wouldn't do the same?


----------



## Luvdogs (Aug 15, 2008)

Tapir said:


> Do dogs HAVE to be health tested to show? Do you think it'd be a good idea to maybe make it so that the dogs MUST be health tested before showing, and the judge should have access to this information? Like you say in many cases, this happens, but should it be compulsary?


No you don't have to have health test to show, but not everyone that shows breeds also, to some it's a hobby.
Someone in my breed wins well but he has a above average hip score, he has never been used at stud....that's called being responsible.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Well i certainly do care how dogs are bred, ok i had 2, 1 now my eldest from unhealth tested parents, was i ignorant? Yes i had no idea about it, we all live and learn, i was on the recieving end of a very or should i say extremely badly bred dog(temprement wise) not health wise and had the heartbreaking decision to make of having him pts at 1 year old, what a waste,(just to add we did manage to rehome him)
I have demonstrated many times at a pet supermarket that use puppy farms in Wales and Ireland. So i am not uncaring about how dogs are bred.

The reason i have to a point "sat on the fence" on this thread is because i dont believe in people throwing 2 dogs together to see what they end up with, dont health test, give it a fancy name and charge big bucks, then silly owners buy them because they are different. But i do believe and it cant be proven otherwise that there are crossbreed breeders that do care ime sure and they dont just throw a silly combination together, they do health test and not all crossbreed owners buy them for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> Because I don't believe that you should be allowed to show dogs that are unhealthy/something wrong. Eeryone is going on about not breeding from them, but people do, sad fact, and to me it doesn't sit right that you can go to a show and get congratulated for having an unhealthy dog.
> 
> Perhaps the other way round it, like you say, is to refuse to KC register litters from un health checked parents, that way you couldn't show then. That could work.


Well exactly! If the kc refuse to register litters from parents with poor health test results, it will teach the rest not to breed from unhealthy parents and the dogs will never see the show ring, they will only be able to go to pet homes.

The thing is though, I know in most breeds there will be people who show their dog and they turn out not to have the best health test results. They will not breed from this dog as the results are available for everyone to see and it would ruin their reputation. However, you do get the occasional idiot who will breed from it and thats where all the problems start. I do agree with you and don't think unhealthy dogs should be show, you can occasionally get a dog from the best health lines ever that will end up with a higher hip score ect. It would be a shame for a breeder not to be able to showcase what their lines can do simply because of a health test result which may not necessarily affect the dogs movement ect - although i don't think the dog should ever be bred from, they should be allowed to exhibit their lines. Maybe the KC could refuse to register any litters from those dogs? x


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Tapir said:


> No one has said that at all.


People have said that pedigrees are inbred and that breed standards have ruined breeds.

Was a joke between friends anyway :thumbup:


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Luvdogs said:


> No you don't have to have health test to show, but not everyone that shows breeds also, to some it's a hobby.





Luvdogs said:


> Someone in my breed wins well but he has a above average hip score, he has never been used at stud....that's called being responsible.







Fuzzbugs!x said:


> you can occasionally get a dog from the best health lines ever that will end up with a higher hip score ect. It would be a shame for a breeder not to be able to showcase what their lines can do simply because of a health test result which may not necessarily affect the dogs movement ect - although i don't think the dog should ever be bred from, they should be allowed to exhibit their lines. Maybe the KC could refuse to register any litters from those dogs? x


 
But to me that's wrong. You are showcasing a dog thats not fully right? I dont get it. With someone of fewer scruples, they could be used at stud, and advertised as being a top show dog. Its wrong in my opinion. 




CheekoAndCo said:


> People have said that pedigrees are inbred and that breed standards have ruined breeds.





CheekoAndCo said:


> Was a joke between friends anyway







Tapir said:


> No one has said that at all.


 
Well never mind Tapir you can join me and my ill bred, no purpose in life, un-justified cross for a wander in the field if you want


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Horse and Hound - I'm not saying it's something I would do, but showing is very much a hobby to a lot more people than you would think. They could even neuter the dog and still show it, then they would still be able to promote their lines and their breeding but not breed from that specific dog  x


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Horse and Hound - I'm not saying it's something I would do, but showing is very much a hobby to a lot more people than you would think. They could even neuter the dog and still show it, then they would still be able to promote their lines and their breeding but not breed from that specific dog  x


Maybe I don't get it then because I don't understand. I can't see how showing a less than perfect dog is right. Its not just down to the breeding issue, although thats a big one, showing a dog SHOULD mean its a perfect example of its breed.

If its not right, health wise, is it really?


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Maybe I don't get it then because I don't understand. I can't see how showing a less than perfect dog is right. Its not just down to the breeding issue, although thats a big one, showing a dog SHOULD mean its a perfect example of its breed.
> 
> If its not right, health wise, is it really?


So I should stop showing Blu because his back is a bit longer than it should be?

Even champions have faults.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Which it has. I didn't say it applied to all breeds so you are incorrect to say that I was guessing that it did so.
> 
> That's not what you said (it appears I am more attentive to your posts than you are to mine). You didn't mention the word 'good', you said...
> 
> ...


Good grief, dont you like to nitpick, what an arrogant attitude you have, I find you thoroughly unpleasant to talk to  Its fairly obvious from my previous and subsequent posts that i was referring to show breeders testing their pugs as thats pretty much all i've discussed  You knew that full well.

As I said, im actively involved in my breed, the pug show world is a relatively small community, we all know each other of know of each other. We talk a lot about health issues at shows, on forums and on FB so yes, I can safely say that most (show) pug breeders are proudly testing their breeding dogs.

Thank you for taking such an interest in my breed. The club website is rather poor and up until recently on the health section of the website did have a section all about HV. There have been some changes with the health committee and that section has since been taken down. But, as you are such an expert on all things pug im sure you have been keeping up to date on the current discussion in the dog press about the issue of hemivertebra where the breeds health representative (a qualified vet) was giving information on HV and how it affects pugs :thumbup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> But I think the issue I'm getting at is are those NOT testing still allowed to show?
> 
> IMHO they shouldn't be.


Ok, let's look at Labrador Retrievers as an example.

Hip scores - BMS is 15, what's the cut off point? Because this is a mean score, right, so it should be around that, so how far above is acceptable when taken into account with the rest of the dog?
Elbow grades - same as above, and much trickier, with a very small range of only four possible grades.
BVA current clear eye cert - easy, should have one, should pass 
PRA - as it's possible to eventually breed clear, from an affected status dog, how do you set any bench mark, you would have to allow any status to show and possibly breed in the future
CNM - more tricky, as many pups that have this don't survive, so carrier/clear status should only really be considered
EIC - test still being developed, carriers are known to collapse, and the exact cause/trigger and what happens isn't known, for that reason many choose not to use this test currently
Narcolepsy - not known to be a significant problem within the breed

Tests currently being developed:
Dwarfism
HC - test currently being developed, believed to affect a large proportion of the gene pool
Epilepsy - three different tests being developed possibly
Atypical collapse
PFK (Canine Phosphofructokinase) 
And also a heart condition that OFA are requesting samples for

All these tests have been developed by different companies.

So, how would you go about setting up a system of entry for Labrador Retrievers, based on that information about health tests?



Tapir said:


> Oh I know...I didn't mean a vet can just look and know! I think all dogs should be tested for things like that. That was only an example as I remembered a Cav on PDE won shows and was used as a stud even after discovering a heart condition.


I don't know this either, but can you tell me, how that stud dog was used, was he only used with bitches tested clear? He wasn't clinically affected himself, and it is possible with some conditions to breed clear from a condition, but obviously that should only be done, if the dog has proven it's worth, either showing, or working.



gladass said:


> Lovely post. Regarding people also saying Pedigree Dogs are unhealthy etc... Maybe if Crossbreed owners and Breeders health tested and results available like Pedigree ones the true statistics re the unhealthy/ healthy debate would be interesting imo as I know quite a few oodles suffering from HD etc..


Labradoodles do have a higher BMS than Labradors and Standard Poodles, but I can't for the life of me remember what it is.



Horse and Hound said:


> Because I don't believe that you should be allowed to show dogs that are unhealthy/something wrong. Eeryone is going on about not breeding from them, but people do, sad fact, and to me it doesn't sit right that you can go to a show and get congratulated for having an unhealthy dog. Perhaps the other way round it, like you say, *is to refuse to KC register litters from un health checked parents*, that way you couldn't show then. That could work, maybe? I dunno, I just don't like the idea that dogs can be shown if unhealthy. If everyone was as responsible as you then fine, but they are not and that is personally why the whole showing/kc registering thing doesn't sit right with me. Because people do these things doesn't mean their dogs are well, if that makes sense.
> 
> Perhaps to some extent, yes it is. But for me I still stand by what I said. Had I known better, perhaps I would have done things differently. BUT I wouldn't change or go back though for the world because I wouldn't have Rupert. I can understand how frustrating it must be for you and those that breed but I still maintain that jumping on people's backs for buying a puppy and calling them irresponsible and suggesting they don't care about dogs is not the way to do it, all you'll do is get their backs up. At the end of the day the people that anger should be directed at is the scummy BYBs, (in ALL breeds, pedigree or not) that breed. Its ok saying that "if people stopped buying from them they'd give up" but they shouldn't be allowed to even enter the market in the first place. And to be perfectly honest, I went to a puppy farm, I'd want to get a pup to take it out of the horrible place, I couldn't walk away and leave it there, I'd be heart broken. They'd get a piece of my mind and reporting though.
> 
> ...


The same argument applies really, as for show entry, and some breeds don't have any recommended health tests.

For the second bit in bold, I agree with you to a certain extent, but the vast majority of people don't do enough research, and even if they do, they still choose to support unethical breeders for their own reasons. It can work, you can educate people, I know because I've helped people find good breeders, and specific pups. I still have a friend who comes round with her chocolate Lab pup, to go for walks with me and my two girls, and I am so proud to say I helped her find her pup from a good breeder, who also happens to show. I'm not so proud to say, the majority of people turn down any offer of help, or go quiet when you tell them the breeder they've found isn't really all they hoped. The human race can be very selfish, and it's not fair that dogs suffer while we learn from our mistakes


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Maybe I don't get it then because I don't understand. I can't see how showing a less than perfect dog is right. Its not just down to the breeding issue, although thats a big one, showing a dog SHOULD mean its a perfect example of its breed.
> 
> If its not right, health wise, is it really?


I have a few dogs who arent "to standard" in terms of size or basic conformation, they have a few issues but are sound and healthy. I continue to show them at open shows because they love it and its my hobby. I would be very angry if someone told me i could no longer do this because they arent "perfect" 

And lets not forget, the individual judge is placing according _to his interpretation_ of the standard, so what is perfect to one judge might not be to another.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

CheekoAndCo said:


> So I should stop showing Blu because his back is a bit longer than it should be?
> 
> Even champions have faults.


Who has told you that Blu's back is a bit longer than it should be?


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> Maybe I don't get it then because I don't understand. I can't see how showing a less than perfect dog is right. Its not just down to the breeding issue, although thats a big one, showing a dog SHOULD mean its a perfect example of its breed.
> 
> If its not right, health wise, is it really?


Let me explain then. Say the breed average hip score is 15. No dogs with a hip score above that should be bred from imo. The dog in question, say a bitch, was kept by the breed and came from parents with hip scores of say 2 and 3. She does amazing in the ring as a puppy, maybe racks up a ticket and two reserves by the time shes 16 months old, when she goes to get her health tests done. She comes back as says 16/17. Perfect heart, cysturina clear, 0-0 elbows. All the litter mates are the same except their hip scores are below average. If it was my bitch, I wouldn't breed from her simply because she was above the breed average and I would just cut my loses. Do you think that dog shouldn't be allowed to step foot in the show ring? Remember a dog can have a hip score of 50 and it might never effect him in his life - the bitch in question could be the best mover anyone had ever seen in newfies. Do you think that dog doesn't deserve its place in the ring, if the owner agrees to never breed from her?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> How many times do I need to say this?
> 
> There are some many because they are from different countries. At the time these breeds were created importing was either not available or was to difficult to keep doing.
> 
> ...


Fine .. so we'll call all poodle crosses doodles (although the acronym doesn't work let's not trade grammar) so all types of sheepdog (including the various types in this country - you forgot to answer that one) are just called "sheepdog"...

... deal ?


----------



## Luvdogs (Aug 15, 2008)

CheekoAndCo said:


> So I should stop showing Blu because his back is a bit longer than it should be?
> 
> Even champions have faults.


Agree, the perfect dog has yet to be born.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Fine .. so we'll call all poodle crosses doodles (although the acronym doesn't work let's not trade grammar) so all types of sheepdog (including the various types in this country - you forgot to answer that one) are just called "sheepdog"...
> 
> ... deal ?


That's very poor reasoning, and you know it. The number of sheepdog breeds has been around for many years prior to the recent manufacturing of some of the 'oodle' breeds. They were bred to type individually, many without the knowledge of any other sheepdog types, and they fit their purpose for where they worked, the type of terrain and animal they were used to work with.

There's a vast difference there between that, and putting two dogs together, one of which happens to be a poodle, so you can add oodle to the end. That is a modern day phenomenon, and serves no purpose. Yes, it can be done in an ethical way, with health testing etc, but it still serves no purpose, except to supply the pet market, which is flooded with any number of puppies for sale past saturation point.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Who has told you that Blu's back is a bit longer than it should be?


A few people have. He's had it in one of his critques but the judge just said it was longer than her personal taste. One of the *oh so high and mighty* poodle people told me once it was too long but on Saturday he bet one of her pups :lol: He's not as square as he should be because of it but doesn't bother me. Rather a show dog a bit long in the back and have a life than a perfect one locked up in a kennel.

Oh I've been told the reason it's long is because I do agility so he has to stop that :lol:


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

CheekoAndCo said:


> A few people have. He's had it in one of his critques but the judge just said it was longer than her personal taste. One of the *oh so high and mighty* poodle people told me once it was too long but on Saturday he bet one of her pups :lol: He's not as square as he should be because of it but doesn't bother me. Rather a show dog a bit long in the back and have a life than a perfect one locked up in a kennel.
> 
> Oh I've been told the reason it's long is because I do agility so he has to stop that :lol:


:lol:

Is that how they made sausage dogs? Took normal dogs, did agility with them and they ended up long?? :lol:


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> :lol:
> 
> Is that how they made sausage dogs? Took normal dogs, did agility with them and they ended up long?? :lol:


Must be :thumbup: Been told he's a bit long since he was around 9 months old and he started agility at about 14 months old. Strange how his body adapted to something he hadn't even done!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> That's very poor reasoning, and you know it. .


Oh I'm sorry, and on a thread with so much well founded reasoning. It's as well founded as calling a rabbit catcher from Malta a "Pharaoh Hound"

You assume, as always, that because you have something, it is "established" (has been around for a long time), and you (not everyone) thinks it has a purpose then that's right. There seems to be a rather odd view that those of us who choose not to take what is on offer by a private club, are somehow ill intentioned. Generalisations substantiated by using "evidence" produced by said private club are then used as some form of proof when they are nothing of the sort.

Your breed (whatever that is) was started by putting two dogs together, not necessarily for ethical reasons (although you'll doubtless say it was) and without the benefit of any tests, any science and with numerous deformities along the way. You justify your position by using the word established... not convinced at all.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> Unless anyone has a Tardis?


Is that another of those designer dogs ?


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

I cant keep up with this thread now. Off to walk my mutant show dogs aka pugs and basenji.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Oh I'm sorry, and on a thread with so much well founded reasoning. It's as well founded as calling a rabbit catcher from Malta a "Pharaoh Hound"
> 
> You assume, as always, that because you have something, it is "established" (has been around for a long time), and you (not everyone) thinks it has a purpose then that's right. There seems to be a rather odd view that those of us who choose not to take what is on offer by a private club, are somehow ill intentioned. Generalisations substantiated by using "evidence" produced by said private club are then used as some form of proof when they are nothing of the sort.
> 
> Your breed (whatever that is) was started by putting two dogs together, not necessarily for ethical reasons (although you'll doubtless say it was) and without the benefit of any tests, any science and with numerous deformities along the way. You justify your position by using the word established... not convinced at all.


I really haven't got time to sit and look through the pharoah hound history and decide for myself whether or not it's true, if you do, then that's fine, I'd rather stick to the facts as they are 

Labrador Retrievers have been established for a long time, although not as long as other breeds, such as the Pharoah Hound 

Their history is documented, and easily traced, and no, they weren't the result of putting together two dogs, to produce a cross breed. This is old ground that you're digging up to try and be provocative, you know as I do, breeds were established by breeding to type. So many of the retrievers were bred together, as well as the input of other breeds, such as greyhound, collie, spaniel, setter etc, to end up with the type of dog, specific for a purpose. Labrador Retrievers were bred to be an all round retriever, and they have proven that, or haven't you ever seen the IGL Retriever Championships, which is predominantly Labrador Retrievers 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'numerous deformities', I've yet to see a two headed Labrador, and they are pretty healthy overall. What is the BMS of the Labradoodle by the way, I know it's higher than the Labrador Retriever, but can't remember off hand how much higher.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

CheekoAndCo said:


> A few people have. He's had it in one of his critques but the judge just said it was longer than her personal taste. One of the *oh so high and mighty* poodle people told me once it was too long but on Saturday he bet one of her pups :lol: He's not as square as he should be because of it but doesn't bother me. Rather a show dog a bit long in the back and have a life than a perfect one locked up in a kennel.
> 
> Oh I've been told the reason it's long is because I do agility so he has to stop that :lol:


What rubbish :lol:! Even if he is a bit long in the back like you said every dog has it's faults! I think he's gorgeous lols ! Barney is a very square dog but his faults are he has a few drop teeth (correct bite but two squinty teeth :lol, I would prefer him to have a bit of a shorter muzzle and he carries his tail too high  correct tail set, wrong carriage which is down to him the bugger lols! x


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I am feeling somewhat confused

People are pleased that their dogs are KC registered and recognised breed and are quick to tell us that are oodles aren't and never will be.

So they agree with all this dogs must " conform" and be " fit for function" and the breed standards.

Obviously because our oodles are not a breed we can't have a standard  and why are we breeding them anyway etc.... and having a pet dog is not good enough unless they are in the show or pulling something or hunting.

Then these standards are causing them problems in the show ring because it's down to interpretation.

So you only want the bits of the KC that fit your dog then?

So maybe then some of you agree that some ( not all) of the breed standards are down to aesthetics after all??

Otherwise for example cheeko's Blu would not be penalised for having what some are considering a longer back.

After all she has said he is fit and healthy.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I am feeling somewhat confused
> 
> People are pleased that their dogs are KC registered and recognised breed and are quick to tell us that are oodles aren't and never will be.
> 
> ...


Let's take the two things separately.

The breed standard is a blueprint for a dog, and describes a particular breed. It is open to interpretation, and that has been to the detriment of a minority of pedigree breeds in the past, and for those breeds, they are now hopefully moving away from any exaggerations that caused health issues.

Conformation issues, can and do cause health issues, so, for example, with Blu's back being slightly longer, if that 'type' of dog were rewarded consistently, a slightly longer back, may start to appear, and may become associated with back problems.

I gave an example earlier in the thread, about the conformation of the stifle/knee joint in Labradors, where too upright a conformation, leaves the dog more prone to cruciate injury, for that reason, a dog with correct angulation of the joint, would be placed above a dog with a straighter stifle, and rightly so.

Back to your cross breeds and various oodles, as I've stated many times before, numerous times on this thread, I do believe there is a place for the ethical breeding of some of the more popular of these breeds. No, you can't always say what you're going to get with them, there's a rescue Labradoodle looking for a home currently that I've seen, that looks 99% Labra and 1% doodle. The only way you may have a clue, is if you've used the same parents to breed from previously.

Ethical breeding is the way forward, for all dogs, and we are bound to differ on the exact limits of what is deemed acceptable, but are all, hopefully, pulling in the same general direction.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I am feeling somewhat confused
> 
> People are pleased that their dogs are KC registered and recognised breed and are quick to tell us that are oodles aren't and never will be.
> 
> ...


I don't know what your confused about, your post isn't really making much sense to me but i'll try and answer it as best I can!

You must know yourself that oodles will never be recognised because there are about 12 different oodles, and more depending on what people have decided to throw together or whatever unneutered dogs they may own. A new breed in my opinion should be carefully bred and it won't be just two breeds thats in it. It will take years and years to do and normally will be done by someone who wants a specific dog for a specific reason, a dog that is fit or fitter than others for a specific task. That hasn't happened in oodles, hence why they will probably always be a cross breed and not an official breed. You can have a standard all you want, but it will only ever be a cross breed standard - and I really do not mean any offence by that, i'm only telling the truth. It's the ethics of the breeders of many cross breeds that people have the problem with, as I have said time and time again - not the fact they are a cross, or the fact they cannot/will not be KC reg. Nothing to do with that at all.

Breed standards do not cause problems in breeds. A very select few judges and breeders interpretations cause problems in breeds. No breed standard calls for over exaggeration of any dog, although some breed standards have been/will be tweaked in order to emphasise the that fact, at the moment, the unhealthiest pedigree breeds would probably not even match their breed standard from my perception. You have to remember that this is the minority, so why would anyone be picking and choosing what 'fits' their dog ?

No, I don't know of a breed standard that is down to asthetics. Blue's back would not be penalised, he would not be removed from the ring because of it. It may lose him a first place if say the judge preferred a shorter back on a dog, but it would not seriously flaw his chances. Just like Barney's tail carriage would not flaw his chances seriously, but the judge may prefer better tail carriage. Only serious problems, would flaw a dogs chances in the ring.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Let's take the two things separately.
> 
> The breed standard is a blueprint for a dog, and describes a particular breed. It is open to interpretation, and that has been to the detriment of a minority of pedigree breeds in the past, and for those breeds, they are now hopefully moving away from any exaggerations that caused health issues.
> 
> ...


 Both us came to an agreement the other day on breeding and for me that still stands.

I have also said many times that I wish everyone could all work together so that both crosses and purebreeds can be bred without the need of this divided camp situation.

Sadly can't see it ever happening


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Not according to the history shown on the breed club website:
> 
> Breed History
> 
> I'm not sure why you come across as so vehement towards people, surely you are just as for ethical breeding as anyone else, it's just the details that differ?


And according to the Mitsubishi web site, Mitsubishi's are the best cars in the world.

A poster made the point that "Labradoodle" (an acronym) was invented simply sell dogs with the inference that pedigrees would not do that. I gave an example.

I also made the point that, despite protestations, we do not need x number of types of sheepdog (in this country before we go off on the "one for each country" tangent again).

You then infer that I am against ethical breeding despite my post having nothing to do with that subject.

I am for ethical breeding and I support this by only buying dogs from breeders who health test. I cannot put forward that argument on here because, as we all know, anyone who crosses cannot be ethical so therefore the default position is I support unethical breeding.

If I say my breeder has pedigrees for both parents and six generations + tests + DNA etc, I am told they are fake.

Yet.... you can support a private club that is told by those who breed a particular breed club.. "this is a pedigree dog". (I remember being told on here that the KC don't decide breed standards, they are told by the breed clubs). You then have (as supporters of the KC) the ultimate opportunity to regulate breeding by campaigning for enforced health tests, regulated breeding (and before you say that's impossible they manage it with cattle/sheep/pigs and there are a hell of a lot more of them than dogs) and ensuring a healthy future for all the breeds you insist we must buy (or go to the shelter) yet what do you do? Nothing you wait 138 years for a journo to take a poke at the KC .. then say that well we were already doing something about it then, when its revealed some of the info was wrong (from the mediano.. who would have thought..) youre all back on your heads.

So give me a glimmer of hope (and I know you cant copy and paste from the KC on here) but after all this time, show me one, just one breed standard that has mandatory health testing of any type.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> And according to the Mitsubishi web site, Mitsubishi's are the best cars in the world.
> 
> A poster made the point that "Labradoodle" (an acronym) was invented simply sell dogs with the inference that pedigrees would not do that. I gave an example.
> 
> ...


Where have I said you are against ethical breeding?

If you read my post a page or two back, it illustrates why mandatory health testing will not work, for pedigrees or cross breeds, it has to be a matter of breeders supporting appropriate tests, using them, and helping to educate the public. And that is something that the breed clubs state, it isn't, and shouldn't be in the Breed Standard.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

... that'll be a no then :frown:


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Personally I don't care about the "divided camp"! I have my purebreeds and my two lil crossbreeds and if folk don't like my Bruce and Britches it's of no concern to me whatsoever. I didn't get them to please all and sundry, just me and my family and that they do very nicely! 

I don't like anyone breeding for greed, cross or pure, at least my two came from homes who wanted a pup themselves - in Britches case two, so they weren't just greedy people. They came from loving family homes and neither have had a day illness in their (coming up) seven years.
Luck was obviously on my side the day I bought Bruce, as his sister has epilepsy but then so do many pure breds on this forum too, sometimes this can come out of the blue and of course is devestating! 

Long may Bruce "strutt his stuff" in front of my Mals and long may Britches be the sprightly little girl she is today, so many people have commented on how lovely they both are and I know that to be true, and that's all that matters. My dogs - my decision as to what I want, cross bred or pure bred - end of! 

I agree this cross breeding fad is a bit "hit and miss" as can be pure bred dogs in the wrong hands but I see many crosses when out who are way cute and very healthy. Just looking at my Dogs Today mag that arrived yesterday, I see in the A-Z of breeds that there are many pure breeds with health issues - out of 222, 49 breeds appear not to have health issues of some kind and that's probably because the data hasn't been updated for a while. I wonder how many health issue threads on here are about cross breeds - will have a search and try to find out.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> The puppy farmers and BYB's must have been rubbing their grubby hands together when they watched it. It did way more harm than good sadly
> 
> Well done Jemima


My sentiments exactly. No-one has single-handedly done more damage to dogs and dogs' welfare in this century - or done more to line the pockets of for BYBs and puppy farmers - than Jemima Harrison. Well - and to get back to the original point of this thread - she has now shown herself up for what she really is, and lost what little credibility she had in the first place.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Did the programme actually maintain that show bred pedigree dogs are less healthy than non-show bred pedigree dogs? If so I must of missed it. If not then why critise the programme for a position it did not hold?


The program most definitely led people to believe that all KC registered dogs, in fact all pedigree dogs, are inbred and unhealthy - and if you doubt that, you only have to look at posts on here from Tapir, Cockerpoo, Elmo and the like to see that they are most definitely of that opinion. And this is just one forum, and almost three years since the program - that's three years of knowledgeable people posting the truth, and still they hold this opinion from watching the program.

So, given that the program turned the public against pedigree dogs and the good KC breeders - where are they going to go to buy their pets? Who is left? Only puppy farmers and BYB's. Sadly, that is the true legacy of the program. 

Wouldn't it have been so much better if Jemima had researched properly, and had been less worried about using shock horror tactics to up her ratings and more worried about presenting the truth? If she had said that it was happening, but also explained about all the good, healthy pedigrees and all the good pedigree breeders, she would not only have had the support of all such breeders, but she would have educated the public into buying from the good breeders. What a wasted opportunity - and what a shame for the millions of poor dogs that will be bred and suffer in puppy farms as a result of the public demand she created with her program.

Hopefully for the dog world, now that she has been given enough rope with which to hang herself, and now that she has obliged by doing it so spectacularly, she will move her attentions elsewhere.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> Yes at the moment anyone can show. But without bringing in different registry levels as I said, i cant see how it can be policed.





Horse and Hound said:


> You register for a show, you have to produce the documents to prove health tests before you are allowed/sent your tickets or whatever else it is that you get sent.
> 
> I don't see what's hard to police about it?





Tapir said:


> Where did I say I could...?
> A vet could, and I think this information should be available to judges.


From 2012, winners from the high profile breeds (ie the ones that have been highlighted as a breed with possible health problems) are going to be tested by a vet at championship shows (including Crufts) *before* they can accept their win:

Vet checks for high profile breeds at Crufts 2012 and Championship Shows thereafter | Crufts presented by the Kennel Club


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> That's very poor reasoning, and you know it. The number of sheepdog breeds has been around for many years prior to the recent manufacturing of some of the 'oodle' breeds. They were bred to type individually, many without the knowledge of any other sheepdog types, and they fit their purpose for where they worked, the type of terrain and animal they were used to work with.
> 
> There's a vast difference there between that, and putting two dogs together, one of which happens to be a poodle, so you can add oodle to the end. That is a modern day phenomenon, and serves no purpose. Yes, it can be done in an ethical way, with health testing etc, but it still serves no purpose, except to supply the pet market, which is flooded with any number of puppies for sale past saturation point.


Agree totally - except that I'm not sure he does know it is poor reasoning . Differnt types of sheepdog do different types of work. I own two types of sheepdog - border collies and bergamaschi. Border collies are herders. Bergamaschi can herd, but are primarliy guards and guardians.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> cannot put forward that argument on here because, as we all know, anyone who crosses cannot be ethical so therefore the default position is I support unethical breeding.


That's not true - there are plenty of ethical breeders who are breeding crosses. GDBA for one and plenty breeding lurchers and terriers for working that know a huge amount about the dogs they are breeding.



> If I say my breeder has pedigrees for both parents and six generations + tests + DNA etc, I am told they are fake


Well, they could well be, but they could be genuine too. It's a bit irrelevant because there are pedigree breeders that give fake papers. There are a number of breeders who have found thier dogs listed in pedigrees that are not progeny of the pups. KC registration while not foolproof is the best system we currently have, but anyone can write a pedigree made up of dogs that have nothing to do with those that have been bred. The www has made this even easier because so much information is readily available.



> but after all this time, show me one, just one breed standard that has mandatory health testing of any type.


Why should health testing be part of a breed standard.  - I think you may have lost the plot!


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> ... that'll be a no then :frown:


No what?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> That's not true - there are plenty of ethical breeders who are breeding crosses. GDBA for one and plenty breeding lurchers and terriers for working that know a huge amount about the dogs they are breeding.
> 
> Well, they could well be, but they could be genuine too. It's a bit irrelevant because there are pedigree breeders that give fake papers. There are a number of breeders who have found thier dogs listed in pedigrees that are not progeny of the pups. KC registration while not foolproof is the best system we currently have, but anyone can write a pedigree made up of dogs that have nothing to do with those that have been bred. The www has made this even easier because so much information is readily available.
> 
> Why should health testing be part of a breed standard.  - I think you may have lost the plot!


The first two points were simple irony - that's exactly what I have been told on here... so I stopped protesting and just kinda laughed at it. Whatever rationale I put forward is immediately 'rebutted' with nonsense... like "well the pedigrees must be fake" and "you cannot be an ethical crossbreeder because crossbreeding itself is unethical"... you may not have seen these comments.

You don't think dogs should be health tested then? You think that breeding should be allowed without testing.... not sure its me with a missing cabal.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No what?


.. no Elmo, nothing has been done by the KC or breed clubs to enforce health testing


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> You don't think dogs should be health tested then? You think that breeding should be allowed without testing.... not sure its me with a missing cabal


I never said that - I said why would you have health testing as part of the breed standard.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Both us came to an agreement the other day on breeding and for me that still stands.
> 
> I have also said many times that I wish everyone could all work together so that both crosses and purebreeds can be bred without the need of this divided camp situation.
> 
> Sadly can't see it ever happening


Most poodles that take part in agility have longer backs because it's actually better for the equipment and turning etc.

Can't say too much about it just now.. But there is a group of us going to get our poodles doing working trials to try pursude the KC to allow us to do gundog trials also and create lines that will do well in the ring aswell as working. Plan is to make them a working breed again


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> .. no Elmo, nothing has been done by the KC or breed clubs to enforce health testing


Did you not read my post about the breed clubs that promote appropriate health tests for specific breeds then?

I note you've declined to give the BMS for hip scores for Labradoodles, never mind, I'll phone a friend


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I note you've declined to give the BMS for hip scores for Labradoodles, never mind, I'll phone a friend


Can't remember offhand, but I know it's higher than a labrador


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Can't remember offhand, but I know it's higher than a labrador


It most definitely is, and I believe, higher than that of Standard Poodles, although could be wrong on the latter. Have sent a message to a friend who knows his stuff about dog health.

Edited to add, had an interesting email conversation with Bill Lambert today, about the ABS, and health testing. Very approachable guy, and good to see they are being proactive about the scheme.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tapir said:


> I have never stated that opinion - in fact made it quite clear that I understood that what was exposed by PDE was only true with some circumstances.


Sorry - the post below - where you said that the program was enlightening and outed the truth about many breeders - must have somehow confused me into believing you thought the program told the truth in most circumstances. 



Tapir said:


> I thought the programme was very enlightening. I think it outed the truth about MANY breeders and the breed standards of the KC.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> The program most definitely led people to believe that all KC registered dogs, in fact all pedigree dogs, are inbred and unhealthy.


I watched that programme and I certainly didn't get that impression at all - not in the slightest. In fact she continues to state how breeds shapes have been altered in the Feb edition of Dogs Today magazine - the breeds she mentions:* EBT* head shape - *Shar Pei* more wrinkles - *Dachshunds* shorter legs, totally different than they originally were, and no change as drastic as the *Pug* and *Bulldog*, although the *Basset* has also changed drastically too.
In the programme she mentioned certain breeds but I did not hear her say that *all* pedigree/KC regd dogs were affected and she didn't give that impression to me - uness I fell asleep, which I don't think I did, lol. To make such a statement would be ridiculous IMO and I doubt she would do that!

This months dog in crisis in her Dogs Today article is the Shar Pei, and it is totally different to how it originally was. Doesn't look right at all, where as before it was a striking dog!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I watched that programme and I certainly didn't get that impression at all - not in the slightest. In fact she continues to state how breeds shapes have been altered in the Feb edition of Dogs Today magazine - the breeds she mentions:* EBT* head shape - *Shar Pei* more wrinkles - *Dachshunds* shorter legs, totally different than they originally were, and no change as drastic as the *Pug* and *Bulldog*, although the *Basset* has also changed drastically too.
> In the programme she mentioned certain breeds but I did not hear her say that *all* pedigree/KC regd dogs were affected and she didn't give that impression to me - uness I fell asleep, which I don't think I did, lol. To make such a statement would be ridiculous IMO and I doubt she would do that!
> 
> This months dog in crisis in her Dogs Today article is the Shar Pei, and it is totally different to how it originally was. Doesn't look right at all, where as before it was a striking dog!


I'm chuckling away, it's the very breed that has got her into so much bother.

If you google 'pietoro dogs' it will bring up a photobucket account of various engravings, paintings and photos of dogs. Some have changed, some haven't. And even where some seem to have changed for the show ring, others are still the same for working, the Lab and spaniel varieties spring to mind immediately.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> To make such a statement would be ridiculous IMO and I doubt she would do that!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: sorry hun, not laughing at you - just laughing at the idea that a woman who deliberately tells lies about a breeder at an AGPAW seminar in the House of Commons would not do something ridiculous!


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

The labradoodle BMS is actually 14 which is 1 less than the labrador retriever. However, that is from a total number of 408 labradoodles scored compared to the number of purebred labs scored of 67,553.

(Those figures are as of October 2009 and came through on a hip scoring sheet from the end of last year so I dont know if the figures may be different but the KC have just not updated the forms they're sending out).


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jess2308 said:


> The labradoodle BMS is actually 14 which is 1 less than the labrador retriever. However, that is from a total number of 408 labradoodles scored compared to the number of purebred labs scored of 67,553.
> 
> (Those figures are as of October 2009 and came through on a hip scoring sheet from the end of last year so I dont know if the figures may be different but the KC have just not updated the forms they're sending out).


Ok, according to Mr Weller, the last figures he had were higher, so perhaps that's changed for the better? Which can only be a good thing if it's right.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It most definitely is, and I believe, higher than that of Standard Poodles, although could be wrong on the latter. Have sent a message to a friend who knows his stuff about dog health.
> 
> Edited to add, had an interesting email conversation with Bill Lambert today, about the ABS, and health testing. Very approachable guy, and good to see they are being proactive about the scheme.


Apparently it's 13, according to the link below:
UK Labradoodle Association • View topic - The Hip Score Question and What is a True Labradoodle?
So lower than the Lab *and* Poodle if the BVA have got it right!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Malmum said:


> Apparently it's 13, according to the link below:
> UK Labradoodle Association • View topic - The Hip Score Question and What is a True Labradoodle?
> So lower than the Lab *and* Poodle if the BVA have got it right!


See above


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Did you not read my post about the breed clubs that promote appropriate health tests for specific breeds then?
> 
> I note you've declined to give the BMS for hip scores for Labradoodles, never mind, I'll phone a friend


There's a lot of declining going on... I promote world peace but it doesn't happen.. now if I had the power to enforce it....

I don't breed Labradoodles so do not look at the hip scores (from the limited scores that are available because... oops.. no one enforces scoring).

They are doubtless higher than a Labrador but, as was said earlier on this thread it doesn't mean that the labs have higher incidences of HD, I've no doubt you'll tell me that it will mean that their will be higher instances in Labradoodles because they're a cross?

...BVA - found 'em
Labrador Retriever	16
Standard Poodle 15
Labradoodles 13

although as I found out with ED these scores are fairly meaningless as they do not detect many issues in both hips and elbows as they do not show up on xray.

Just to add... that post you link to is five years old... probably more done by now and a more accurate average (if you consider the method used accurate at all)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> There's a lot of declining going on... I promote world peace but it doesn't happen.. now if I had the power to enforce it....
> 
> I don't breed Labradoodles so do not look at the hip scores (from the limited scores that are available because... oops.. no one enforces scoring).
> 
> ...


Wow, you really have a chip on your shoulder don't you. Despite the fact I've said I'm not anti cross breeding per se, despite the fact, I've said, as long as health tests are done, and that it isn't just a huge churning out of litter after litter, you really know how to make yourself come across as the bad guy.

I haven't posted any link btw, with regards to hip scores, someone else may have, but I'm waiting to hear from someone I trust implicitly with regards to dog health. It might not be tonight, but I will post the information accurately, as it's sent to me.

What do you mean there's a lot of declining going on? It's really quite childish, there's no declining going on, only comprehensive explanations, which you are obviously unwilling to accept.

I thank the likes of cockerpoo lover, who, is at least willing to admit that many cross breeds are open to unethical breeding, the same as a number of pedigree breeds, but who at least is willing to debate the issue openly, rather than cast aspertions and post furtively.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If you google 'pietoro dogs' it will bring up a photobucket account of various engravings, paintings and photos of dogs. Some have changed, some haven't. And even where some seem to have changed for the show ring, others are still the same for working, the Lab and spaniel varieties spring to mind immediately.


Interesting to look through.
:thumbup:


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

The pietoro album is so fascinating. The difference is some breeds is astonishing yet others have barely changed


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Wow, you really have a chip on your shoulder don't you. Despite the fact I've said I'm not anti cross breeding per se, despite the fact, I've said, as long as health tests are done, and that it isn't just a huge churning out of litter after litter, you really know how to make yourself come across as the bad guy.
> 
> I haven't posted any link btw, with regards to hip scores, someone else may have, but I'm waiting to hear from someone I trust implicitly with regards to dog health. It might not be tonight, but I will post the information accurately, as it's sent to me.
> 
> ...


and the comprehensive explanation as to what the KC and breed clubs have done to enforce health testing was........nothing.

not being able to come up with smart answers to my queries does not mean I'm not entering into a debate, simply that I'm not as easily satisfied with one of your 'I can't answer this so I'll change the subject' or I'll say 'you have a chip on your shoulder'... ' I will post accurate information on hip scores' (why??). ... still missed the point though.

I'm happy to admit there are unethical breeders of all types I don't think I've said any different.. but... you (the KC / breed clubs) have the power to do something but *choose* to do nothing (other than recommend) we (not allowed in the club) who can do nothing because you won't let us in the gang (and that shouldn't infer we do actually want to be in the gang) are unethical... so..

*power to do something but do nothing = OK

*no power to do anything but daring to give our crosses a collective noun = spawn of the devil

(over dramatic I know but hey... live a little)...

... come across as the bad guy?....hmmm comes with the job I guess :thumbup:

.. sorry.. forgot to add... I liked the "be nice to one of the opposition to split them apart from the rest" ""I thank the likes of cockerpoo lover"""... team negotiations ..cool tactic (dated but cool)... used to teach that ones in the 80's


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> and the comprehensive explanation as to what the KC and breed clubs have done to enforce health testing was........nothing.
> 
> not being able to come up with smart answers to my queries does not mean I'm not entering into a debate, simply that I'm not as easily satisfied with one of your 'I can't answer this so I'll change the subject' or I'll say 'you have a chip on your shoulder'... ' I will post accurate information on hip scores' (why??). ... still missed the point though.
> 
> ...


What on earth are you on about, you seriously need to get a life! I am for the welfare of dogs, end of, I am not about petty arguments, splitting up factions etc, etc. You really have shown your character fully and truly with this post.

Did you not read my post about health testing and why it isn't enforceable, obviously not.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> What on earth are you on about, you seriously need to get a life! I am for the welfare of dogs, end of, I am not about petty arguments, splitting up factions etc, etc. You really have shown your character fully and truly with this post.
> 
> Did you not read my post about health testing and why it isn't enforceable, obviously not.


Sorry. you infer because you posted it it must be right. So there'e no need for me to read it. You just keeping trying to avoid the issue by continually saying "chip on your shoulder"..."get a life" etc etc

You think we should not try and enforce it.. fine. We disagree.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> *power to do something but do nothing = OK
> 
> *no power to do anything but daring to give our crosses a collective noun = spawn of the devil
> 
> ...


OMG - get a grip - this is a discussion on a forum not a war!  ut:

Shows your mind-set though, doesn't it? Careful Elmo, your mentality is slipping and allowing your ulterior motive to show ..................


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry. you infer because you posted it it must be right. So there'e no need for me to read it.


Need I say more really??


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I never said that - I said why would you have health testing as part of the breed standard.


... so no one would be able to breed from untested dogs, or show them etc... thus promoting good health.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Need I say more really??


You'll say what you've continually said.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> ... so no one would be able to breed from untested dogs, or show them etc... thus promoting good health.


What are you on about, have you not read my last several posts referring to how health tests cannot be benchmarked, there can't be a cut off point because of the very nature of some health tests?? Are you really showing your ignorance that much, or just trying to provoke??


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> What are you on about, have you not read my last several posts referring to how health tests cannot be benchmarked, there can't be a cut off point because of the very nature of some health tests?? Are you really showing your ignorance that much, or just trying to provoke??


Both  ...........


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You'll say what you've continually said.


Which makes a lot more sense than any of your recent postings, even by my own admission, after several glasses of red!!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Isn't it fun to have the fanatical crossbreed people back?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> Isn't it fun to have the fanatical crossbreed people back?


Funny you should say that, I'm 'fanatical' about Labrador Retrievers, but wouldn't dream of being so contrary, or rude, to someone else's dogs.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> Isn't it fun to have the fanatical crossbreed people back?


Well hun, it's funny you should mention that, cos I was thinking pretty much the same thing. And isn't it also funny how we all managed to discuss this subject quite amicably - both pro-crossbreeding and anti-crossbreeding - while they were away?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

You've been great fun while I've been working but as you're drifting off into to that great self congratulatory huddle as usual.... I'll leave you to it.

You remain as right and pure in your own world as when you started.

thankyou :thumbup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Well hun, it's funny you should mention that. And isn't it also funny how we all managed to discuss this subject quite amicably - both pro-crossbreeding and anti-crossbreeding - while they were away?


Except, remember, that's because I'm trying to split them up into factions


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Except, remember, that's because I'm trying to split them up into factions


Oh yeah, forgot about that, you naughty person you! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> ... so no one would be able to breed from untested dogs, or show them etc... thus promoting good health.


Why would having mandatory health tests in the breed standard stop people breeding? The only way to do that would be to make it law that you could nto breed unless the dam and sire were health tests! Plenty of breeders do not health test (breeders of both cross breeds and pedigrees).

Health tests have nothing to do with a breed standard and are irrelevant to the breed standard.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Oh yeah, forgot about that, you naughty person you! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Please, I'm trying not to chuckle, it's that hilarious!!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Except, remember, that's because I'm trying to split them up into factions





Spellweaver said:


> Oh yeah, forgot about that, you naughty person you! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Bull poo. I am all for cross breeding if health tests are done and they have the backing of breed clubs or the kennel club. Or at least have a database of health test results.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Please, I'm trying not to chuckle, it's that hilarious!!!


I'm literally laughing out loud, it's so ridiculous!

Anyway, I'm off to my bed - I'm up at 6 am tomorrow for a 13 hr shift  - it'll take me forever to catch up on this thread (unless Elmo finally manages to get it locked/removed  )

Play nicely until I get back on tomorrow night and remember - no splitting anyone else into factions! It can't be good for you! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Bull poo..


Coming up with new names?


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

CheekoAndCo said:


> Coming up with new names?


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Omg I didnt even think of that.

I guess that would be bull dog cross poodle? Or bull terrier cross poodle?


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
> Omg I didnt even think of that.
> 
> I guess that would be bull dog cross poodle? Or bull terrier cross poodle?


Both I guess :confused1:


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You've been great fun while I've been working but as you're drifting off into to that great self congratulatory huddle as usual.... I'll leave you to it.
> 
> You remain as right and pure in your own world as when you started.
> 
> thankyou :thumbup:


I couldn't care less if a dog is pure-bred or has 50 breeds in it's background. I don't even mind people crossbreeding if it's done right. Yes there are many many crappy breeders in both pure breds and crosses and there are many pure bred breeders that jump on the bandwagon and start breeding the popular breed of the minute. They aren't right either.

My issue is when people come in on either side and start arguing the second anyone mentions the word crossbreed good or bad.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> My issue is when people come in on either side and start arguing the second anyone mentions the word crossbreed good or bad.


I agree.
No one has said anything negative about cross breeds but the breeders and the way they are bred. If people could discuss it like we have been doing (before the petty posts) then the cross breed threads wouldnt get locked.
Notice how pedigree threads dont get locked? Because its a debate, everyone has a different opinion without point scoring.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Tapir said:


> I think it would be good practic to only let healthy dogs show.


Good idea. Now as you came up with the idea, you must have a way in mind of policing it? Please remember though that the KC cant and are NOT responsible in stating what health tests a breed should have thats down to the breed clubs, the KC merely just police and promote such things.
Also remember that there are many many many breeds out there that do not require any sort of health tests. To you would it be unfair to show one breed from 6months old (as it requires no health testing before breeding/showing) and then not be able to show another breed until 1 year because its a breed that requires a test, that can not be done to such an age? I fail to see how this would work, it most certainly would not stop the un ethical breeders, breeding from untested dogs. It would only stop the already decent breeders from getting their pups out to shows from an early age.

Nothing that has been suggested on this thread will rid the irresponsible breeders - the irresponsible breeders on this very forum have proved that ten thousand times over.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ok, these are the figures from someone I trust implicitly, who compiles health test results:

Its interesting that the latest figures have just been released Someone asked me about Labradoodles. This was what I wrote:-

The latest Breed Mean Hip Scores are now on the BVA web site and show that the Labrador mean score has dropped from 15 to 14. But the BVA has added new information onto the list this year, a mean of the last 5 years, which gives us a better guide to what dogs are scoring in recent years. This shows that Labs present average is 12!! Without being complacent we are not doing a bad job!

One other interesting point is Labradoodles. These have only been scored recently so their average is directly comparable to the Labrador 5 year average are in fact one point worse than Labradors at 13 compared with the Lab's 5 year average of 12. So much for hybrid vigour!

If anyone wants to know the source of this data, please pm me, and I'll pass your contact into along.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Good idea. Now as you came up with the idea, you must have a way in mind of policing it? Please remember though that the KC cant and are NOT responsible in stating what health tests a breed should have thats down to the breed clubs, the KC merely just police and promote such things.
> Also remember that there are many many many breeds out there that do not require any sort of health tests. To you would it be unfair to show one breed from 6months old (as it requires no health testing before breeding/showing) and then not be able to show another breed until 1 year because its a breed that requires a test, that can not be done to such an age? I fail to see how this would work, it most certainly would not stop the un ethical breeders, breeding from untested dogs. It would only stop the already decent breeders from getting their pups out to shows from an early age.
> 
> Nothing that has been suggested on this thread will rid the irresponsible breeders - the irresponsible breeders on this very forum have proved that ten thousand times over.


DD you are back?!!!!!:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Originally Posted by Tapir
> I think it would be good practic to only let healthy dogs show.


It would be good practice to only breed from health dogs too. It would be good if all dogs were healthy.

But, quite honestly, the information is all out there. Showing is showing, and remember not all people who show also breed. The most important function of health testing is in breeding. The health tests are on the KC data base and easily accessible. The required health tests can all easily be found by someone who is responsible, whether showing, working or pet owner. There really are no excuses not to do any research and find out.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Good idea. Now as you came up with the idea, you must have a way in mind of policing it? Please remember though that the KC cant and are NOT responsible in stating what health tests a breed should have thats down to the breed clubs, the KC merely just police and promote such things.
> Also remember that there are many many many breeds out there that do not require any sort of health tests. To you would it be unfair to show one breed from 6months old (as it requires no health testing before breeding/showing) and then not be able to show another breed until 1 year because its a breed that requires a test, that can not be done to such an age? I fail to see how this would work, it most certainly would not stop the un ethical breeders, breeding from untested dogs. It would only stop the already decent breeders from getting their pups out to shows from an early age.
> 
> Nothing that has been suggested on this thread will rid the irresponsible breeders - the irresponsible breeders on this very forum have proved that ten thousand times over.


Hear Hear!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Nothing that has been suggested on this thread will rid the irresponsible breeders - the irresponsible breeders on this very forum have proved that ten thousand times over.


Well said!


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

A question for those suggesting health testing should be "law" before showing.

Do you realise that would have a huge impact on companion shows (which are KC licenced and therefore would have the same stipulations placed on them) which are largely funded (from my experience of my local shows at least) by local people with their pet dogs who think it would be a fun day out. These shows usually donate any profits to charity so the loss of entries which would come from the so many people not being able to attend would affect a lot of people and undoubtedly see these fun shows no longer able to be put on.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

Tapir said:


> That doesn't just apply to cross breeds though, it's ALL dogs. There are terrible breeders of purebreed dogs too. The same can be said for pedigrees, no one has said anything negative about pedigrees, but SOME breeders and the way SOME are bred.


I think you will find me and all of the other pedigree owners taking part in this discussion have said time and time again (in other threads too) that there are some bad pedigree breeders to, however the fact of it is that if we discuss cross breeds (on this and every other thread before this) it turns ugly, petty and nasty usually on the part of the cross breed owners (I to own a cross breed) because they take a discussion as a personal attack which it is not.

We just want a nice discussion that includes cross breeds too.....


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

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


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Do the KC register litters which come from unhealth tested parents? If so, would you think that should change?


Yes they do - they register any dog that is eligible for registration (both parents KC regsitered, and dam complies with certain restrictions regarding age, number of litters etc).

I would like to see it change but can also see why they are not introducing it for the time being. The reason being that they do not want to create smaller gene pools than those that exist already. If compulsory health testing was brought in before registration, it would stop a lot of dogs being registered thus making gene pools smaller (as it has in Europe) which would not benefit the breeds. Having talked to Jeff Sampson about this, their thinking is to try and encourage people to health test, and introducing the ABS which does require litters come from health tested parents, they are hoping that more will health test. Having said that, compulsory health testing has been introduced for one breed, but this is a breed that is not a popular pet so not popular with puppy farmers and byb, almost all breeders were testing their dogs anyway, so it wouldn't have resulted in losing dogs from the gene pool once compulsory testing was introduced.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

[......................................................................


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

I personally am not a fan of the ABS, I think it needs to be rethought. In my breeds the biggest commercial breeders are members of the ABS and sell a lot of pups from publicising that as people think it makes them good breeders. Ok, they do the health testing, but it doesnt make the conditions they raise the dogs in any better. One breeder had 15 litters in one quarter last year apparently. I think the ABS puts too much emphasis on how many litters are born, you seem to get rewarded for the more litters you breed, and not enough on what the person is doing for the good of the breed.

Its not something I can see myself signing up to until some changes are made...


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

Jess2308 said:


> I personally am not a fan of the ABS, I think it needs to be rethought. In my breeds the biggest commercial breeders are members of the ABS and sell a lot of pups from publicising that as people think it makes them good breeders. Ok, they do the health testing, but it doesnt make the conditions they raise the dogs in any better. One breeder had 15 litters in one quarter last year apparently. I think the ABS puts too much emphasis on how many litters are born, you seem to get rewarded for the more litters you breed, and not enough on what the person is doing for the good of the breed.
> 
> Its not something I can see myself signing up to until some changes are made...


I know of at least 20 breeders who do all the health tests and are able to become accredited but dont because they dont agree with how real commercial breeders can become accredited and dont want to come under the same category.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I personally am not a fan of the ABS, I think it needs to be rethought.


I think of it as a work in progress - changes have already been made since it began and I have no doubt there will be more.

QUOTE] you seem to get rewarded for the more litters you breed, and not enough on what the person is doing for the good of the breed.[/QUOTE]

In what way? The current three 'recognitions' are more than three litters - indicating experience, breed club membership - indicating interest and having to abide by breed club rules, and breeding dogs that have achieved their stud book number - no mean feat they must be doing something right!
Its not something I can see myself signing up to until some changes are made...



> Its not something I can see myself signing up to until some changes are made...


That's a shame because you could do more within the system than by standing outside it and complaining.



> I know of at least 20 breeders who do all the health tests and are able to become accredited but dont because they dont agree with how real commercial breeders can become accredited and dont want to come under the same category


I know a few too, and I understand their feelings, but in order to push through changes they would be better off doing it within the system than outside of it. If a breeder is good, then they should have no worries. The way I see it is that these sorts of breeders are unlikely to need to be accredited breeders, however, the question is whether they want to get involved in change that will help their breed or whether they prefer to sit on the outside and complain.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I think of it as a work in progress - changes have already been made since it began and I have no doubt there will be more.
> 
> In what way? The current three 'recognitions' are more than three litters - indicating experience, breed club membership - indicating interest and having to abide by breed club rules, and breeding dogs that have achieved their stud book number - no mean feat they must be doing something right!
> Its not something I can see myself signing up to until some changes are made...
> ...


The accolade is actually for breeding at least 5 litters and I know plenty of wonderful breeders who have been showing/working/breeding for 20 years and not had 5 litters. Whereas a puppy farmer can gain that accolade in a couple of months...  And you can have bred as many litters as you want in the previous 12 months before an application, you just have to have a visit if you've bred more than 5  The local puppy farm is an accredited breeder which made me lose all faith in them. They say the breeders must follow the guidelines for the maximum number of litters, but that is only per bitch, they will happily allow a breeder under their scheme to register approx 60 litters a year  And, of course, breeders can use the "Accredited Breeders Scheme" name to give their breeding credibility without having gained any accolades at all. It would be interesting to know just how many members of the scheme have been awarded the other three accolades (Breed Club, Stud Book, Excellence)...

I dont see why I would want to become a member of a scheme that supports and rewards commercial breeders and puppy farmers? Its not something that interests me and like shetlandlover, I know plenty of breeders who think the same way. I have no desire to change the scheme, the Kennel Club set it up, they have been made aware of the concerns over it in the past, so its up to them to change it to attract more responsible breeders. Im not going to PAY the kennel club to become a member of a scheme I dont agree with. I am involved in my breed clubs and would prefer to "get involved in change" through them than through the ABS.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

I understand what you're saying and have some sympathies, but if you want change you get involved, you don't just stand outside and complain about it.

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning puppy farmers - puppy farmers don't health test.



> have no desire to change the scheme, the Kennel Club set it up, they have been made aware of the concerns over it in the past, so its up to them to change it to attract more responsible breeders. Im not going to PAY the kennel club to become a member of a scheme I dont agree with. I am involved in my breed clubs and would prefer to "get involved in change" through them than through the ABS.


The breed clubs *should* be working with the KC on the ABS. As I said, I understand and agree with your concerns, just get fed up with the continual belly aching from breeders that complain but sit back and do nothing.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I understand what you're saying and have some sympathies, but if you want change you get involved, you don't just stand outside and complain about it.
> 
> I'm not sure why you keep mentioning puppy farmers - puppy farmers don't health test.
> 
> The breed clubs *should* be working with the KC on the ABS. As I said, I understand and agree with your concerns, just get fed up with the continual belly aching from breeders that complain but sit back and do nothing.


Im not complaining, I am saying I would not sign up to it unless some changes were made to it. I am quite within my right to not join the scheme and to say why I wont join the scheme.

Do you not consider 60 litters a year to be a puppy farmer? :confused1: The breed in question has no recommended health tests so all the breeder has to do to adhere to the ABS rules is to microchip the pups and send them off with an appropriate puppy pack. It has caused much heated debate within the breed and is the reason why so many good breeders wont join - they quite rightly dont want to be put in the same category as a puppy farmer. I only have been told this through hearsay so dont know if its true, but apparently the breed club actually confronted the KC about this particular breeder as it is such a concern!! Yet, the KC do nothing...

And, like I said, the KC were made aware of the concerns that breeders had, they have made a few changes but nowhere near enough to give confidence in the scheme. It is not "bellyaching" to say that you dont like something if you can justify the reasons for it  Which i have done as eloquently as I can at this time of night!! I actually find that quite insulting that you consider me voicing concerns to be bellyaching, thats hardly fair.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tapir said:


> Not sure if that was aimed towards me at all, but seeing as I seem to have been put on the 'opposing side' (even though we are ultimately wanting the same thing  ) I will say that I thought Horse and Hound and myself have not been out of line in what we said...nothing derogitory to any of you, just our opinions and debating about how the health testing/showing situation.
> .


No hun, not aimed at you at all - our opinions may differ but our discussions have been amicable and friendly! :thumbup:


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

regardless of whether some information was incorrect or exaggerated, the state of some breeds in this country is a disgrace, and anyone pontificating regarding Ms Harrisons programme being lies is living in cloud cuckoo land. you dont need to be an expert to see german sheperds winning at crufts who are unable to run due to frogs legs and sloped backs, an exaggerated trait bred by show people and awarded prizes by show people. if the programme did nothing but give the kc a kick up the arse to sort this out then it was a good thing. Rome wasnt built in a day and it will take many years to rebuild a breed so i doubt it will ever happen. after all its the high ranking judges awarding prizes to dogs in the first place. as a dog lover all my life it pains me to see so many breeds in distress. infact my own breed the lab hasnt escaped the show curse. i do love these people say to me the words my dogs have beautiful conformation and is fit for purpose. my reply is usually can it do what it is bred for when it gets out of breath walking to its dinner bowl. that usually ends te conversation


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Statler said:


> i do love these people say to me the words my dogs have beautiful conformation and is fit for purpose. my reply is usually can it do what it is bred for when it gets out of breath walking to its dinner bowl. that usually ends te conversation


That's rather an exaggeration, you aren't Jemima are you :lol:

I don't show, no interest, but know a few people who do, a couple of them walk their dogs with us and while the dogs are successful in show ring I am told, they are all fit active dogs and one we see often is *gasp* a retired show pug


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

Statler said:


> i do love these people say to me the words my dogs have beautiful conformation and is fit for purpose. my reply is usually can it do what it is bred for when it gets out of breath walking to its dinner bowl. that usually ends te conversation


Mine can thanks.:thumbup:
And yes they can still herd. Infact my bitch's dad works. And my bitch as well as my two dogs will go up to scotland this year to learn the ropes on my uncles farm.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Statler said:


> regardless of whether some information was incorrect or exaggerated, the state of some breeds in this country is a disgrace, and anyone pontificating regarding Ms Harrisons programme being lies is living in cloud cuckoo land. you dont need to be an expert to see german sheperds winning at crufts who are unable to run due to frogs legs and sloped backs, an exaggerated trait bred by show people and awarded prizes by show people. if the programme did nothing but give the kc a kick up the arse to sort this out then it was a good thing. Rome wasnt built in a day and it will take many years to rebuild a breed so i doubt it will ever happen. after all its the high ranking judges awarding prizes to dogs in the first place. as a dog lover all my life it pains me to see so many breeds in distress. infact my own breed the lab hasnt escaped the show curse. i do love these people say to me the words my dogs have beautiful conformation and is fit for purpose. my reply is usually can it do what it is bred for when it gets out of breath walking to its dinner bowl. that usually ends te conversation


No, I live in Yorkshire, coincidentally.

The Breed Standard is the remit of the breed clubs, in consultation with the KC, and has been amended various times for breeds since they were initially drawn up. Interestingly, the requirement for fully descended testicles wasn't written in to the BS until quite recently I believe.

The problem with insisting all dogs do what they are bred for, is that some were bred for fighting, either other dogs, or other animals. Some were bred purely as companions, so how would you judge that? What makes one a better companion over another? Obviously temperament, so then you fall back to other issues, such as conformation 

This conformation issue really does seem to be over exaggerated (no pun intended), the vast majority of breeds are very healthy with regards to their conformation, and yet people seem to think that ALL pedigree show dogs are unhealthy BECAUSE of their conformation. Which is, of course, absolute nonsense. A small minority have been rewarded for conformation which has caused health problems, which is hopefully being addressed.


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> That's rather an exaggeration, you aren't Jemima are you :lol:
> 
> I don't show, no interest, but know a few people who do, a couple of them walk their dogs with us and while the dogs are successful in show ring I am told, they are all fit active dogs and one we see often is *gasp* a retired show pug


maybe a slight exageration  but im talking labs here, some breeds i agree look great but others sorry never be convinced that they are healthy. not read the whole thread as my blood boiled as soon as i read the first couple of replies so apologies if ive stepped on anyones toes


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Statler said:


> maybe a slight exageration  but im talking labs here, some breeds i agree look great but others sorry never be convinced that they are healthy. not read the whole thread as my blood boiled as soon as i read the first couple of replies so apologies if ive stepped on anyones toes


No worries 

x


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Statler said:


> maybe a slight exageration  but im talking labs here, some breeds i agree look great but others sorry never be convinced that they are healthy. not read the whole thread as my blood boiled as soon as i read the first couple of replies so apologies if ive stepped on anyones toes


I've seen a few show Labs, and although a little porky sometimes, they are, overall, healthy examples. I've seen a few that are too short in the leg, but then you've got the opposite with some working bred Labs, that are too fine, too long in the leg, and not quite enough substance.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Statler said:


> i do love these people say to me the words my dogs have beautiful conformation and is fit for purpose. my reply is usually can it do what it is bred for when it gets out of breath walking to its dinner bowl. that usually ends te conversation


Mine too. I show and my girl can take off like a bullet after a rabbit that she has seen in the distance and doesn't come back puffing and panting. This a dog who has supposedly has too many wrinkles to move easily and always need eye surgery to even see  Yep, a shar pei that is fit for purpose which VERY originally was a hunting dog


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

Statler said:


> maybe a slight exageration  but im talking labs here, some breeds i agree look great but others sorry never be convinced that they are healthy. not read the whole thread as my blood boiled as soon as i read the first couple of replies so apologies if ive stepped on anyones toes


Hey its not a problem. 

Many breeds remain healthy overall though you always have one or two that break the rule and breeds that back yard breeders get their hands on for example pugs will get worse and worse while many good breeders try to improve the health of the breed.


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

but look at show winning labs joanne, hardly athletes, my ideal of a lab is somewhere in the middle between the 2 extremes of show and working. as for the breed standard if i recall correctly was written about working labs and the reason crufts is the time of year it is is to allow working dogs time to recover there condition back after a season in the field, not to work off the mince pies from christmas


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Statler said:


> but look at show winning labs joanne, hardly athletes, my ideal of a lab is somewhere in the middle between the 2 extremes of show and working. as for the breed standard if i recall correctly was written about working labs and the reason crufts is the time of year it is is to allow working dogs time to recover there condition back after a season in the field, not to work off the mince pies from christmas


Absolutely agree, however, not all show Labs are of poor conformation, nor are they necessarily unfit. At one show, a breeder who has been in the breed for more years than I've been alive, openly stated that Labradors have to carry extra weight to get anywhere at championship level, this is a very well known kennel name.

But the way to combat the extremes I believe, is to embrace the middle ground, and that includes some show Labradors, and some working bred Labradors. Not to just sweep all aside as unfit for one or the other purpose.


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> . At one show, a breeder who has been in the breed for more years than I've been alive, openly stated that Labradors have to carry extra weight to get anywhere at championship level, this is a very well known kennel name.


and that is the point im trying to make. the ones that want the exageration are the ones awarding the prizes so nothing will change


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Statler said:


> and that is the point im trying to make. the ones that want the exageration are the ones awarding the prizes so nothing will change


It might not change quickly, but there are many people working to change it.

I've been ashamed in the past to be told Labradors in the show ring, are something of a joke to others, for being so overweight; much of the problem has been that those who are awarding places, have no understanding of the job they actually were bred to do, and have done very successfully. You only have to look at the number of Labradors compared to other retrievers used for the job, and competed with at retriever championships, to see just how successful they are, as a breed, for their original purpose. But the only way forward, I think, to keep 'type' is to work with the breed standard, it's not that the conformation of dogs is wrong, some are too substantial, some slightly too short in the leg, etc, and they can't compete at the same level as working bred dogs. But I don't think the breed overall is irredeemable (if that's a word), and I'd rather see people working to recocile the two halves, than widen the divide.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> The program most definitely led people to believe that all KC registered dogs, in fact all pedigree dogs, are inbred and unhealthy - and if you doubt that, y*ou only have to look at posts on here from Tapir, Cockerpoo, Elmo and the like to see that they are most definitely of that opinion*. And this is just one forum, and almost three years since the program - that's three years of knowledgeable people posting the truth, and still they hold this opinion from watching the program.
> 
> So, given that the program turned the public against pedigree dogs and the good KC breeders - where are they going to go to buy their pets? Who is left? Only puppy farmers and BYB's. Sadly, that is the true legacy of the program.
> 
> ...


I have never seen the programme actually.

The comments I have made have been concerning pedigrees have been concerning the standards which are on the KC website.

I have never ever said all pedigrees are unhealthy????

I am not anti-pedigree either geez 

I don't think people have only just made their minds up concerning this programme- some yes but some people already have an opinion probably gained from other resources and having direct dealings with breeders etc....


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I have never seen the programme actually.
> 
> The comments I have made have been concerning pedigrees have been concerning the standards which are on the KC website.
> 
> ...


Morning! I'd speak to you, but apparently, I'm only trying to split up certain factions, chuckle :lol:

I know you're not anti-pedigree, and I think spellweaver does too, but I think you did make a comment earlier in the thread about pedigrees being unhealthy, and inbred, which is probably what spellweaver's referring to, the seeming belief, which may (or may not) have been perpetuated by PDE.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I actually find that quite insulting that you consider me voicing concerns to be bellyaching, thats hardly fair.


Not referring to you specifically, thinking more of some of the breed club/breeding seminars I've been on that frequently get sidetracked onto the ABS scheme.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Statler said:


> regardless of whether some information was incorrect or exaggerated, the state of some breeds in this country is a disgrace, and anyone pontificating regarding Ms Harrisons programme being lies is living in cloud cuckoo land. you dont need to be an expert to see german sheperds winning at crufts who are unable to run due to frogs legs and sloped backs, an exaggerated trait bred by show people and awarded prizes by show people. if the programme did nothing but give the kc a kick up the arse to sort this out then it was a good thing. Rome wasnt built in a day and it will take many years to rebuild a breed so i doubt it will ever happen. after all its the high ranking judges awarding prizes to dogs in the first place. as a dog lover all my life it pains me to see so many breeds in distress. infact my own breed the lab hasnt escaped the show curse. i do love these people say to me the words my dogs have beautiful conformation and is fit for purpose. my reply is usually can it do what it is bred for when it gets out of breath walking to its dinner bowl. that usually ends te conversation


I personally think some show labs are 'tubbies' and need to lose the pounds! However, I think that of more pet labs . I very rarely meet a lean lab :lol:. Although I know they do exist I tend to meet the tubby show ones or the fat neutered pet ones whos owners don't seem to notice. Nothing worse than a fat dog imo! German Shepherds aren't actually a particularly unhealthy breed . You'll find that the breeders of gsds have been campaigning for years for health tests to become mandatory ect and most of their dogs pass certain 'fitness' tests too - something many other breeds which people view as healthy don't even attempt. Although the banana back isn't very appealing to the eye imo and I prefer the straighter back, the exaggeration doesn't actually cause them any problems whatsoever - I know of three banana backed gsds from top show lines who run about with Hudson our malamute and can keep up - that's no easy feat lol! The KC didn't need a kick up the backside, they were already making moves to change things - although the programme did highlight certain breeds problems such as the cavilier and like someone else has said, the number of people health testing in them increased which is wonderful. It also highlighted breeds that are actually very healthy and the 'problems' in them only apply to a very small minority - boxers, rohedian (sp) ridgebacks and gsds to name a few, not to mention many of the 'example' dogs weren't actually KC registered, so their problems clearly had nothing to do with the show ring. You're right it will take many years to rectify certain mistakes in certain breeds but it will be done and is being done. I'm sorry but what the hell is wrong with your dog that it gets out of breath so easily ? I know you were ovbiously exaggerating, but the issue in labs you mentioned was their weight - is your dog fat and your blaming the show ring ? Or does he have hd? x


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I have never seen the programme actually.
> 
> The comments I have made have been concerning pedigrees have been concerning the standards which are on the KC website.
> 
> ...


Can i ask what breed standards you have read? Going by your earlier posts it seemed as if you had never seen a breed standard in your life. So your saying you already had your misconceptions about the show world previous to PDE? Based on what exactly? All the championship dog shows you have been to ? I don't think any thinks you are anti pedigree.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Statler said:


> and that is the point im trying to make. the ones that want the exageration are the ones awarding the prizes so nothing will change


Not true in the slightest. Every judges opinion is different and whilst some may like certain exaggerations in a dog, there are others who won't. Not to mention the fact that the judging is now being carefully monitored and they have been/will be fully aware of what is now considered as an overly exaggerated dog ect.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Morning! I'd speak to you, but apparently, I'm only trying to split up certain factions, chuckle :lol:
> 
> I know you're not anti-pedigree, and I think spellweaver does too, but I think you did make a comment earlier in the thread about pedigrees being unhealthy, and inbred, which is probably what spellweaver's referring to, the seeming belief, which may (or may not) have been perpetuated by PDE.


 No have never said all pedigrees are unhealthy if someone can show me were I have then I would apologise.

The inbred part was in answer to a comment about line breeding which I said was the same really and it initially started off being brought up when I brought up that if you really want to improve breeding practices in the crossbreed field then a crossbreed owner would need to get her purebreed dogs from an ethical breeder.

Then it WHAM back in yer face with the comments that no-one would dare sell to a crossbreeder after years of good breeding and line breeding.

So a crossbreeder cannot win then 

No-one on here that owns pedigrees seems to want crossbreeding done, otherwise you would be looking at ways to come together and work towards all breeders producing healthy pups.

You may not all agree with crossbreeding but it's always be done ( and to your advantage) and will continue.

If you cared as much about dogs as you all say you do then why is there such adversity to co-exsisting and working together?

If I was a breeder of pure breeds I would happily work with a crossbreeder who clearly wanted to produce a healthy well matched cross from health tested parents.( I am not talking about the ill-matched crosses here)

I rather work alongside and educate and hope that this would encourage good breeders on both sides and make a small dent in eradicating the Puppy farms.


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Not true in the slightest. Every judges opinion is different and whilst some may like certain exaggerations in a dog, there are others who won't. Not to mention the fact that the judging is now being carefully monitored and they have been/will be fully aware of what is now considered as an overly exaggerated dog ect.


every judges opinion is different but the same names are always winning?????????.

so why did it take a tv programme to highlight problems so judges are fully aware of what is now considered exagerated, when they are supposed to know their breed inside out?
as for my own dogs being fat, i never referred to them, my dogs are fit for function and their proper weights


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Then it WHAM back in yer face with the comments that no-one would dare sell to a crossbreeder after years of good breeding and line breeding.


Well, in all honesty, why would they want to? Years of careful breeding and planning - no decent breeder would want that to go to waste. Before you think it is a cross breed thing, the same thing applies to purebreeds. No decent breeder would want one of their carefully planned pups go on to be bred with any old same breed dog down the road.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Statler said:


> every judges opinion is different but the same names are always winning?????????.
> 
> so why did it take a tv programme to highlight problems so judges are fully aware of what is now considered exagerated, when they are supposed to know their breed inside out?
> as for my own dogs being fat, i never referred to them, my dogs are fit for function and their proper weights


The same names don't always win BOB though, and alot of the time when they do it's because it's one hell of a good dog they have.

It didn't take that though, I already said the KC already had the ball rolling before the programme came out - the programme just made it very public and tbh the general public aren't very intelligent. Most of them know next to nothing about showing or breeding, watched this programme which was incredibly innacurate (yes they got some things right, pat on the back for them) and decided the KC was terrible, dog showing was terrible and it was better to avoid them. Hence boosting the puppy farmer, pet breeders and BYBs income .

You don't seem to understand that every judges perception of the breed standard is different - mines and yours will be different, everyone has a different opinion. Most breed standards will say that it does not matter if a dog is above or below their recommended height so long as they are of a good type and well proportioned. Everyone likes a different type and everyones idea of a well proportioned dog is different.

You said that whenever people comment on how good your dogs conformation is and how they are fit for function you say well they get out of breathe walking to the water bowl and that silences the conversation


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> No decent breeder would want one of their carefully planned pups go on to be bred with any old same breed dog down the road.


This is what terrifies me about where my pups will go! They will be fully endorsed but ontoward things still go on:scared:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Well, in all honesty, why would they want to? Years of careful breeding and planning - no decent breeder would want that to go to waste. Before you think it is a cross breed thing, the same thing applies to purebreeds. No decent breeder would want one of their carefully planned pups go on to be bred with any old same breed dog down the road.


Whilst I can see this argument, and do agree with it to a great extent, at the same time, if those who wish to use pedigree dogs to produce a popular cross breed, want to go about it in the most ethical way possible, then they really are stuffed right from the start. The only breeding stock they can buy are going to be less than ideal. And, whilst it's publicly decried by many, some top show kennels with pedigree dogs, aren't averse to taking the money for stud fees allowing their dogs to cover a different breed. So, whilst not defending unethical breeding practices, I think it may come to either having to accept a lower standard personally, than I would like to, and supporting those who breed to supply the pet market, to try and combat those who are doing it without regard to the welfare of any breeding stock and progeny, hope that makes sense??



Fuzzbugs!x said:


> The same names don't always win BOB though, and alot of the time when they do it's because it's one hell of a good dog they have.
> 
> It didn't take that though, I already said the KC already had the ball rolling before the programme came out - the programme just made it very public and tbh the general public aren't very intelligent. Most of them know next to nothing about showing or breeding, watched this programme which was incredibly innacurate (yes they got some things right, pat on the back for them) and decided the KC was terrible, dog showing was terrible and it was better to avoid them. Hence boosting the puppy farmer, pet breeders and BYBs income .
> 
> ...


I'm sure you must mean the majority of the public are ignorant, not unintelligent, although I'd agree with that for some areas, possibly whole towns in some instances :lol:

I think Statler was referring to dogs owned by others being out of breath and unfit, not their own


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

fuzzbugs.

not wishing to be ignorant or unintelligent but im presuming you both breed and show? as im on my phone and cant make out your avatar, may i ask what breeds you show, and no im not looking to fan the flames just purely out of interest


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Can i ask what breed standards you have read? Going by your earlier posts it seemed as if you had never seen a breed standard in your life. So your saying you already had your misconceptions about the show world previous to PDE? Based on what exactly? All the championship dog shows you have been to ? I don't think any thinks you are anti pedigree.


I had a look at the Cav standards on the KC website as that's what was being discussed at the time and because I own a Cav cross ( and pure in past) and to which effect I questioned some standards in relation to health.

I never said I personally had misconceptions about the show world- I have never really given it much thought. However others I have talked to in the past have prior to this programme not all about show but bad pedigree breeders.

I think showing your dogs as a hobby is a nice thing to do and loads enjoy going and watching Crufts.

Hey even my cockapoo forum friends are going this year to watch.

I am not anti-show by the way if the dogs are healthy and loved and well cared for. In fact in another thread I think I was on the side of Shetland Lover with her Alaska being put down for her ears. ( not literally :lol

Again just to repeat because it's not getting through and having digs to provoke reactions is getting tiresome.

The points I were making with the BS was that I personally do not agree that every single one is for health reasons and some are aesthetics.

Which was then backed up by SL and Cheeko because there dogs were being penalised for failing a standard in the show ring.

Unfortunately the standards are open to interpretation both in the show ring and by anyone reading them.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Statler said:


> fuzzbugs.
> 
> not wishing to be ignorant or unintelligent but im presuming you both breed and show? as im on my phone and cant make out your avatar, may i ask what breeds you show, and no im not looking to fan the flames just purely out of interest


No i didn't mean unintelligent - but i don't think anyone can deny the ignorance that has come out of that programme. I apologize to anyone who got offended!

Nope I don't breed and probably never will . I'd be far too worried about where the puppies would end up and the saftey of my own dogs. I show an Alaskan Malamute and two Newfoundlands .


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I had a look at the Cav standards on the KC website as that's what was being discussed at the time and because I own a Cav cross ( and pure in past) and to which effect I questioned some standards in relation to health.
> 
> I never said I personally had misconceptions about the show world- I have never really given it much thought. However others I have talked to in the past have prior to this programme not all about show but bad pedigree breeders.
> 
> ...


This is the problem I have - I show my dogs as a hobby, because I enjoy it and I show very healthy breeds - Newfoundlands and Alaskan Malamute. So when people tell me this that and the next thing about dog showing it does work me up, especially if they have only ever got their opinion for PDE. I don't know if you have ever seen a newfie or a mal in the ring, but they absolutely power around it and they look like real dogs - strong, powerful but at the same time very graceful. I suppose because I tend to focus on the breeds I like the most - the working and pastoral breeds - that I don't notice how some other breeds in other groups focus more on the aesthetics than the actual health and ability of the dogs. In working breeds it's all about the strength and muscle, but after reading through some of the toy breed standards I do have to agree that there is more what I would call unnecessary glamour than I would like to see. I definately don't have a problem with cross breeds - much like yourself it is the poor breeders of both pedigree and cross breeds that I have a problem with. x


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Well, in all honesty, why would they want to? Years of careful breeding and planning - no decent breeder would want that to go to waste. Before you think it is a cross breed thing, the same thing applies to purebreeds. No decent breeder would want one of their carefully planned pups go on to be bred with any old same breed dog down the road.


Then things will never change and this old pedigree V crossbreed will go on and on....
It's not going to be a waste if their dogs are still going on to produce healthy pups?

Until people work together to produce healthy pups it won't change.

To continually slate crossbreeders but then not give them the opportunity to bred ethically is not fair is it?

How on earth do you expect them to come up to your standards other than getting dogs by having to mislead the person they are buying them from?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> This is the problem I have - I show my dogs as a hobby, because I enjoy it and I show very healthy breeds - Newfoundlands and Alaskan Malamute. So when people tell me this that and the next thing about dog showing it does work me up, especially if they have only ever got their opinion for PDE. I don't know if you have ever seen a newfie or a mal in the ring, but they absolutely power around it and they look like real dogs - strong, powerful but at the same time very graceful. I suppose because I tend to focus on the breeds I like the most - the working and pastoral breeds - that I don't notice how some other breeds in other groups focus more on the aesthetics than the actual health and ability of the dogs. In working breeds it's all about the strength and muscle, but after reading through some of the toy breed standards I do have to agree that there is more what I would call unnecessary glamour than I would like to see. I definately don't have a problem with cross breeds - much like yourself it is the poor breeders of both pedigree and cross breeds that I have a problem with. x


We have a newfie near us called Bella. When we first saw her out lovely bundle of fluff and my girl ( in avatar) is only 16 months so wanted to play but my cockapoo boy is anti-social lately so just barked at it.

Now she is huge- Monty still barks and Milly wants to play- but the other day was trying to talk the man as I often see him and then noticed that Milly wasn't wanting to play but was hiding behind my leg!!

Obviously the size put her off because she is a right feisty character.

I quite like big dogs especially Great Danes and DDB's.

Hubby adores huskies and Mals but we could never have one as not suitable owners for one. Plus Monty wouldn't get on with one.

We go to fun dog shows and if we see them he is always drooling over them.

Sat next to a huskie pup last year- hubby was drooling and I was basically sat in his fishing chair with Monty on my lap growling and barking at the pup. Well say pup was still huge!!!

The pup took it all in his stride- I mean my boy is a wuss ( we love him to bits but he is the Alan Carr of the dog world) and if the pup went for him he'd run :lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I am not anti-show by the way if the dogs are healthy and loved and well cared for. In fact in another thread I think I was on the side of Shetland Lover with her Alaska being put down for her ears. ( not literally :lol
> 
> Again just to repeat because it's not getting through and having digs to provoke reactions is getting tiresome.
> 
> ...


Can I just add my bitch is of breed standard but her ears are not even however the standard does not say "even level ears" but ears are tipped which my Alaska's are except they are heavily tipped. (which is accepted) 
But yes I would sooner my bitch be shown with slightly odd ears (Due to excess hair on 1 ear) and be clear of health problems than it be based sole on looks HOWEVER it usually comes down to a judges personal taste for example some judges like heavily marked black on blue merle's some dont...


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

If you read my post you will find I said it would be exactly the same if someone were to breed with a same breed purebred of insufficient quality so it is not a crossbreed v pedigree thing at all.

And it's not just about breeding. I prefer my pups to go to working he's or at least homes involved in some sort of canine activity. Being working dogs they are bright and although they would be happy spending their days on the sofa and having their daily walk they would be much happier doing what they were bred for or some other activity.
We want the nest for our pups. 
One could ask the question why should we bring our standards and expectations down to suit someone elses agenda.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Statler said:


> i do love these people say to me the words my dogs have beautiful conformation and is fit for purpose. my reply is usually can it do what it is bred for when it gets out of breath walking to its dinner bowl. that usually ends te conversation


It wouldn't end the conversation with me - my beautiful show pedigree dogs are all able to do exactly what they are breed for!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> If you read my post you will find I said it would be exactly the same if someone were to breed with a same breed purebred of insufficient quality so it is not a crossbreed v pedigree thing at all.
> 
> And it's not just about breeding. I prefer my pups to go to working he's or at least homes involved in some sort of canine activity. Being working dogs they are bright and although they would be happy spending their days on the sofa and having their daily walk they would be much happier doing what they were bred for or some other activity.
> We want the nest for our pups.
> One could ask the question why should we bring our standards and expectations down to suit someone elses agenda.


I did read you post and yes see you meant purebreed as well  but then the purebreed down the road as you put it is of poor quality perhaps down to poor breeding/inbreeding- they must have had the same opportunity to breed as your ethical breeder when they first started?

But I am talking about that if people on here want crossbreeders to be ethical then the only way that will happen is that their breeding stock is from ethical breeders too. Otherwise it's a non-starter, well for the F1 breeder it is.

No-one is forcing you to"bring down your standards" but _if_you want things to change and ensure all breeders are ethical then you are going to have to work together.
If your dogs are working dogs then it may not be a suitable match for a cross or if it was doesn't mean it cannot go on working depending on the cross of course.

When I say about crossbreeding I don't mean just stick any breeds together either as some clearly are not a good match in terms of health. So this isn't going to apply to all purebreeds.

Don't get me wrong I can totally understand you wanting to keep your dogs pure and doing a working job I really do and I really wish there was an easy answer.

But if we all want breeders to be ethical then I can't see any other way than all breeders working together.

Unless anyone else has any other ideas?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Statler said:


> and that is the point im trying to make. the ones that want the exageration are the ones awarding the prizes so nothing will change





Statler said:


> every judges opinion is different but the same names are always winning?????????.
> 
> so why did it take a tv programme to highlight problems so judges are fully aware of what is now considered exagerated, when they are supposed to know their breed inside out?
> as for my own dogs being fat, i never referred to them, my dogs are fit for function and their proper weights


You are so wrong about how things work in the show world - but thank you for being such a good example of how Jemima and her program has influenced people to think so negatively about pedigrees and showing dogs! :thumbup:


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> You are so wrong about how things work in the show world - but thank you for being such a good example of how Jemima and her program has influenced people to think so negatively about pedigrees and showing dogs! :thumbup:


dont insult my intelligence, ive had dogs all my life, thats 40 years, some pedigrees, some cross breeds and alot of rescue pedigree dogs, if you think my oppinion can be changed by a one hours programme you are a fool,


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

I think certain breeds need help however I dont think the solution is just cross breeding, there is bound to be health dogs in the breed somewhere in the world so with most breeds there is no need to cross breed and lose traits/temperament.

Importing/exporting and outcrossing to different lines in the breed should be done in breeds in despite need.

However this should be done with the backing of the breed clubs and the kennel club, no point in creating more problems for rescues.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I think certain breeds need help however I dont think the solution is just cross breeding, there is bound to be health dogs in the breed somewhere in the world so with most breeds there is no need to cross breed and lose traits/temperament.
> 
> Importing/exporting and outcrossing to different lines in the breed should be done in breeds in despite need.
> 
> However this should be done with the backing of the breed clubs and the kennel club, no point in creating more problems for rescues.


 Look us crossbreed owners are just greedy because we like the fact we are getting two dogs all rolled into one :lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> It wouldn't end the conversation with me - my beautiful show pedigree dogs are all able to do exactly what they are breed for!


As it should be
And as are mine!
Would not want a dog that was not capable of performing the task for which it were originally breed myself.


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

might as well as some petrol to the flames, heres a clip for those that didnt see it, re german shepherds

YouTube - German Shepherd half dog half frog

or 




ignore the narrative if you wish but actions speak louder than words


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Statler said:


> might as well as some petrol to the flames, heres a clip for those that didnt see it, re german shepherds
> 
> YouTube - German Shepherd half dog half frog
> 
> ignore the narrative if you wish but actions speak louder than words


Yep but you'll find that no matter how much we who don't like the look of it say that it's unhealthy - it isn't. Gsds are actually a very healthy breed, the banana back does not affect their ability to move. Like I said before we know three who come from top show lines and have banana backs - they play with out malamute and can very easily keep up with him. I don't like it very much though and much prefer a straighter back with a slight slope - however, that problem has been created in my eyes by judges placing dogs with severe slopes which led to breeders breeding them more and more severe. It is a cosmetic thing though because the dogs are perfectly healthy. x

ETA: that is not a top championship show either :lol: its probably an open show if that lol


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

I dislike the banana back on GSD's but there are GSD's with good hip scores that are being bred and GSD's with backs like this that never have hip problems so the back cant be causing such a problem otherwise their hips would not be in a fit state to breed.

My GSD has a straight back the way I like it.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Statler said:


> dont insult my intelligence, ive had dogs all my life, thats 40 years, some pedigrees, some cross breeds and alot of rescue pedigree dogs, if you think my oppinion can be changed by a one hours programme you are a fool,


In those 40 years how many dog shows have you attended or exhibited at?


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

> would not want a dog that was not capable of performing the task for which it were originally breed myself.


I was reading that Chihuahua's were bred to be used as sacraficial offerings by the Aztec's ... so I am pretty happy that mine won't be fulfilling that ancient purpose lol. :lol:


----------



## metaldog (Nov 11, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> ETA: that is not a top championship show either :lol: its probably an open show if that lol


If you watch the whole clip there is a dog being judged at Crufts....is that not a championship dog show? :lol:


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

metaldog said:


> If you watch the whole clip there is a dog being judged at Crufts....is that not a championship dog show? :lol:


The first one where they say this clip is from a top championship dog show. It's not. Just like all the 'show dogs' they used as examples werent - they were un kc registered dogs.


----------



## metaldog (Nov 11, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> The first one where they say this clip is from a top championship dog show. It's not. Just like all the 'show dogs' they used as examples werent - they were un kc registered dogs.


But the second clip in the same video you were referring to is them judging at crufts...where all the dogs are KC registered....


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

metaldog said:


> But the second clip in the same video you were referring to is them judging at crufts...where all the dogs are KC registered....


So because that makes it acceptable for them to blatantly lie in another part of the programme ?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> The first one where they say this clip is from a top championship dog show. It's not. Just like all the 'show dogs' they used as examples werent - they were un kc registered dogs.


That footage was from Manchester Champ Show.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Look us crossbreed owners are just greedy because we like the fact we are getting two dogs all rolled into one :lol:


Maybe thats why the prices are expensive for some oodle, doodle, snoodle, cadoodle whatever dogs then --- Paying double


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Snoringbear said:


> That footage was from Manchester Champ Show.


Are you sure? I've never in my life seen someone wearing a tracksuit in the ring at a champ show :lol:. If so then i stand corrected :lol:


----------



## metaldog (Nov 11, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> So because that makes it acceptable for them to blatantly lie in another part of the programme ?


I never said that, keep your hair on.

I was only referring to the error in your post (which you refuse to admit even though I asked you twice) where you quoted the link which had 2 clips of dog shows and you said they were not championship shows or KC registered dogs when one was clearly Crufts and the showing of KC registered dogs...I don't really care much for this whole debate because no one is listening to anyone else's point of view because it seems all minds are already set in stone..


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

metaldog said:


> I never said that, keep your hair on.
> 
> I was only referring to the error in your post (which you refuse to admit even though I asked you twice) where you quoted the link which had 2 clips of dog shows and you said they were not championship shows or KC registered dogs when one was clearly Crufts and the showing of KC registered dogs...I don't really care much for this whole debate because no one is listening to anyone else's point of view because it seems all minds are already set in stone..


You never asked me if the first one was a champ show you mentioned Crufts which i already know is a champ show - I didn't think I had to clarify that. The examples of unhealthy dogs they used throughout the programme, not the dogs in the ring - they weren't all kc registered. I genuinely did not think that first clip was of a champ show. The last few pages especially have been people listening to other peoples points of view .


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Are you sure? I've never in my life seen someone wearing a tracksuit in the ring at a champ show :lol:. If so then i stand corrected :lol:


Yes. I've seen a few tracksuits in the ring, too. :lol:


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Snoringbear said:


> Yes. I've seen a few tracksuits in the ring, too. :lol:


I think my mum would throttle me if I wore a tracksuit in the ring :lol:. I don't even think I own a tracksuit lol! x


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

metaldog said:


> I never said that, keep your hair on.
> 
> I was only referring to the error in your post (which you refuse to admit even though I asked you twice) where you quoted the link which had 2 clips of dog shows and you said they were not championship shows or KC registered dogs when one was clearly Crufts and the showing of KC registered dogs...I don't really care much for this whole debate because no one is listening to anyone else's point of view because it seems all minds are already set in stone..


I think Fuzzbugs was referring to other parts of the program featuring sick dogs. There was a non KC reg pet breed cav with SM and a Boxer with epilepsy, again non-KC reg and pet bred from a full sibling mating. The fact they weren't KC reg was not expressed in the program.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> I dislike the banana back on GSD's but there are GSD's with good hip scores that are being bred and GSD's with backs like this that never have hip problems so the back cant be causing such a problem otherwise their hips would not be in a fit state to breed.
> 
> My GSD has a straight back the way I like it.


The shape of the back is due to the construction of the rear legs rather than the back affecting the hips, legs etc. The vertical skeleton dictates the shape of the horizontal skeleton. The dogs features have extreme rear angulation and over long second thighs hence the issues with their movement and shape of their backs.


----------



## GSDlover4ever (Feb 21, 2009)

GSDs have always had a *slope* from the withers to the croup, when the dogs trot (as in working stock & not the show ring) a level in stance dog falls on fore hand & therefore has to exert more energy in movement. A dog with the correct sloping topline has no problem in the trot as the forequarters are able to extend the same as correctly angulated hindquarters effortlessly.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Statler said:


> might as well as some petrol to the flames, heres a clip for those that didnt see it, re german shepherds
> 
> YouTube - German Shepherd half dog half frog
> 
> ...


That handler in the 1st part of 1st link needs training lol The dog is being held back which imo makes it look worse and also at times its front legs are being lifted off the ground which would also make its movement crap


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

GSDlover4ever said:


> GSDs have always had a *slope* from the withers to the croup, when the dogs trot (as in working stock & not the show ring) a level in stance dog falls on fore hand & therefore has to exert more energy in movement. A dog with the correct sloping topline has no problem in the trot as the forequarters are able to extend the same as correctly angulated hindquarters effortlessly.


Some of the dogs there are roach backed as opposed to a slope though.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Some of the dogs there are roach backed as opposed to a slope though.


So what does my Scorcher come under then?









Because I like her shape much more than the slope.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

gladass said:


> Maybe thats why the prices are expensive for some oodle, doodle, snoodle, cadoodle whatever dogs then --- Paying double


Yeah I nearly said two for the price of one then realised no our dogs are expensive.
Still worth every penny though


----------



## GSDlover4ever (Feb 21, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> So what does my Scorcher come under then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


She is a GSD cross so her structure is totally different to pure GSD's!

GSD's can look totally different, it depend son many factors: How they are stood, the angles, who took the photo, they they are stretched, free standing....

Their is A LOT of unhealthy stock in the english/british line GSD's..... many breed for colour, don't health test..... have week nerves....


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> The program most definitely led people to believe that all KC registered dogs, in fact all pedigree dogs, are inbred and unhealthy - and if you doubt that, you only have to look at posts on here from Tapir, Cockerpoo, Elmo and the like to see that they are most definitely of that opinion.


Can you tell me where _the programme _made such a claim? It's of no purpose to show me how the programme may have been interpreted by others (although I haven't seen the named posters take such an extreme position either and I suspect it is a strawman of your own invention). Some people have interpreted the Bible as approving of burning black people - clearly there is a difference between interpretation and actual content.



> So, given that the program turned the public against pedigree dogs and the good KC breeders - where are they going to go to buy their pets? Who is left? Only puppy farmers and BYB's. Sadly, that is the true legacy of the program.


I don't accept your premise and your conclusion doesn't even follow. The programme did not turn people against pedigree dogs - a cursory glance at the numbers of puppies registered with the KC shows that pedigrees remain popular. What it did do is alert buyers to the damage that conformation breeding can cause and that the term 'KC-registered' nor the prestige or pre-eminence of the breeder is a guarantee of ethical breeding.

If puppyfarmers and BYBs have benefited (and these mostly breed pedigree dogs too so the argument is weak) it will be because of the KC's spectacular failure to provide a meaningful quality benchmark. The KC's eagerness to accept registrations from puppyfarmers and BYBs and its acceptance of the same into its Accredited Breeder Scheme has provided bad breeders with far more succour than PDE ever could.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

GSDlover4ever said:


> She is a GSD cross so her structure is totally different to pure GSD's!
> 
> GSD's can look totally different, it depend son many factors: How they are stood, the angles, who took the photo, they they are stretched, free standing....
> 
> Their is A LOT of unhealthy stock in the english/british line GSD's..... many breed for colour, don't health test..... have week nerves....


We were told she is a cross but we have no idea. She is the right height for a GSD bitch and has the same health issues as many GSD's (AF for example).

The people who told us she was a cross also said she was bad with children and great with cats.....they got that wrong, she hated cats and loved children.

Her brother was HUGE black long haired GSD.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> So what does my Scorcher come under then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Her topline looks fairly convex from withers to tail set in that photo. Might be better if she was stood side on.

I found this link which shows the difference between slope and roach and the shortcomings of the latter. I prefer the slope.

Illustrated Standard of the German Shepherd Dog, THE BACK


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Her topline looks fairly convex from withers to tail set in that photo. Might be better if she was stood side on.
> 
> I found this link which shows the difference between slope and roach and the shortcomings of the latter. I prefer the slope.
> 
> Illustrated Standard of the German Shepherd Dog, THE BACK












She loves facing the camera...shes a big camera flirt.:lol:

I have loads of her led down from the side...but not many stud up.
Interesting link...*off to read*


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Did you read it?


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Did you read it?


Yes I did, its a interesting read. I do not like the "roach" back (I am so glad my girl doesnt have a back like that) I like the more natural back. All dogs back will slope to a degree.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> The program most definitely led people to believe that all KC registered dogs, in fact all pedigree dogs, are inbred and unhealthy





Johnderondon said:


> Can you tell me where _the programme _made such a claim?


Hmmm - let me see - which particular points shall I pick? Could it be the point where Mark Evans, the then RSPCA vet, claimed that all pedigrees were mutants and that the RSPCA were "extremely concerned about the very high levels of disability, deformity and disease in pedigree dogs", or when Beverley Cuddy says "the dogs are falling apart and the number of genetic problems are increasing at a frightful rate"? Could it be that when the program says the KC are the guardians of pedigree dogs, and a spokesman from the KC says most pedigree dogs are actually very healthy, Jemima immediately refutes this by saying "BUT we have spent two years exploring pedigree dogs, digging deeper than ever before and what we have uncovered is the greatest animal welfare scandal of our time" ? (Obviously intimating that the KC spokesman is wrong in saying most pedigrees are healthy). Could it be the comment, "We are, in effect, breeding them to death"? Or could it be Jemima saying that pedigree dog owners spend over £10 million pounds on vets fees every week? Or Steve Jones saying pedigree dogs are dangerously inbred? Or when Mark Evans blames competetive dog showing for the problem? Or when Jemima shows one GSD not moving properly, and then immediately extends that to say that ALL show dogs can no longer move properly?

But no, I think the definitive proof to show you where the program makes such a claim is *when Jemima says - and this is a direct quote - "Every single breed has its own health problems"*. :scared:

(Just in case you have forgotten, here is a clip to remind you: 



 - that last quote from Jemima is near the end)

Enough for you? Actually, as well as the many very explicit attacks, the claim was implicit throughout the whole program. Now if Jemima had made a balanced program, showing the good as well as the bad, it wouldn't have been. But she chose not to do that.



Johnderondon said:


> It's of no purpose to show me how the programme may have been interpreted by others. (although I haven't seen the named posters take such an extreme position either and I suspect it is a strawman of your own invention). Some people have interpreted the Bible as approving of burning black people - clearly there is a difference between interpretation and actual content.


I don't really care whether it is of any purpose to you or not  and I think your spin on what posters say is as off-kilter as your spin on what the program said. However, perhaps I was mistaken to credit you with enough intelligence to understand that anyone who puts something out into the public domain is responsible for people's reaction and interpretation of that something - ergo Jemima is responsible for putting out a program that was interpreted by most people to mean ALL pedigrees are bad, ALL pedigree breeders are bad, and that the KC is responsible for it all - and hence she also has to bear the responsibility for the knock-on effect of people flocking to puppy farmers and the detrimental effect that has on dog welfare.


----------



## GSDlover4ever (Feb 21, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> We were told she is a cross but we have no idea. She is the right height for a GSD bitch and has the same health issues as many GSD's (AF for example).
> .


I think she looks like a GSD x collie. 

We shall never really know....Doesn't matter what they look like, we still love our pets.


----------



## GSDlover4ever (Feb 21, 2009)

Actually whenever the roach back topic comes up, nobody ever mentions the backs of whippets, Itilian greyhounds...... ALWAYS GSD's......... why?


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2011)

GSDlover4ever said:


> Actually whenever the roach back topic comes up, nobody ever mentions the backs of whippets, Itilian greyhounds...... ALWAYS GSD's......... why?


No idea. I have not herd of "roach back" before tonight...I just knew it as a slope back.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2011)

GSDlover4ever said:


> I think she looks like a GSD x collie.
> 
> We shall never really know....Doesn't matter what they look like, we still love our pets.


Really? I cant see any collie in her. She looks different with every face she pulls. :lol:

Yup I love her no matter what she is.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

GSDlover4ever said:


> Actually whenever the roach back topic comes up, nobody ever mentions the backs of whippets, Itilian greyhounds...... ALWAYS GSD's......... why?


Hmm - now let me think - where could everyone possibly have got the idea that all GSDs are crippled roach (or sloped) backs and that they are the only breed like this? Oh yes, from what was intimated on that program that hasn't influenced anyone according to Johnderondon!

(No sarcasm aimed at you hun!  )


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

GSDlover4ever said:


> Actually whenever the roach back topic comes up, nobody ever mentions the backs of whippets, Itilian greyhounds...... ALWAYS GSD's......... why?


I think it's because the back also slopes away, whereas the backs of whippets and greyhounds don't appear to, at least not to the same extent.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Because I haven't seen many whippets or greyhounds who's backs are as bad as some of the show line gsds. They couldn't run properly if their back ends were almost on the floor. I prefer the flatter backed greys and whippets over the roach backed ones any day


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

GSDlover4ever said:


> Actually whenever the roach back topic comes up, nobody ever mentions the backs of whippets, Itilian greyhounds...... ALWAYS GSD's......... why?


Probably because they are all galloping breeds which require extreme rear angulation to develop the power to perform their job, a greyhound can hit 40+ mph in about 30 meters from a standstill. As I mentioned in a previous post this rear construction creates a roach back. Downside is that they can't trot efficiently. You'll also see a roach in purely functional breeds like old bulldogs and pit dogs, too. GSDs are endurance trotters and should have a construction that allows an efficient and effortless trot. The dogs in that video don't. A slight roach is not a problem but I've not seen any other breed of dog as severley roached as the dogs in those videos.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

CheekoAndCo said:


> So I should stop showing Blu because his back is a bit longer than it should be?





CheekoAndCo said:


> Even champions have faults.




I dont believe I said that. Id rather see a fully, healthy dog with a slightly longer back than one that's got a heart issue or whatever else going on. If your dog is healthy and passed whatever tests then fair play. But if not then no, I dont think he should be shown. They might have appearance faults but I dont think that any champions should be allowed health faults. 




Sleeping_Lion said:


> So, how would you go about setting up a system of entry for Labrador Retrievers, based on that information about health tests?


 
I dont know nearly enough about Labs or Retrievers to even start but I would expect or suggest someone or a group with extensive knowledge would have to develop some sort of system or grading or whatever.

I just find it slightly hypocritical thats all. Youre showcasing a so called perfectly example of a breed, but it could be unhealthy as you dont know whats going on inside. Id rather see a lab or retriever with a slightly wrong shaped head, or tail than one thats riddled with problems inside. 




Sleeping_Lion said:


> It can work, you can educate people, I know because I've helped people find good breeders, and specific pups. I still have a friend who comes round with her chocolate Lab pup, to go for walks with me and my two girls, and I am so proud to say I helped her find her pup from a good breeder, who also happens to show. I'm not so proud to say, the majority of people turn down any offer of help, or go quiet when you tell them the breeder they've found isn't really all they hoped. The human race can be very selfish, and it's not fair that dogs suffer while we learn from our mistakes


 
I agree, but its also not fair to tar everyone with the same brush. Some like me, were genuinely not clued up, and Im not proud of the fact but Im also not ashamed to admit it. Ill know better for the future, but I wont be in this position for a very long time as Ive no desire to own any particular breed now until I can have the space/time for a Saint, and that wont be for ages. 




Jess2308 said:


> I have a few dogs who arent "to standard" in terms of size or basic conformation, they have a few issues but are sound and healthy. I continue to show them at open shows because they love it and its my hobby. I would be very angry if someone told me i could no longer do this because they arent "perfect"


 
Please re-read what I said. Ive not said anything about them not being to standard in terms of size etc, Ive commented on poor health. AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, I agree with SL, rather see a dog with a bigger head than considered normal than see a perfectly aesthetic looking one, which is riddled with heart or whatever issues. 




Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Remember a dog can have a hip score of 50 and it might never effect him in his life - the bitch in question could be the best mover anyone had ever seen in newfies. Do you think that dog doesn't deserve its place in the ring, if the owner agrees to never breed from her?


 
I dont know to be honest, Im repeating myself. Perhaps if owner agrees not to breed, fair play but I still find it wrong. The dogs in shows are supposedly perfect health and appearance wise, so to me it just seems a little hypocritical, thats all. 

Think Ill stick to showing horses 




Spellweaver said:


> From 2012, winners from the high profile breeds (ie the ones that have been highlighted as a breed with possible health problems) are going to be tested by a vet at championship shows (including Crufts) *before* they can accept their win:





Spellweaver said:


> Vet checks for high profile breeds at Crufts 2012 and Championship Shows thereafter | Crufts presented by the Kennel Club




I agree with that! 




Sleeping_Lion said:


> What are you on about, have you not read my last several posts referring to how health tests cannot be benchmarked, there can't be a cut off point because of the very nature of some health tests


 
Whats the point of doing them then? There must be some sort of standard or baseline to compare results to? 



Jess2308 said:


> Do you realise that would have a huge impact on companion shows (which are KC licenced and therefore would have the same stipulations placed on them) which are largely funded (from my experience of my local shows at least) by local people with their pet dogs who think it would be a fun day out. These shows usually donate any profits to charity so the loss of entries which would come from the so many people not being able to attend would affect a lot of people and undoubtedly see these fun shows no longer able to be put on.




Youd have to use your common sense though, thats the point. Theres a massive difference in those companion shows to a championship at Crufts, just like in horse shows theres a massive difference between a local county show and HOYS. But both are just as fun.

But anyway, considering that Spellweaver has already said that high profile breeds are going to be tested before they can accept a win, there must be some way that they are implementing it. 



Tapir said:


> Not sure if that was aimed towards me at all, but seeing as I seem to have been put on the 'opposing side' (even though we are ultimately wanting the same thing ) I will say that I thought Horse and Hound and myself have not been out of line in what we said...nothing derogitory to any of you, just our opinions and debating about how the health testing/showing situation.




Thanks Tapir.

Ive lost count of the time someones told me my dog doesnt have a purpose, is ill bred and the product of a BYB. My dog has as much purpose as anyone elses. He might not be a pedigree, frankly I dont give a toss. Hes MY dog. His purpose is to be a pet, be loved and be given the best of everything. Harvey is the same, although we dont know if he is a cross or not, but same applies either way. 

Im neither pro nor anti pedigree, but both sides have had their people being as petty as one another, from derogatory remarks and twisting what people have said to ones purely made to prove a point, point score or provoke a reaction, and not just on this thread. I mean the very OP of this thread was to prove a point, wasnt it?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> But anyway, considering that Spellweaver has already said that high profile breeds are going to be tested before they can accept a win, there must be some way that they are implementing it.


It's only going to be at championship shows, not at open, limit or companion shows, and it's only going to be the 15 breeds which have been identified as having health problems. The vet check will be done after the breed judging has taken place, and the dog will only be allowed to accept its award and go forward into the rest of the competition if it passes the vet test.

Vet checks for high profile breeds at Crufts 2012 and Championship Shows thereafter | Crufts presented by the Kennel Club


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> I dont know nearly enough about Labs or Retrievers to even start but I would expect or suggest someone or a group with extensive knowledge would have to develop some sort of system or grading or whatever.
> 
> I just find it slightly hypocritical thats all. Youre showcasing a so called perfectly example of a breed, but it could be unhealthy as you dont know whats going on inside. Id rather see a lab or retriever with a slightly wrong shaped head, or tail than one thats riddled with problems inside.
> 
> ...


I'll try and answer each point that I think you quoted from me, and where I think it relates to what I've posted previously.

First of all, the health tests, the reason I listed the tests, and asked the question, was to show that it isn't possible, nor is it ethical, to set a pass/fail benchmark for health tests, and their results. When the optigen test for GPRA first came out, and people started to test their dogs, it was found, after a time, that the test was faulty, and some results did not reflect the actual status of the dogs. So, some dogs had possibly been bred, from stock that was affected. Not the fault of those who'd had their dogs tested, but you begin to see the problem.

We are relying on dna tests, and the assessment of hips/elbows by experts from a set of plates, to give us a guide to the health of our dogs, specific diseases and conditions that are thought to be a problem within a breed. For some breeds, they have more tests than others, and some don't have any recommended health tests. So, for Labradors, why do you think that there is the number of health tests developed, and in development by various companies? I'd have thought it was obvious, the number of Labradors is greater than for any other breed, so there is the potential to make more money. These businesses aren't in it for the welfare of our dogs, they are in it to produce a test that we, apparently, need, or do we?

There is a test for HC being developed, and I'm rubbish at all this genetic inheritence malarky, but, the consensus by those in the know, is that pretty much a large chunk of the Labrador population will not only carry this, but have the propensity to develop HC should they live long enough, and the way it is passed on, means it's going to be very difficult to breed clear of this condition. So, this may mean, we will face some very difficult decisions in the future, particularly as more and more health tests become available. What if we get to the point, where we have no option, but to breed dogs that have the propensity to develop a condition, then you have to start to choose which is the lesser of many evils, and we have to make some tough decisions that we wouldn't currently consider ethical. Is it ok, to breed dogs that have the propensity to go blind possibly? You would say no, but perhaps we're already doing so, we just don't have the test currently to tell us that. And if that's the case, then we're not doing such a bad job without the test, because, from my own personal experience, I don't know many Labs that have gone blind in old age, I have known a few start to develop HC, but not go blind in the time they lived.

So you begin to see the tip of the iceberg with health tests, they are not a pass fail, but a guide, and as such, you can't really say that unless a dog has this that and the other test, and has these results, then it can't be shown, I think we have to use our common sense a little more, and encourage the responsible breeders to use the health tests that are available, and of value to make good breeding decisions.

No dog has perfect health, we can only test for so much, and try to make good breeding decisions based on what we know, but there is an awful lot more we don't know.

Ok, this next bit may sound harsh, and I don't mean it to, but by buying as you have done, without researching enough by your own admission, this perpetuates the unethical breeding. And you are not at all alone in this, the vast majority of people I think, as rocco33 said earlier in this thread (at least I think it was this thread) find out after they've bought their first dog, they should have gone about it differently. And that's a great shame, because it would take such a lot of revenue away from unethical breeders, it people just took their time to find an ethical breeder. Sadly, I can't see that happening at all in the near future, not even the distant future


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> But anyway, considering that Spellweaver has already said that high profile breeds are going to be tested before they can accept a win, there must be some way that they are implementing it.


I think it will be more of a health check than health testing given these require laboratory work from samples and anaethesia if xrays are required. I have one of the 15 breeds in question, can't see it being me up there though.

Although I'm all for health testing for breeding and can agree with the neccesity for Champion dogs, which they do in other countries, I'm not sure whether its fair that all exhibited dogs should have compulsory testing. While some tests are relatively cheap and unintrusive, my Dogues would need to be tested for HD and ED. That would be about £300 per dog, but more importantly, I'd rather not subject them to an uneccesary anaesthetic.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I think the definitive proof to show you where the program makes such a claim is *when Jemima says - and this is a direct quote - "Every single breed has its own health problems"*. :scared:


Can you really not perceive the difference between the term 'breed' and the individuals within those breeds? If I opined that every country has crime would you interpret that to mean that every individual within every country is a criminal? Of course you wouldn't.

The irony is that almost every attempt to denigrate the programme as exaggerated and misleading is framed by exaggerated and misleading arguments.



> anyone who puts something out into the public domain is responsible for people's reaction and interpretation of that something


_That_ is genuinely funny.

If I interpret your post to mean that the KC is Satan's work and Jemima should be queen would you be responsible for that or would I just be wrong?


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Johnderondon said:


> C
> The irony is that almost every attempt to denigrate the programme as exaggerated and misleading is framed by exaggerated and misleading arguments.


Many would say that any attempt to support "Jemimas programme" is supported by exaggerated and misleading arguments.

For unfortunately, that's what the programme was built upon ...


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Many might but can they demonstrate it?


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Johnderondon said:


> Many might but can they demonstrate it?


Well Jemima certainly couldn't demonstrate her's


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Can you really not perceive the difference between the term 'breed' and the individuals within those breeds?
> .


Dear me - you _are_ clutching at straws here. The fact that this is the best reply you have managed to come up with shows how cogent my argument is, and how you cannot refute any of it. Instead of attempting to fudge it, why don't you take each quote I gave you and explain why you think they are not misleading the public into thinking that all pedigrees are inbred and unhealthy? Oh yes - probably because it is impossible because each quote I gave you does exactly that.



Johnderondon said:


> _That_ is genuinely funny.
> 
> If I interpret your post to mean that the KC is Satan's work and Jemima should be queen would you be responsible for that or would I just be wrong?


Not half as funny as this attempt at an answer! :lol: :lol: :lol: Are you really trying to argue that authors/artists are not responsible for influencing people with the words/pictures they use?

If I had written something that made you think the KC was Satan and Jemima should be queen, then yes, of course I would be responsible for that. However, your argument immediately falls down because you would be unable to furnish examples of why my post made you believe this, and your inability to do so would mean that any such interpretation on your part would be wrong and hence I wouldn't be responsible for your interpretation.

I, on the other hand, can and have furnished many examples of why PDE led people to believe all pedigrees are inbred and unhealthy, therefore Jemima* is *responsible for that.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

Just my opinion but I think that the PDE program made a big impact- but on "doggy" people who felt affronted rather than your average joe public. 

I asked friends who own dogs that watched the show but they could scarcely even recall it. I know a couple of friends are hardly statistically significant but when I think about all the TV docs I have watched over the years, I am the same- unless the topic is of deep personal interest to me I can only vaguely remember, if at all. 

The people I know who hold the view that pedigree dogs have crap health thought that long before the TV show- and it stems from knowing too many poorly bred BYB/puppy farmer dogs that sadly outnumber the good examples of breeding here.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Have a look at this clip, starting at point 02.30, but paying special attention to points 02.32 and 02.33.






This clip is of my friend's dog, Siggi. Here he is at Midland Counties Halloween Party, benched next to our Gabby:









Back to the video clip. No-one from Passionate Productions asked permission to film him. No-one from Passionate Productions asked any of us on the stand at Discover Dogs anything at all about the history or health of the bergamasco.

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

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

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

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

You decide!


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> why don't you take each quote I gave you


Because _you_ declared the quote of Ms. Harrison to be your defintive proof. T'was you that choose that quote to be your answer, not I.

I could address the other quotes that you considered (but decided did not serve your argument so well) by quoting the many counter arguments voiced by Irving, Samson and others which were also shown on the programme but I thought I should offer you the courtesy of focusing on the quote you offered as "defintive".



> any such interpretation on your part would be wrong and hence I wouldn't be responsible for your interpretation.


Thank you and I agree. You would not be responsible for interpretations that are wrong and unsubstantiated by the source material.

Shame you have a double standard with regard to Jemima Harrison's programme - unless you want to try again. Can you show where the programme claimed that all pedigree dogs are unhealthy?


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Well Jemima certainly couldn't demonstrate her's


As I wrote earlier, the programme's main thrust has been reiterated in the conclusions of two independent studies (by Rooney and Bateson). I should also have mentioned the all party parliamentary group as well. Maybe Ofcom too.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Because _you_ declared the quote of Ms. Harrison to be your defintive proof. T'was you that choose that quote to be your answer, not I.
> 
> I could address the other quotes that you considered (but decided did not serve your argument so well) by quoting the many counter arguments voiced by Irving, Samson and others which were also shown on the programme but I thought I should offer you the courtesy of focusing on the quote you offered as "defintive".


So, a cop-out on your part then.



Johnderondon said:


> Thank you and I agree. You would not be responsible for interpretations that are wrong and unsubstantiated by the source material.
> 
> Shame you have a double standard with regard to Jemima Harrison's programme - unless you want to try again. Can you show where the programme claimed that all pedigree dogs are unhealthy?


You should have gone to specsavers. There was no double standard. I furnished you with more than enough substantiated proof from source material to prove that Jemima produced a program that was responsible for most people who watched it believing that pedigree dogs are unhealthy and inbred. Hence Jemima is responsible for that fact, and also for the fact that this led to an increase of people buying from puppy farmers (to the resulting detriment of dog welfare).

The fact that you are pretending I didn't just shows how weak your argument is, and is merely making you look foolish.

I notice you didn't comment on my post about my friend's dog, and Jemima's poor research and /or deliberate attempt to mislead. Is that because even you can't begin to explain away such positive proof?


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Johnderondon said:


> Can you show where the programme claimed that all pedigree dogs are unhealthy?


I don't think anyone can as I don't think the programme actually stated that. Myself and four daughters watched the programme and none of us heard that statement - perhaps some veiwers made their own minds up that that was the case but the programme makers can't be held responsible for that - can they?

I think if the breeders who declined to be interveiwed hadn't been so rude and offensive, viewers might not have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. They acted like there *was* someting to hide, making the general public even more suspicious!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Pedigree dogs are falling apart and the number of genetic diseases is increasing at a frightening rate
The bit from the RSPCA vet about a mutant freak show

The species with nearly the highest number of genetic diseases, descended from 200 individuals outside Africa, 6 females in Europe, and with some of the highest rates of fertility want to guess? Humans so should we stop breeding?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I don't think anyone can as I don't think the programme actually stated that. Myself and four daughters watched the programme and none of us heard that statement


Did you read all the statements in my post #552 above? All of those were direct quotes from the program, and all of them are in that very short clip (only a few minutes!). This is the clip I mean. YouTube - Pedigree dogs part 1

Are you saying that you can't remember from the actual program (almost three years ago now!) If so, refresh your memory with the clip - you may be surprised. All those statements are there!

Or are you saying that you don't agree that all - or any one - of those statements are saying that all pedigree dogs are unhealthy? If so, can you explain how the following does not say that?

_Mark Evans, the then RSPCA vet - claimed that ALL pedigrees were mutants and that the RSPCA were "extremely concerned about the very high levels of disability, deformity and disease in pedigree dogs"

Beverley Cuddy - "the dogs are falling apart and the number of genetic problems are increasing at a frightful rate"

When the program says the KC are the guardians of pedigree dogs, and a spokesman from the KC says most pedigree dogs are actually very healthy, Jemima immediately refutes this by saying "BUT we have spent two years exploring pedigree dogs, digging deeper than ever before and what we have uncovered is the greatest animal welfare scandal of our time" ? (Obviously intimating that the KC spokesman is wrong in saying most pedigrees are healthy).

The voiceover comment - "We are, in effect, breeding them to death"

Jemima - saying that pedigree dog owners spend over £10 million pounds on vets fees every week

Steve Jones - saying pedigree dogs are dangerously inbred

Mark Evans - blaming competetive dog showing for the problem and saying dog show are a parade of mutants

Jemima - shows one GSD not moving properly, and then immediately extends that to say that ALL show dogs can no longer move properly

Jemima - "Every single breed has its own health problems". _

I'd be really interested to hear how you and your daughters think none of those comments - all of them direct quotes from the program - claim that pedigree dogs are unhealthy



Malmum said:


> perhaps some veiwers made their own minds up that that was the case but the programme makers can't be held responsible for that - can they?


They can because all the statements they made above (and there were countless others throughout the program - what about the likening of breeding pedigrees to eugenics?) were responsible for how the viewers made their minds up.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So you begin to see the tip of the iceberg with health tests, they are not a pass fail, but a guide, and as such, you can't really say that unless a dog has this that and the other test, and has these results, then it can't be shown, I think we have to use our common sense a little more, and encourage the responsible breeders to use the health tests that are available, and of value to make good breeding decisions.


 
If that is the case then, why is so much credence given to them then? Dont breed without health tests, but if thats the case and what youre saying is true and that it will boil down to common sense then I cant see the point? There will be those that will interpret them one way, and another the other.

So basically, its ok to show a dog thats unhealthybecause its down to common sense not to breed from it? 

Now that is unethical, IMHO and baffles me. 






Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, this next bit may sound harsh, and I don't mean it to, but by buying as you have done, without researching enough by your own admission, this perpetuates the unethical breeding. And you are not at all alone in this, the vast majority of people I think, as rocco33 said earlier in this thread (at least I think it was this thread) find out after they've bought their first dog, they should have gone about it differently. And that's a great shame, because it would take such a lot of revenue away from unethical breeders, it people just took their time to find an ethical breeder. Sadly, I can't see that happening at all in the near future, not even the distant future


 
All hinges one what you call as unethical and weve had this debate before. An Unethical breeder to you is very different to what I see it as, but thats by the by. For the rest of it, yep you are right but all I can say is that at least those that find out they should do it differently will do in the future and will pass that knowledge onto other people the know looking for dogs. Word of mouth is the strongest and best way to communicate a message, and damning people for making a mistake is not going to make them listen to anyone, if anything defences come up even more.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> The species with nearly the highest number of genetic diseases, descended from 200 individuals outside Africa, 6 females in Europe, and with some of the highest rates of fertility want to guess? Humans so should we stop breeding?


This isn't actually true - Bryan Sykes' hypothesis has been overturned and their have been an additional 4-6 mtDNA haplogroups identified in Europe. It also isn't as simple as the number of haplogroups corresponds to the number of foundation individuals as it has been shown by Balloux et al. (2009) that both climate and environmental factors can influence the changes in mt DNA so it isn't quite pure gentic drift. There isn't much evidence for it being such a small popualtion who first migrated across the red sea (current estimates range from 150 - 1000) and there is more and more evidence mounting for multiple dispersals rather then just one.

That being said there is a very small amount of genetic variation in human populations so as a species we are quite inbred (there is an individual who has been identified as Mitochondrial Eve and thus the mother of all of us from around 140 - 200kya and Y-chromosome Adam from 60 - 90kya which may explain why the Y chromosome is deteriorating at such an alarming rate!).

Sorry for this being totally off topic but I'm a genetics nerd and Human Evolution was a large part of my degree and I like to spread the sciency love! 

As for the actual topic I know enough about dog breeding to know that I don't know enough about dog breeding to make an educated comment.

All I will say is that I did used to think that pedigree dogs did have higher health problems then crosses and mutts, not caused by but not helped by PDE, but by reading and lurking on this forum and reading links that are posted I have been learning more. Personally I have rescues and am involved in rescue so I can't see me buying a puppy at any time in the near future (plus not sure if I could cope!) as rescues are at breaking point atm. But while there are some breeds that appear to me to need help I would have to have a lot more thorough look at the published papers before I commented.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

L/C said:


> This isn't actually true - Bryan Sykes' hypothesis has been overturned and their have been an additional 4-6 mtDNA haplogroups identified in Europe. It also isn't as simple as the number of haplogroups corresponds to the number of foundation individuals as it has been shown by Balloux et al. (2009) that both climate and environmental factors can influence the changes in mt DNA so it isn't quite pure gentic drift. There isn't much evidence for it being such a small popualtion who first migrated across the red sea (current estimates range from 150 - 1000) and there is more and more evidence mounting for multiple dispersals rather then just one.
> 
> That being said there is a very small amount of genetic variation in human populations so as a species we are quite inbred (there is an individual who has been identified as Mitochondrial Eve and thus the mother of all of us from around 140 - 200kya and Y-chromosome Adam from 60 - 90kya which may explain why the Y chromosome is deteriorating at such an alarming rate!).
> 
> ...


Interesting thanks for that. I was told by my lecturers a couple of years ago that there was only 6 females that all Europeans were descended from from mitochondrial evidence. We are still very inbred though and there is a large number of mutations and deformities within the gene pool which are still bred from.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> Interesting thanks for that. I was told by my lecturers a couple of years ago that there was only 6 females that all Europeans were descended from from mitochondrial evidence. We are still very inbred though and there is a large number of mutations and deformities within the gene pool which are still bred from.


I'm a total nerd for this stuff - it's always nice to find someone else who is as interested as me. It all moves so fast so I'm lucky to know someone who works at a uni and will print papers off for me to read!

And yes our level of inbreeding is ridiculous amoung human beings and it does put everything into perspective when you consider just how successful we are.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

We have very low fertility rates compared to other species due to inbreeding but not a huge amount of problems. I'm pretty sure the fact it was 200 people came across the red sea was mentioned on tv last night but that isn't always reliable of course. Population genetics is fascinating as long as I don't have to do too many of the equations. I loved the module I did on it at uni


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> We have very low fertility rates compared to other species due to inbreeding but not a huge amount of problems. I'm pretty sure the fact it was 200 people came across the red sea was mentioned on tv last night but that isn't always reliable of course. Population genetics is fascinating as long as I don't have to do too many of the equations. I loved the module I did on it at uni


Oh god the equations - satisfying to get the right answer but frustrating when you can't figure out what's wrong. SPSS was the bane of my life. Punnet squares are fine - why can't it all be that simple? 

The problem with TV is that they don't like to hedge their bets and they like to present everything as fact - it's possible it was as low as 200 or as high as 1000. But uncertainty doesn't sound as good in the voice-over (I now work for the National Geographic channel so reguarly have to bite my tongue in meetings when new programmes are announced and the synopsis put forward).


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> So, a cop-out on your part then.


Once again - it was _*you*_ who choose that particular quote from Jemima Harrison as your 'defintive' proof. You asked the question 'could it be [this quote] or [that quote] and then answered yourself by saying "But no, I think the definitive proof [is Jemima Harrison's quote]". It's hardly a cop-out to have addressed that part of your post that _*you*_ declared to be your defintive proof.

Now, what Jemima said is a truism about breeds and doesn't speak of all individuals within those breeds. You may choose to interpret it that way but that would just be good, ol' fashioned wrong and, as you have conceded earlier, people are not responsible for other people misinterpretations.



> I notice you didn't comment on my post about my friend's dog, and Jemima's poor research and /or deliberate attempt to mislead. Is that because even you can't begin to explain away such positive proof?


I'm glad you've now acknowledged the possibility of genuine error rather than your earlier posts which characterised (on no evidence whatsoever) the whole thing as a "lie" but I'm not clear on what you think it proves. Could you expand?


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> The species with nearly the highest number of genetic diseases, descended from 200 individuals outside Africa, 6 females in Europe, and with some of the highest rates of fertility want to guess? Humans so should we stop breeding?


You are confusing the number of catalogued conditions with the actual number. Human health has about one thousand times the level of research and funding that canine health has. It's not surprising therefor that a greater number of ailments and inheritable disorders have been identified in humans.

As far as your question goes, it seems an odd tangent to take the debate but my answer would be no, I don't see that we should. I don't think that we should stop breeding dogs either.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> as you have conceded earlier, people are not responsible for other people misinterpretations.


Now I see what your problem is - you are incapable of understanding plain English. I have not conceded that people are not responsible for other people's interpretations - quite the opposite. I said:

There was no double standard. I furnished you with more than enough substantiated proof from source material to prove that Jemima produced a program that was responsible for most people who watched it believing that pedigree dogs are unhealthy and inbred. Hence Jemima is responsible for that fact, and also for the fact that this led to an increase of people buying from puppy farmers (to the resulting detriment of dog welfare).

If you think that means the opposite, then should I take it that you apply this sort of twisted logic to everything you read? In that case, you really agree with everyone who says Jemima and her program is responsible. :thumbup:



Johnderondon said:


> I'm glad you've now acknowledged the possibility of genuine error rather than your earlier posts which characterised (on no evidence whatsoever) the whole thing as a "lie" but I'm not clear on what you think it proves. Could you expand?


Again, you seem to be unable to read and understand plain English. I don't know where you've got the "genuine error" bit from.  I mentioned nothing about genuine error - that is a figment of your imagination. As I said in my post about the clip, either Jemima couldn't be bothered to research properly - in which case all her research is suspect - or she wanted to deliberately mislead - in which case the whole program is suspect. Nothing at all about genuine error there. As for what I think it proves - well, although this is stating the obvious, it proves that Jemima either didn't research the subject properly, or that she saw a dog with an unusual coat and deliberately tried to mislead the public. Either through incompetence or deliberate lie, her program is flawed.

And, after all, she's just proved herself to be more than capable of incompetent research and a wish to deliberately mislead with her actions over the shar pei. It's really funny watching the odd few people who supported her (such as yourself) squirming as they try to justify their support of her in the light of how dishonest and incompetent she has proved herself to be.  Talk about between a rock and a hard place - either they have to keep pretending they still agree with her and lose their credibility in much the same way as she has lost what little she had, or they finally admit they were wrong about her and end up with egg on their faces.

Anyway, it is becoming increasingly obvious that, faced with so much proof, you are unable and unwilling to admit you are wrong and so are trying to twist things around, trying pretend I've said the exact opposite to what I have actually said, and generally trying to fudge the issue in a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from the fact that you cannot answer. If you can answer any of the points I've raised, please do, instead of avoiding them. Otherwise stop wasting my time.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I have not conceded that people are not responsible for other people's interpretations


You are very quick to forget what you have written earlier in the thread. You have indeed conceded that people are not responsible if others place a wrongful interpretation of their words. How else can we take your earlier assertion that...



Spellweaver said:


> any such interpretation on your part would be wrong and hence I wouldn't be responsible for your interpretation.


Your words, Spellweaver, not mine.



> Again, you seem to be unable to read and understand plain English. I don't know where you've got the "genuine error" bit from.  I mentioned nothing about genuine error


It becomes tiresome to explain but a failure of research (if such it be) is a genuine error (as opposed to dishonesty). I was glad that you allowed that possibility rather than maintaining that Ms. Harrison was intentionally trying to deceive.



> And, after all, she's just proved herself to be more than capable of incompetent research *and a wish to deliberately mislead *with her actions over the shar pei.


Oh dear...that didn't last long, did it? Lol.

I think I'm going to wrap up my contribution to this thread now as, despite my repeated requests you have been unable to show me where the programme said, or implied that all pedigree dogs are unhealthy. Truisms about breeds do not equate to comments about individuals, observations about show dogs do not speak of all pedigrees, concerns about "high levels" of ailments do not mean every dog and comments about the nation's vet bills cannot be interpreted to mean that all pedigree dogs are unhealthy unless one has such a deep-seated need to denigrate the programme that one happily forsakes logic and language.

The truth, as Malsmum accurately observed, is that the programme never made the claims you have attributed to it. The need to undermine the show is apparently so great that any charge, no matter how flimsy (or, in this instance, fictional) will do.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Johnderondon said:


> The need to undermine the show is apparently so great that any charge, no matter how flimsy (or, in this instance, fictional) will do.


The show is pretty much considered a bit of nonsense by most people now, after the recent revelations.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

YouTube - Pedigree dogs part 1

OMG!!  Just watching that clip again is frightening and as a dog lover I realy wouldn't care if people got the wrong impression, though Jemima did say "pedigree dogs are falling apart" she didn't say *all* pedigree dogs are falling apart! I don't think it's rocket science to see the breeds the programme was aimed at and to feel great empathy for them - the breeders don't come into the equasion IMO. To have bred those dogs at all is scandalous and as is always said on here, once you have a litter you are a breeder, so breeders - whether good or bad are to blame for these dogs suffering!

I am very pleased that this programme was aired, it has helped to change standards in some breeds and to some extent made the public aware of how important health testing is - which can both only be a good thing.

My passion for the Malamute and the very few health issues it - so far - has does not make me discard the fact that other breeds are in crisis. At the end of the day they are all dogs and I care for them all, as do other people featured in this programme. It would be very self centered and selfish of me not to be concerned just because the breed I love most is unaffected by these types of issues. I do note though that Mal breders don't seem to feel as threatened by this programme, knowing our breed is still pretty much the same as it originally was and can't make out why breeders on here are, showing very little concern about the welfare of the dogs the programme featured and being more concerned about what people *think* about pedigree dogs in general.
If your breed is healthy why be concerned? and if it isn't, *do* something about it!

This programme may not be good for "business" but if it's good for dogs, who cares?


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> The show is pretty much considered a bit of nonsense by most people now, after the recent revelations.


78 breed standards have been changed.

KC-affiliated breed clubs can no longer recommend that healthy pups be culled.

Father/daughter, sibling/sibling matings have been banned.

More breeders are participating in health testing.

These are just _some_ of the effects of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed broadcast. If such be nonsense then we could do with a bit more.:thumbup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> You are very quick to forget what you have written earlier in the thread. You have indeed conceded that people are not responsible if others place a wrongful interpretation of their words. How else can we take your earlier assertion that...
> 
> any such interpretation on your part would be wrong and hence I wouldn't be responsible for your interpretation.
> 
> Your words, Spellweaver, not mine.


I know exactly what I wrote. Do not part quote to try to make what I said fit into your warped version of what happened. I don't know why you do it - you only persist in making yourself look stupid because the posts are there for all to see. My actual words were:



Spellweaver said:


> If I had written something that made you think the KC was Satan and Jemima should be queen, then yes, of course I would be responsible for that. However, your argument immediately falls down because you would be unable to furnish examples of why my post made you believe this, and your inability to do so would mean that any such interpretation on your part would be wrong and hence I wouldn't be responsible for your interpretation. I, on the other hand, can and have furnished many examples of why PDE led people to believe all pedigrees are inbred and unhealthy, therefore Jemima* is *responsible for that.


I'll try to explain it more clearly for you: If someone produces something that makes someone else believe something, then the author is responsible. And in PDE there were loads of examples of the program saying all pedigree dogs are unhealthy and inbred, many of which I quoted to you. You cannot deny they were there and so your only recourse is to persist in silliness like this.



Johnderondon said:


> It becomes tiresome to explain but a failure of research (if such it be) is a genuine error (as opposed to dishonesty). I was glad that you allowed that possibility rather than maintaining that Ms. Harrison was intentionally trying to deceive.


It becomes tiresome to explain for the third time but, once again - now do read this carefully - I made no mention of genuine error. I do not believe there was any genuine error. I believe that either her research was defective - that is INCOMPETENCE and nothing to do with a genuine error - or she was deliberately trying to deceive. Whichever one it was, it throws the rest of her research and the whole of the program into doubt.



Johnderondon said:


> I think I'm going to wrap up my contribution to this thread now as, despite my repeated requests you have been unable to show me where the programme said, or implied that all pedigree dogs are unhealthy.


I'm not surprised you say you're not going to post again - you still haven't proved your point and you are still avoiding answering. You can pretend I have furnished no proof all you want - but the proof is there for all to see, as is you avoidance of discussing all said proof.



Johnderondon said:


> The need to undermine the show is apparently so great that any charge, no matter how flimsy (or, in this instance, fictional) will do.


:lol: :lol: :lol: Nothing I've written is fictional - it was all referenced with clips from the show itself. Again , it's all there on the thread for all to see. You know I'm right, but you can't admit it because of how stupid it would make you look for supporting Jemima Harrison and her program in the first place. I would think a lot better of you if you admitted your mistake and moved on instead of trying to pretend Jemima is a competent journalist who made a balanced program.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> I think I'm going to wrap up my contribution to this thread now as, despite my repeated requests you have been unable to show me where the programme said, or implied that all pedigree dogs are unhealthy.


The hint is in the title - *Pedigree* Dogs Exposed


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> 78 breed standards have been changed.
> 
> KC-affiliated breed clubs can no longer recommend that healthy pups be culled.
> 
> ...


All these would have happened anyway, but I guess Jemima and her sycophants are going to try to justify the program by claiming credit for everything the KC does for the next god knows how many years.

However, You forgot to mention the greatest influence the program has had on the welfare of dogs - creating a demand for non-pedigrees from puppy farmers so that more and more dogs are kept cruelly in horrendous conditions. And *that* is nonsense we could do without.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> can't make out why breeders on here are, showing very little concern about the welfare of the dogs the programme featured and being more concerned about what people *think* about pedigree dogs in general.
> If your breed is healthy why be concerned? and if it isn't, *do* something about it!


I own two very healthy breeds - in fact the bergamasco is exactly as nature intended and has been that way for over two thousand years. But just because my breeds are healthy does not mean I should have a "well, I'm alright Jack" attitude about the rest of the dog world. It does not stop me being concerned for other breeds. Nor does it stop me being concerned that, because this program gave out wrong information about pedigrees and the KC, puppy farmers are proliferating and hence many more dogs are suffering.



Malmum said:


> This programme may not be good for "business" but if it's good for dogs, who cares?


I can honestly say that the program has not affected my "business" as you call it any way. But it has not been good for all the dogs who have been bought as breeding machines by puppy farmers to fill the rise in demand resulting from this program.


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I can honestly say that the program has not affected my "business" as you call it any way. But it has not been good for all the dogs who have been bought as breeding machines by puppy farmers to fill the rise in demand resulting from this program.


As a breeder of one of the breeds featured in the programme (pugs) I can honestly say that the interest in my breeding has not be affected either, we have almost daily enquiries for pups. They are often from people wanting a quality, healthy pet or a future show prospect. However, the amount of pugs being bred commercially has increased and also, the amount of pug crosses available (again, through commercial breeding and puppy farming very often) has also exploded! These are often sold as being "healthier than purebred pugs" which is just not true, plenty are ending up in rescue with health and behavioural problems and i have seen a fair few ads citing the PDE programme to support their point about pedigree pugs being unhealthy.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I wonder how many on this forum have unhealthy crossbreeds, would love to know as mine are very fit and healthy - still, that's another thread I expect!


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

ALL pedigree dogs I have....known (not just kept), have had health problems,due to one trait or another.Eyes,heart,tumours,hips,epilepsy,arthritis.

Mutts however,are funky in their own way,and dont have the same 'genetic' faults as pedigree.Just my experience.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

As there is no registry for mongrels/crossbreeds, then there cannot be a fair comparison made as to wether they are healthier or suffer less from genetic conditions from either of their pedigree/purebred ancestry


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

holly1 said:


> ALL pedigree dogs I have....known (not just kept), have had health problems,due to one trait or another.Eyes,heart,tumours,hips,epilepsy,arthritis.
> 
> Mutts however,are funky in their own way,and dont have the same 'genetic' faults as pedigree.Just my experience.


How many crossbreeds do you know that have been screened for these hereditary conditions? I know a lot of crossbreed owners and not one has had their dog health tested.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

holly1 said:


> Eyes,heart,tumours,hips,epilepsy,arthritis.


Do crossbreeds not get arthritis? :confused1::confused1::confused1:


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

holly1 said:


> ALL pedigree dogs I have....known (not just kept), have had health problems,due to one trait or another.Eyes,heart,tumours,hips,epilepsy,arthritis.
> 
> Mutts however,are funky in their own way,and dont have the same 'genetic' faults as pedigree.Just my experience.


One of my mutts had hip dysplasia and another developed a heart murmur in early middle age ... quirky yes and rescues, but not as healthy as some pedigreee dogs we have had ...


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2011)

pearltheplank said:


> Do crossbreeds not get arthritis? :confused1::confused1::confused1:


Cross breeds can get almost anything tbh.

My cross is in very very sick health, yet my 3 kc reg pedigree dogs are in tip top shape.

I have met more sick cross's than pedigree's.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Cross breeds can get almost anything tbh.


I know It was rather tongue in cheek


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Johnderondon said:


> You are confusing the number of catalogued conditions with the actual number. Human health has about one thousand times the level of research and funding that canine health has. It's not surprising therefor that a greater number of ailments and inheritable disorders have been identified in humans.
> 
> As far as your question goes, it seems an odd tangent to take the debate but my answer would be no, I don't see that we should. I don't think that we should stop breeding dogs either.


I do agree with your point regarding funding research but surely that can be applied to pedigree dogs vs crosses.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

pearltheplank said:


> Do crossbreeds not get arthritis? :confused1::confused1::confused1:


(Puts tongue firmly in cheek) Yes hun, of course they do.  We had a lab cross with arthritis, and two different friends have a staffie crosses with arthritis and a GSD cross with arthritis. And while I'm on the subject of crosses with problems, our staffie cross had congestive heart failure, and a collie cross we rescued had dreadful skin problems.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

holly1 said:


> ALL pedigree dogs I have....known (not just kept), have had health problems,due to one trait or another.Eyes,heart,tumours,hips,epilepsy,arthritis.
> 
> Mutts however,are funky in their own way,and dont have the same 'genetic' faults as pedigree.Just my experience.


It is equally as likely that mutts will have more genetic problems than pedigrees - the more breeds in there, the more different genetic problems there are.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

> It is equally as likely that mutts will have more genetic problems than pedigrees - the more breeds in there, the more different genetic problems there are.


That's incorrect. As soon as you limit a gene pool -which is what breedign pedigree anything-pigs/horses/cats- you increase the likelyhood of genetic problems.
This is why cousin-cousin marrages are frowned upon or outlawed in most countries.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

My cross is completely healthy but terriers in general are. I've met crosses with hip dysplasia, arthritis, a labrador/poodle cross who suspected PRA, one that had to have soft pallet reduction surgery and a lot of other problems. They can inherit problems from their parents and they're prone to joint problems like any other dog. I'm not saying all pedigree dogs are healthy of course they're not like any animals they can have health problems and yes some of those are genetic


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Its a wee bit boring to keep seeing people compare whats healthier, pedigrees or crosses. There is no standard answer..Depends where the dogs come from, and what health tests have been carried out on parents, grandparents ect..Stands to right that cross breeding doesnt always produce healthy puppies without tests done, infact you can get the same results as putting two non tested pedigree dogs together.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Jess2308 said:


> How many crossbreeds do you know that have been screened for these hereditary conditions? I know a lot of crossbreed owners and not one has had their dog health tested.


I might actually, now, just to see.

His mother was (see earlier on in the thread). But now I'm curious.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I have met more sick cross's than pedigree's.


Ironically I've only ever met 2 sick dogs in my entire life (well, not counting Scorcher, that makes 3) and both those were pedigree. One was a GSD that had arthritis and was put to sleep aged 9 because of it, the other was a Rottie that had a heart problem and died aged 6.

Don't know history of either, both were owned by a police man. The GSD was a dog that was bred for police work but was't accepted.

I was only 15 when the GSD died. I used to walk her for him, she was a fantastic dog. broke my heart when she died.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Have to say that in my 54 years I can't actually think of a dog i've known that was sick, crossbreed or other even the many i've had have had good health. Marty is the only dog I know to have a health problem and that's hypothyroidism which is a Mal thing anyway, other than that and Flynns hips I suppose i've been lucky with crosses and pures.

I do know that when I went to Fitzpatrick referrals ther were many purebreds there with the exception of about four crossbreeds and I visited Noel on six occasions all told. Many were labs and retrievers, one ridgeback and a couple of boxers. All these were ortho patieints obviously. My daughter Rosie had the priviledge of seeing Noel do three ops, an elbow replacement on a lab, a hip replacement on a lab and spinal surgery on what she thinks was a retriever.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Malmum said:


> My daughter Rosie had the priviledge of seeing Noel do three ops, an elbow replacement on a lab, a hip replacement on a lab and spinal surgery on what she thinks was a retriever.


I can't watch stuff like that on animals.

For some wierd reason, on humans I'm ok, but with animals makes me ill.

Good reason i never had a calling to be a vet!


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Oh and two GSD's, one Greyhound and two Springers - forgot about them!  Will have to ask Noel what the proportion is in dogs he treats when I see him soon.

Know what you mean about op's on animals i'm the same. Can work in a hospital, deal with awful cancer situations but still keep my head - if it were an animal i'd be in peices!


----------

