# Tonight - Pedigree Dogs Exposed ......



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

...... 3 years on.

It's on BBC4 at 9:00. Apparently an update on whether anything has improved since the first documentary.


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Hopefully. It has to have surely. Going bu some stuff I've read it has I reckon.


----------



## plaiceandchips (Jan 18, 2011)

:gasp: Thank you so much i remember watching the first one with the boxers cavvies and bull dogs if I remember right, I hope things have changed but I somehow doubt it


----------



## trogdorable (Feb 4, 2011)

just turned it ton ch4 and its coppers thats on ? =s


----------



## trogdorable (Feb 4, 2011)

ah! nevermind!


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

trogdorable said:


> just turned it ton ch4 and its coppers thats on ? =s


BBC4, not CH4


----------



## freekygeeky (May 25, 2007)

watching it now, i wonder if ill cry, i balled my eyes out at the last one.

my boyfriends mother is going to crufts this year with her cavs... it does bother me though


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Showing really doesn't interest me. I like obedience trials, sheepdog trials etc, but showing just doesnt do anything for me. Seems to encourage too many hereditary faults.


----------



## plaiceandchips (Jan 18, 2011)

That's disappointing barely anything has changed.. next step win the lottery and set up a regulatory body and reform breeds


----------



## George_Millett (Feb 26, 2009)

plaiceandchips said:


> That's disappointing barely anything has changed.. next step win the lottery and set up a regulatory body and reform breeds


You beat me to it. I was going to come on here and ask who was depressed after watching the program.

I had good feelings about the boxers until it revealed that the 2 breeders at the center of it were delusional. How much information do you need to be presented with before you accept that you have an issue or is the money too good??:bash::bash:


----------



## mooselee (Oct 8, 2007)

I never watched the original programme 3 years ago but what i watched tonight has really saddened me. 

What a bunch of egotistical, selfish morons a lot of dog breeders are.

I'm so glad i bought my boxer from a breeder who refused to deal with the KC.


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Roxy the boxer was my friends dog, never knew his mrs was on this. I did know she was involved in boxer health reforms.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

well, i posted that same image of the bulldogs head a few days ago... its saddening,
glad i went for a 'mongrel' old tyme now... i feel my conscience is clear!


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

i was saddened by the whole thing.
the images were heartbreaking... some of those dogs looked in real pain and sounded like it too.
what a crying shame that breeders vanity has become more important than the health of some of our best loved dogs...
its all about getting those certs and rosettes.
nevermind that your pet cannot breath!:devil:


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

TKC needs to get tough if a breeder refuses to do something for the good of the breed ban them.


----------



## George_Millett (Feb 26, 2009)

DavieB said:


> TKC needs to get tough if a breeder refuses to do something for the good of the breed ban them.



Why wait for the Kennel club. If you have bought an boxer from one of those 2 lines and it develops kidney problems would you be able to sue them??

Genuine question that, you have entered into a contract with them for them to supply you with a healthy animal and you are getting a basket case of issues, which they appear to be perpetuating due to either their negligence or willful ignorance.


----------



## Ophexis (Feb 19, 2010)

The show disappointed me, really. Not much has changed and any changes that may have been put to consideration, elitists of the breed kick up a stink. People are deluded.


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

George_Milllett said:


> Why wait for the Kennel club. If you have bought an boxer from one of those 2 lines and it develops kidney problems would you be able to sue them??
> 
> Genuine question that, you have entered into a contract with them for them to supply you with a healthy animal and you are getting a basket case of issues, which they appear to be perpetuating due to either their negligence or willful ignorance.


The owners of the Boxer (roxy) it showed you tonight are relatively wealthy and if it was possible to sue over it I'm sure Martin would have investigated it, so I doubt it.


----------



## George_Millett (Feb 26, 2009)

DavieB said:


> The owners of the Boxer (roxy) it showed you tonight are relatively wealthy and if it was possible to sue over it I'm sure Martin would have investigated it, so I doubt it.



Shame if they did investigate and they can't sue. Just mulling it through in my head couldn't there be something in the sales of goods act or the animal you bought not being what was described. AS I take it none of these breeders are admitting that there are any issues with their lines.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

George_Milllett said:


> You beat me to it. I was going to come on here and ask who was depressed after watching the program.


I was!!!

It just shows that a lot of those people aren't breeding because they love dogs and want to produce lovely, healthy dogs to be great pets for people - they're only interested in what they can make out of it.

I was horrified when I found out how many puppies that Boxer Stud dog had sired! :gasp:



DavieB said:


> The owners of the Boxer (roxy) it showed you tonight are relatively wealthy and if it was possible to sue over it I'm sure Martin would have investigated it, so I doubt it.


Dave, I presume that was the Scottish Lady with the boxer, who had the bladder problems.

I just wondered why they let her get to that state - sorry if they're your friends, but I think they were wrong to let her get that bad that she lost a third of her body weight and then ended up dying a horrible death. If she'd been mine I'd have given her a peaceful death before she got to that stage. The photograph of her before she died she looked skeletal. That was very sad! :sad:

And Barry and I were struggling to understand why she bought the half-sister??


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

feorag said:


> I was!!!
> 
> It just shows that a lot of those people aren't breeding because they love dogs and want to produce lovely, healthy dogs to be great pets for people - they're only interested in what they can make out of it.
> 
> ...


I guess its hard to give up on something, I thought the same thing though tbh. I guess they were hoping in vein something would work out, she was a veterinary nurse back then too. I can't answer why they bought the half sister either. I will say she has put a lot of work into junior kidney failure of boxers. I guess they like boxers. Personally I wouldn't encourage the breeder but if that sire has sired that many anyway its giving one a good home isn't it. Don;t know if they knew the ins and outs of the illness or hereditariness of it when they bought the half sister.


That one boxer siring that many is completely irresponsible they just don't give a @£[email protected] how can the breed possibly avoid inbreeding like that.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

I wasn't having a go, you know that, but I could not watch an animal of mine go through that, because I think they had to know, deep down, that she wasn't going to improve, so with that amount of weight loss I'd have said goodbye!

Going back to the programme though, the attitude of the Dalmation breeders to that woman importing the Dalmation bred down from a Pointer to introduce a missing gene was so narrow minded as to be downright irresponsible.


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

feorag said:


> I wasn't having a go, you know that, but I could not watch an animal of mine go through that, because I think they had to know, deep down, that she wasn't going to improve, so with that amount of weight loss I'd have said goodbye!
> 
> Going back to the programme though, the attitude of the Dalmation breeders to that woman importing the Dalmation bred down from a Pointer to introduce a missing gene was so narrow minded as to be downright irresponsible.


Its a joke isn't it. Could be so easily wiped out even by changing judging rules to make a flat face a fault, or other traits adversely affecting health would slowly encourage better breeding. I think its too late for pugs, CKCS, (Western) Sharpei, and bulldogs though. there are other breeds in there too that are as bad. but at the same time most breeds are health dogs from healthy lines. Think we have to accept this is a touch sensationalist. But as long as these practices are being allowed an the snobbery/greed continues its a slippery slope.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Unfortunately, as long a judges ignore standards and continue to put up extreme examples of breeds, the ambitious breeders will continue to breed that type of dog and nothing will ever change.

The KC need to come down on judges, who ignore directives such as that (judges like the one who put that awful bulldog up) and maybe suspend them or fine them.

Really imao it isn't the breeders who decide which direction a breed goes in, it's the judges who put up the type they like, thereby encouring people who like to win to breed that type. Of course judges are, or have been, breeders, so have an idea in their mind of what they want in a dog, usually what they are or were breeding, whether it's right or wrong compared to the SOP.


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

I missed it, but have set a reminder for the repeat at 1:20am.

We breeders & exhibitors have been awaiting this sequel to the very one-sided first programme. If its anything like the first one, I expect it to be rather one-sided again, probably focus on exhibition breeders instead of the many pet breeders who churn out numerous poor examples of breeds, with no health tests or background to their breeding. Yes, there are breeders who see the £ signs as a primary reason for breeding, & who put profit before the welfare of their dogs & the breed. There are unscrupulous people in all hobbies. But the responsible breeders who are trying to better their lines & the breed are out there, doing their best to weed out health problems, faults & defects. 

This video is good, & shows some of what the responsible breeders are doing for dogs Dogs - A Healthy Future - YouTube


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Just settling in to watch now...

I actually think it is unfair how much stick the KC gets - they are a REGISTRY, they should _not have to dictate ethics _to dog lovers_._ 

I think it's absolutely amazing the amount of information published by the KC - there are breed health surveys available to download for free, mate select, the hip testing scheme can provide you with breed averages, the potential issues in various breeds and recommended testing are there to be looked at.

I honestly 100% believe it is down to the end consumer to make educated choices of their own free will...

Having said that, there have been some absolutely excellent results from the first programme so I am looking forward to this!

ETA - also, there are some examples of breeds where pet breeders are breeding more extreme versions e.g. pet bred sharpeis, for instance - so the culpability is not entirely on the show world!


----------



## Draco (Nov 23, 2005)

I feel so sorry for the KC they can only do so much. Personaly I think when face with breeders like the boxer ones who failed to even look like they cared, what can the KC do.

The last programe made me so so angry, it needed to be said but was so one sided and made every single breeder out to be monsters. This one was more balanced and very interesting.


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

please correct me if im wrong but dont the KC run the 'big' dog shows? cruffs and so on?

if thats the case then its there judges who are seemingly awarding prizes to unhealthy dogs and the breeders who ignore health concerns just for looks.

surely they could also just not allow registration to breeders who refuse to follow health recommendations? 

so on those grounds then yes, they should be getting some grief, they need to get there house in order as it where.


----------



## Draco (Nov 23, 2005)

then what?

lose the breeder that wil set up there own club out of the KC's reach.

You know I think some people out side the dog showing world think it is so simple.

Like the KC will demand breeders to do this and that and the breeders will fall into line.

It won't happpen


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

Draco said:


> then what?
> 
> lose the breeder that wil set up there own club out of the KC's reach.
> 
> ...


then they loose there selling point. 'KC registered' puts money on puppy prices. winning in a KC show means even more money for pups plus stud fees. if your going to breed an unhealthy dog you are clearly seeing £££ signs.

and please dont make out im naive, its very annoying.


----------



## Draco (Nov 23, 2005)

miss_ferret said:


> then they loose there selling point. 'KC registered' puts money on puppy prices. winning in a KC show means even more money for pups plus stud fees. if your going to breed an unhealthy dog you are clearly seeing £££ signs.
> 
> and please dont make out im naive, its very annoying.


It happened in the US, there nothing to say it won't happen here.

KC reg don't put money on puppies, my sister got a non KC reg pup resently and payed £450, designer dogs got for higher price than KC reg parents.

I'm not making anyone out to be anything, just pointing out it not always that simple.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Ok, watched the programme!

I actually really enjoyed it - again, certain things irked me but I thought it was much more measured and I was glad to hear mate select getting a mention as 'genuinely useful' and a few other bits and bobs. Also, I do think that explaining the blatently obvious which was done in a few places will be helpful for the general public. 

HOWEVER, I think it's unfair to brand the showing world as a 'beauty pageant' and the root of all evil which was still the case. Obviously coloured by the programme makers' experiences as a flatcoat owner from working lines - fair enough. There are plenty of 'Hunters' in the horsey showing world that have never been outside a ring - same thing. If more credit was given for working ability where applicable then the disparity would surely be lessened.



miss_ferret said:


> please correct me if im wrong but dont the KC run the 'big' dog shows? cruffs and so on?
> 
> if thats the case then its there judges who are seemingly awarding prizes to unhealthy dogs and the breeders who ignore health concerns just for looks.


I have to say that I don't think it's always been clear that certain elements of a breed standard would result in corresponding health problems - it takes time for these things to become apparent. The KC have paid attention to high profile breeds etc but still, exhibitors could choose _not_ to exhibit under certain judges who favour 'unhealthy' breed type - there is no single person at blame here, it's a cumulative impact of various factors. 

It would be brilliant if there was more accountability though - perhaps if Feorag comes along she can explain how GCCF breed judging works - that type of thing might be incredibly helpful for high profile breeds in the short term.



miss_ferret said:


> surely they could also just not allow registration to breeders who refuse to follow health recommendations?
> 
> so on those grounds then yes, they should be getting some grief, they need to get there house in order as it where.


Not all health problems can be tested for, and like I said earlier, a registration body should _not have to_ dictate ethics to dog lovers! If people voted with their feet and refused to buy from animals without appropriate testing, there would be much less of an issue.



miss_ferret said:


> then they loose there selling point. 'KC registered' puts money on puppy prices. winning in a KC show means even more money for pups plus stud fees. if your going to breed an unhealthy dog you are clearly seeing £££ signs.
> 
> and please dont make out im naive, its very annoying.


I honestly think people who bypass registration, health testing, the expense, time, dedication of showing, feed their dog cheap food and mate it with the poodle down the road stand to make a hell of a lot more money than most kennels with a reputation to uphold. The prices you see on gumtree and the freeads are set at the same level often as the top breeders in the country. 

Sorry... another long one...


----------



## kezzbag (Jan 16, 2011)

i felt physically sick after watching this!...i never saw the original but wish i had, we spent 2 years reserching breeds befor we chose our dog and we did use info from the kennel club but lucky we chose a rescue border collie cross spirnger spaniel....being a cross she has every chance of a full healthy life without disease.

we should protest to get this kennel club shut down....i cant beleive they think its ok to inbreed these dogs.....i was shocked and disgusted with their opinions.

next time i see an advert for a puppy and it says KC registered or pedigree with strong show line i will avoid like the plague!


----------



## kezzbag (Jan 16, 2011)

annabel said:


> Just settling in to watch now...
> 
> I actually think it is unfair how much stick the KC gets - they are a REGISTRY, they should _not have to dictate ethics _to dog lovers_._
> 
> ...


 
well its the same as blameing magazines and the TV shows for the dramatic rise in annorexia and suicide in young children and teenagers nowadays.......the KC run things like crufts and are looked to by nearly every1 for thier information they set the standards for "show dogs" therefor are directly resposible and the opinions and deliberate inbreeding by the members and the crufts judges is sickening!!.....i have a cross breed and would only ever buy a cross breed my nan had a pedigree pommerainian (sp??) he was 9 when he died, he had heart probs, and eventually died of kidnedy/liver failier.....my nan spent £300 a month on medication for his problems and even tried dialisis at the end but wanted to stop his suffering so put him down.

whereas my parents had a "mongrel" as they are called she was 18 when she died and never had any probs till she was 16 and she started to get cancer, she had many ops but in the end it was better to let her go.


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

kezzbag said:


> lucky we chose a rescue border collie cross spirnger spaniel....being a cross she has every chance of a full healthy life without disease.


It is never a bad idea to rescue a dog rather than buy a puppy, but I am afraid this sentence is very inaccurate.

There are many diseases that run in *both* spaniel and collies, and they are diseases many breeders of KC accredited breeders would have to test for if tests exist for them. These include but are not limited to Hip Dysplasia, Progressive Retinal Atrophy, and Seizure Disorders (epilepsy in humans) which could be no less likely to occur in a crossbreed such as yours than a badly bred pure breed of either individual breed. 

Added to this there is the possibility of many disorders (if dominant) that only affects one or other of the combined breeds affecting a cross breed and as it seems far less common to find cross breed breeders that test than pure breed breeders that test there is arguably more chance they will have an issue than if people took time to find a puppy from good breeders.

Although as someone said above there are some breeds where they have gone too far and the only way back is for some very well informed people to carefully crossbreed to return them to a viable animal. This is the point such as the very Brachycephalic breeds where the only way to get a healthier one from a breathing point of view is to get a cross breed

The way forward is for people to research which breed or crossbreed they want, research the things that can affect the parent breeds and make sure those that can be tested for are tested for and the health issues of parents and grandparents are known. There needs to be adverts everywhere, these programmes are only watched by those already interested, it is a good start, but it is preaching to the choir. People need to know the right way to buy a dog before they even consider they may want a pet. Teach it in biology to school children, advertise before Corrie or whatever people watch, write it in The Sun. People do not realise how little they know about getting a healthy dog, they see an ad, make a decision and get a dog days later, they have no idea and education is the way to drive out bad breeders because hopefully then their practises will become unprofitable


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

Some people in this thread are making me very sad. I'm not quoting anyone because there's a fair few.
By buying a cross or a non registered puppy, you are not helping the situation at all. The way to help dogs is to buy a registered puppy with all the health tests done on the parents, and grandparents etc, that way you are supporting the breeders who are doing the right thing and improving the health of the breed as a whole. 
If we take the example of that cavalier stud, if all puppy buyers had insisted on seeing recent MRI's for both parent dogs, and refused to buy without them, then that stud would not be used by anyone and the breed as a whole would be helped by removing an SM dog from the gene pool.
It would be nice if the studs owner took him out voluntarily, but the people who buy his puppies are just as much to blame.
Similarly, if people had researched the boxer stud properly then they would have noticed his history and not bought a pup sired by him.
If you want a non KC dog, then get one from a rescue, there's plenty there and you will be saving a life either directly or indirectly.

On my second point, the boxer owner whose stud was suspected to be the issue was quoted on camera as saying she'd be quite happy to offer blood for research but hadn't been aware it was needed, why was that not followed up? If she was genuinely offering blood then why wasn't it taken? I feel she may have been unfairly victimised. Obviously, she may have been bluffing, but we have no way of knowing when she wasn't given the chance.


----------



## pigglywiggly (Jul 19, 2008)

i thought the programme a bit more balanced that the first one.

the show world wont improve much in a hurry imo.
the kc is only the registration body.
its the breed clubs that write the breed standards that dogs are judged to.

health problems tend to be swept under the carpet.

see why i got an earful of grief from the cav club when i phoned for the puppy list and asked for heath testing breeders numbers only though :gasp: think i hit a nerve?


----------



## thalie_knights (Jan 19, 2007)

There will always be prospective dog owners looking for the easier / cheaper / less time-consuming option when choosing their pet. For as long as these 'types' of owners exist, then unfortunately these breeders will continue to produce pups for this market.

We spent about 6 months researching prospective Dobe breeders, and found that none in the UK fittied with our 'requirements', and many barely provided enough information at all. We were fortunate to find a trust worthy breeder who provides you with a mininum 10 generation history of your pup, inc the parent's hip scores / blood details / eye checks etc. A breeder who values his dogs and then his reputation in producing good lines and solid 'stock' wouldn't even think twice about this.

Perhaps it is because we wanted our Dobe for specific training purposes, that we paid closer attention to background information?
Perhaps those that choose to buy 'a family pet' believe that because not much will fundamentally be required of the dog, that the information I believe as mandatory, is of little relevance?

I can't understand the mentality of those that choose to bypass such vital history on where their prospective dog is coming from.

If I want a dog for a 'specific purpose' then I will take it upon myself to do the relevant research.
If I wanted a 'normal' dog to be with at home, I would go to a shelter and re-home. That being said, my earliest memory as a child was growing up with my dog - a stray who we found at 9 weeks old, pushed down a bottle-bank recycling shute near Hampstead Heath, and who lived with us happy as larry for all her 18 years.


----------



## kezzbag (Jan 16, 2011)

i fully understand what you are saying, but i never bought her i adopted. and we reaserched many breeds over the years.

i would never buy a puppy in the first place as we both work and its like having a new born baby 1 of you have to be at home constantly. i live in southampton and we have been all over the south going to dog shelters because it breaks my heart that they are full with homeless dogs and mine was a stray from ireland, she is only 2 and has spent most of her life as a stray or in kennels.

im a very fussy owner and i insist on regular vet visits as we researched both border collie and all the spaniels befor we took her on. 

i must say im very against dog breeding and any dog i get would or have been neutered to avoid any accidents......the people who do dog breed need to be regulated and all tests done and proven, if no test is availible then there need to be a monitor on the puppies for a few generations, any probs can then be weeded out.

but iv sent an email to the KC this morning telling them exactly what i think and people can defend them all they want but is it not their responsibility to inform people of the problems in breeds, in the end we used an american website i will find the address later but they list every single breed along with diseases, temperment and so on and thats how we decided that anna was perfect for us.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Zoo-Man said:


> We breeders & exhibitors have been awaiting this sequel to the very one-sided first programme. If its anything like the first one, I expect it to be rather one-sided again, probably focus on exhibition breeders instead of the many pet breeders who churn out numerous poor examples of breeds, with no health tests or background to their breeding. Yes, there are breeders who see the £ signs as a primary reason for breeding, & who put profit before the welfare of their dogs & the breed. There are unscrupulous people in all hobbies. But the responsible breeders who are trying to better their lines & the breed are out there, doing their best to weed out health problems, faults & defects.


Sadly Colin the minority will always spoil it for the majority!

What upset me was how many breeders chose to ignore the problems in their breed and carry on breeding. I've no doubt that happens in the cat world too, but the lack of information for newbies looking to buy a breed worried me. I can't remember now which breed it was (think it was the boxer) where the programme pointed out that nowhere on the breed club website was there any information that the breed suffered from the problem and I think that is totally irresponsible - in fact comparing that to what happens in the Cat Fancy was the first thing I said to my husband as we watched it.

I bred Somali cats for years and about 6 years ago we discovered we had a blood problem in the breed called PKDef (Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency - not to be confused with PKD - Polycystic Kidney Disease). It's recessive, but fortunately can be tested for and cats can be either normal, a carrier or affected. Affected means a cat carries 2 genes and will go on to develop the disease. Carriers will not develop the disease and can be mated to normal cats, which will produce some normal and some carriers, but no cats that will develop the disease and die, so breeders immediately set about testing their cats, breeding carriers to normals, testing kittens and petting out carriers to eradicate the gene from the breed and an article explaining the whole disease, symptoms etc and what the club was doing to eradicate it from our breed was immediately put onto the club website.

This disease was highly prevalent in Abys and Somalis, but it is now appearing in other breeds, such as bengals and Singapuras and I understand their breed clubs are also working to eradicate it.

I remember many years ago how 'night blindness' was eradicated from Irish Setters, due to diligent breeding - last night's programme made it obvious to me that *some *breeders are not putting the dogs' health first and are more interested in what they can get out of breeding their dogs.


----------



## thalie_knights (Jan 19, 2007)

With adoption it's each to their own really - you are fundamentally taking on a dog that someone else didnt want / the money isnt going to the breeder directly. As long as you are aware of possible health issues, that of course it would be ludicrous to suggest that those dogs up for adoption that are 'in-bred' be pts simply because of the issues that may occur at a later stage.

The one line that always gets me, is when you hear of people saying 'no...I didnt do any checks / get any tests done / get any paperwork etc, but I saw the parents.':bash::bash::bash:


----------



## kezzbag (Jan 16, 2011)

thalie_knights said:


> With adoption it's each to their own really - you are fundamentally taking on a dog that someone else didnt want / the money isnt going to the breeder directly. As long as you are aware of possible health issues, that of course it would be ludicrous to suggest that those dogs up for adoption that are 'in-bred' be pts simply because of the issues that may occur at a later stage.
> 
> The one line that always gets me, is when you hear of people saying 'no...I didnt do any checks / get any tests done / get any paperwork etc, but I saw the parents.':bash::bash::bash:


thats very true, when i went to blue cross i took the mountain of paperwork i had reaserched and they made sure we knew what we were getting being a VERY active dog, we had about 6 visits with anna and altho they dident have any previos info on her they did all the testing and jabs and neutered her in their own vets on site......2 weeks after we brought her home we took her to the vet for an "MOT" lol i had everything tested for that can be tested and apart from putting on a bit of weight (she was very skinny when we got her)....the tests all came back negative and they even offered to do a DNA test to see exactly what cross she is because im sure she is not a 1st cross.


----------



## thalie_knights (Jan 19, 2007)

Think its a different kettle of fish altogether with adoption - fundamentally you are only reaaaally able to research the 'breed type' before adopting, rather than what I would call the 'mandatory' details which I personally would want to know, if for example, I was purchasing that particular dog from the breeder.

With adopting, after the tests are done and you bring the dog home...there's a little part of you that can only cross fingers and toes that you havent taken home a complete fruit loop :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## kezzbag (Jan 16, 2011)

thalie_knights said:


> Think its a different kettle of fish altogether with adoption - fundamentally you are only reaaaally able to research the 'breed type' before adopting, rather than what I would call the 'mandatory' details which I personally would want to know, if for example, I was purchasing that particular dog from the breeder.
> 
> With adopting, after the tests are done and you bring the dog home...there's a little part of you that can only cross fingers and toes that you havent taken home a complete fruit loop :Na_Na_Na_Na:


lol she is abit nutty but thats why i love her...and she does very well at keeping the cats out of the garden but with her history i expected to get a nutty dog.....but iv been lucky with her temperment xx


----------



## FreddiesMum (Jan 10, 2007)

Just watched this poor dogs.....yet again animals suffering because of humans :bash:


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

annabel said:


> It would be brilliant if there was more accountability though - perhaps if Feorag comes along she can explain how GCCF breed judging works - that type of thing might be incredibly helpful for high profile breeds in the short term....


As I understand it becoming a dog judge is much easier than becoming a cat judge.

I'm a bit rusty on the judging scheme details now and it is in the process of being revised to make it less difficult, but I'll try and explain the process as best I can.

To become a cat judge you have to have bred your chosen breed - let's say Somalis. Firstly you join the stewarding scheme, which means you have to spend anything up to 2 years stewarding at cat shows with judges, so you are handling the exhibits for the judge and learning from each judge. You have to get stewarding certificates from the judge and hand them over and once you have enough certificates, you can then apply to become a probationer judge. During this time, you also have to get certificates for other aspects of cat show work. You have to work with a vet at vetting in, so you learn how to identify disqualifiable faults and you have to do table work (organising and sorting the show results etc)

Once you are a probationer judge you then become accountable to the Breed BAC (Breed Advisory Committee) which is made up of committee members from each breed club - where the breed only has one breed club in the UK (like my Somali Cat Club) that is made up of the Club Committee and in cases, such as Siamese, Burmese etc where they have more than one club representing the breed the BAC is made up of committe members from all the clubs. 

So assuming you are trying to become a somali breed judge, you are offered engagements at cat shows and you have to do a full written critique on each somali you judge and explain why you placed the exhibits in the order you placed them and after every show you submit that written critique to the BAC for consideration. When the BAC meets, all the critiques are considered by the committee and they decide whether the judge is interpreting the standard correctly and placing the cats in the class correctly. As almost everyone on the committee actually breeds and/or judges Somalis and between all of them know the cats that are being judged and know their faults, they are in a position to judge whether the judge is judging correctly. For instance, if it is considered that they haven't quite grasped the meaning of a 'moderate wedge', then they are written to by the secretary who explains that they are putting up cats with heads that are too long or too short. 

The probationer continues to submit written reports and must have judged at least one of every colour Somali that they are bred in and then they apply to become a full judge. If the BAC thinks they aren't ready then they'll be told they aren't and won't be put through as full judges, but if they think they are ready, they then apply to GCCF for the judge to be approved as a full judge of somalis. Once approval is given then that person becomes a full judge and can hand out certificates!

if they then decide they want to judge another breed, they go back to the probationer stage and start again.

So it's a long and arduous process to become a cat judge compared to my understanding of what is involved in becoming a dog judge.

Also if at any time in the future someone thinks a judge has made a bad call when judging their cat, they can write to the BAC and make a complaint about that judge and the BAC have to investigate it, discuss the cat, the judge's comments on the cat and the placing of the cat and decide if there's a case to answer. Judges have been taken off judging lists for not judging a breed correctly, so it does happen.

However, as I said proposals have been put to every cat club in the UK by GCCF over the last year to review this scheme to make it slightly less difficult, however, prospective judges will still have to go through a long period of 'training' before they will be approved.


Also forgot to add that cat shows are anonymous. All cats are penned in pens with a plain white blanket, white litter tray and white water dish. Any distinguishing features in the pen such as embroidery on the blanket and the cat is disqualified. During the open class judging the hall is cleared, or in some places exhibitors are allowed around the outside of the hall, but no-one is allowed to go to the pens. Obviously top winning cats will be recognised by judges, especially in minority breeds, but on the whole the judge doesn't (or shouldn't!!) know whose cat they are judging. There's none of this "owner standing on the end of lead in front of his best mate judging" that you get in the dog world.


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

thalie_knights said:


> Think its a different kettle of fish altogether with adoption - fundamentally you are only reaaaally able to research the 'breed type' before adopting, rather than what I would call the 'mandatory' details which I personally would want to know, if for example, I was purchasing that particular dog from the breeder.
> 
> With adopting, after the tests are done and you bring the dog home...there's a little part of you that can only cross fingers and toes that you havent taken home a complete fruit loop :Na_Na_Na_Na:


If you get a dog over say 2 years or so you can usually be clear of the main genetic issues, like hip displasia, early onset arthritis, that kind of thing. All good rescues will have a full health check done on dogs before adoption checking breathing, heart, legs, and a few others. If you want a young dog or puppy however, it's often hard to tell with the hidden issues, but rarer breeds tend to be healthier than overbred ones like yorkies or collies.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

I've remembered why the last programme hacked me off so much - the emotionally exploitative element seems to make people chuck all logic out the window and think 'pedigree bad, cross bred good' in absolute terms and ignore everything else...

I've just seem an advert for 'Frisheppie' puppies - long white hair GSD / bichon; they're claiming "They have the Bichons Non casting coat and loving nature with the intelligence of the German Shepherd". Are you joking me? :lol2:

Anyway, whatever. I'm fed up of the whole thing, shouldn't have watched it - winds me up far too much! I fundamentally care about dogs and I don't see how basically removing accountability can be a positive thing.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

I haven't read thru all the posts properly so please excuse me if I'm repeating anything already said.
I agree that unfortunatley all breeders are being tarred with the same brush and for those breeders who are trying to produce healthy, happy pups it must be soul-destroying to see poor examples being paraded about at show rings etc.
But, how long do people let this go on for before dogs become so inbred/poorly that we cannot stop it?
Someone had to blow the whistle at some stage I guess.
My other point is, there are 'breeders' out there who are trying to rectify the damage by rebreeding dogs to take them back to their origins.
I will refer to OTB's here as its my breed of choice... and they are villified and often called mongrel breeders.
much like the dalmation woman on the programme they are snubbed by the purists who think their mongrel pups are well, that... mongrels.
Surely they can se that a dog that can breath, wee properly, has no fits etc is better than a poorly, unhealthy dog with no standard of life.

At the end of the day, the breeding process is the same for all dogs so why should an old tyme breeder not be able to charge £500 for their puppies... they had the same expenses as a pure breeder?
Why do I keep seeing ads on here full of comments such as..
'£500 for a mongrel its disgusting'

( i know in one recent case the breeder has a poor track record and his claimed accidental mating was infact doubtful and in cases such as these the breeder is as bad as those boxer breeders on the telly)

Zoo-man for example is trying to create healthy well rounded chi pups and is doing this in a careful and considered way...health checks etc... old tyme is doing his bit for bulls in a different way....
Neither is wrong its just different. 

I think the KC should be answerable to some degree, as they are effectively the figure head for the breeders of the country and the place where people go to register their dogs. they set the standards and the brreding regs etc. If they maybe changed the standards and slowly introduced changes over time, refusing to register dogs that were clearly unhealthy and badly bred then things would have to change.
Naive? Maybe but at least its a start.


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

out of curiosity (for once, not just because im argumentative) what came first, the original documentary or the KC's changes?


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

i think some changes were already in the process of going thru maybe and others were brought in after the programme...such as the breeding rules re father daughter etc.

i do think the KC have turned a bit of a blind eye to it all for several years if i'm honest...as they wanted to keep their 'status' in the dog world.
If they suddenly start to back track now and admit their wrong or that changes need to be made its a bit of a blow to the canine world in general isnt it.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Rach1, oldtyme is different to a first generation 'Frisheppe' or 'Leondoodle' - he's much more like an F3 / F4 labradoodle e.g. an established type, along the lines of some strains of lurchers etc, so you're basically still buying a pedigree animal as you know the history, just not a KC ratified version... Oldtyme is working towards a breed standard in a sense - an older type of bulldog - and does a lot of the things a good KC breeder would so it is definitely different. He has a reputation to protect, so he's accountable in that way. The other thing I would say is that if that were my breed of choice, I'd want the parents hip tested because of the foundation breeds.

Miss Ferret, which changes do you mean? There's a lot of things which pre-date the programme - the assured breeder scheme, BVA / KC hip dysplasia scheme, etc...


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

I do notice though that a lot of the breeders of these bull breeds that are being bred for supposedly honourable reasons always keep back the pups with flatest faces etc,the characteristics infact which are part and parcel of the very breeds they are trying to breed away from,hmmm.Likewise the most 'bulldoggy' ones seem to sell the best.Also they cross breeds together to try and produce a look without good knowledge of particular breeds true character.I would never cross french bulldog into a large power breed for instance,having had them for decades I know they are dog dominant and willing to back it up physically,not much of an issue in a small low energy breed with small teeth,not an ideal mix in a large family pet though.It's just an observation,I like all bull breeds regardless of whether they are pure but I'm just as dubious of the motives of 'some' of the breeders to create healthy ones as I am about the blatantly false claim about the accidental mating in the for sales thread.


----------



## UnBOAlievable_Morphs (Feb 9, 2011)

just watched this on bbc i player its deff a eye opener


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

I have to disagree there to some extent as with cross-breeds such as the old tyme, you cant really tell which are going to have flat faces and which will not.
Gus's brother has a very bully face where as Gus looks more american bull.
Gus's sister looks very British bull... its a bit of pot luck with that one.

Annabel- I totally agree with your point but then in my eyes it makes it more sad that people still choose to berate him (and his peers) for doing this. I think neil has been breeding old tymes for about 10-15 years so he knows his own dogs... and having been to his house a couple of times i KNOW he loves them.

I'll would love to do what he's doing and indeed have been asking him about starting my own NW line of old tyme bulls.
he has been nothing but helpful and kind! 
I just think its sad that people still cannot see past the pure...


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

UnBOAlievable_Morphs said:


> just watched this on bbc i player its deff a eye opener


how so?


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

Rach1 said:


> I have to disagree there to some extent as with cross-breeds such as the old tyme, you cant really tell which are going to have flat faces and which will not.
> Gus's brother has a very bully face where as Gus looks more american bull.
> Gus's sister looks very British bull... its a bit of pot luck with that one.
> 
> ...


If you, he or any other breeder can give the hip and shoulder scores of all their dogs and also watching their dogs and their offspring for signs of illness and things that could not have been tested for, and if anything showed up do the best to end that line. Then no one in my option can criticise them or their lines. I do not honestly know any crossbreed breeder doing that though.

If a breeder is not doing all they can to make use of all health tests available for the breed or both parent breeds for crosses and then importantly only breeding if the results are good, then frankly they and anyone buying their dogs are part of the problem not part of the cure.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Kare- i totally agree... maybe, the answer would to be reduce costs for these tests to allow people to start off having their doggs tested and go back thru the lines/dogs?
once wave an established base etc then new standards can be introduced thus ensuring the health of the dogs and the look?

I wonder out of interest how many breeders (of both pure and cross etc) do the tests on all their dogs?
what is the %.

(ans i say this not to antagonise but as a meaningful question)


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

also, as another quick though and more of a question on my part...
who does the tests and how would you go about getting them done?


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Devi said:


> Some people in this thread are making me very sad. I'm not quoting anyone because there's a fair few.
> 
> On my second point, the boxer owner whose stud was suspected to be the issue was quoted on camera as saying she'd be quite happy to offer blood for research but hadn't been aware it was needed, why was that not followed up? If she was genuinely offering blood then why wasn't it taken? I feel she may have been unfairly victimised. Obviously, she may have been bluffing, but we have no way of knowing when she wasn't given the chance.


She's married to a top vet I'm sure she knew what she was doing.

The kennel club seems to be doing what it can. It's rogue unethical breeders causing problems, and certain breeds should have more publicity of their problems to make sure the public are aware. Breeding runts to produce small dogs should be another thing thats focused on, with toy breeds why not have a minimum size, with most breeds there is a minimum/maximum size why not with toys?


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

dp...


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

Rach1 said:


> I will refer to OTB's here as its my breed of choice... and they are villified and often called mongrel breeders.
> much like the dalmation woman on the programme they are snubbed by the purists who think their mongrel pups are well, that... mongrels.
> Surely they can se that a dog that can breath, wee properly, has no fits etc is better than a poorly, unhealthy dog with no standard of life.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if OTB's have the full health checks, but KC breeders have a massive amount of money put into the showing of their dogs to championship level which you wouldn't have from a non show dog. Reputable breeders usually lose money from a breeding.
Also, the OTB project does wind me up a bit, because there appears to be no organisation to it, it's a great aim, but so far we the otb, the olde english, the able, the victorian, the aylestone, it goes on, and most of those have no standard or function to aim toward, different breeders seem to have totally different ideas on what they are looking for. Surely everyone can get together and pick a date when the bulldog looked good and functioned properly and aim for that? With a serious aim and breeding plan without outcrosses we could have a new breed registered by KC in the next decade.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Devi said:


> I'm not sure if OTB's have the full health checks, but KC breeders have a massive amount of money put into the showing of their dogs to championship level which you wouldn't have from a non show dog. Reputable breeders usually lose money from a breeding.
> Also, the OTB project does wind me up a bit, because there appears to be no organisation to it, it's a great aim, but so far we the otb, the olde english, the able, the victorian, the aylestone, it goes on, and most of those have no standard or function to aim toward, different breeders seem to have totally different ideas on what they are looking for. Surely everyone can get together and pick a date when the bulldog looked good and functioned properly and aim for that? With a serious aim and breeding plan without outcrosses we could have a new breed registered by KC in the next decade.


no,, i agree with that point and see why people would get confused...i am new to the OTB project and i do get confused. LOL
I guess like the breeders of pure breds they are trying to compete to get the best looking dog?
I dont know... i know there are both helpful breeders and not so helpful ones...
its all very secrative tho....


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

This is a question asked on my dogs breeders face book page, there have been umpteen answers from various brt keepers hopefully this implies I have a health breed. More what I'm showing is some good ethics from a breeder not ignoring faults but investigating them.

_ Search for some info from BRT owners. I do a lot of Cranial Cruciate Repairs (CCL / ACL) at my hospital (have probably done over 2-3 hundred over my carreer). Was wondering if any of you BRT people have had CCL injury in your BRTs? If so: what age were they? One side or both sides? Were they spayed or neutered? If so at what age? Also, how were they repaired (if you know), and how did they do?

Thanks for the info.
_


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

kezzbag said:


> i felt physically sick after watching this!...i never saw the original but wish i had, we spent 2 years reserching breeds befor we chose our dog and we did use info from the kennel club but lucky we chose a rescue border collie cross spirnger spaniel....being a cross she has every chance of a full healthy life without disease.
> 
> we should protest to get this kennel club shut down....i cant beleive they think its ok to inbreed these dogs.....i was shocked and disgusted with their opinions.
> 
> next time i see an advert for a puppy and it says KC registered or pedigree with strong show line i will avoid like the plague!


How silly, close down the Kennel Club? That would lead to a huge increase of dog breeding, more health problems, less education, no training schemes for wannabe judges, etc etc. The KC is making changes, which will help greatly. But there is absolutely no need to shut it down!



feorag said:


> As I understand it becoming a dog judge is much easier than becoming a cat judge.


Dog judges are seperated into 3 different groups or lists (A, B & C lists). These determine at what level the judge can judge, for example C list judges can judge breeds at open show level, but can't judge groups or BIS. B list judges can judge breeds at Championship shows, etc. A list judges can give tickets in their breed, etc. 

To become a judge, you must have been in your breed for x years, bred for x years, & shown for x years. Then you must attend seminars. You must do at least 12 stewarding appointments at shows, & have the judges you stewarded for sign your stewarding book. Breed clubs run seminars on their breeds. There is more that I've probably forgotten, but basically there is quite a lot you must do before you can become a dog judge.



DavieB said:


> Breeding runts to produce small dogs should be another thing thats focused on, with toy breeds why not have a minimum size, with most breeds there is a minimum/maximum size why not with toys?


Toy breeds generally have weight guidelines in their breed standard. For example, Chihuahuas should ideally be between 4 - 6lbs in weight.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Zoo-Man said:


> Dog judges are seperated into 3 different groups or lists (A, B & C lists). These determine at what level the judge can judge, for example C list judges can judge breeds at open show level, but can't judge groups or BIS. B list judges can judge breeds at Championship shows, etc. A list judges can give tickets in their breed, etc.
> 
> To become a judge, you must have been in your breed for x years, bred for x years, & shown for x years. Then you must attend seminars. You must do at least 12 stewarding appointments at shows, & have the judges you stewarded for sign your stewarding book. Breed clubs run seminars on their breeds. There is more that I've probably forgotten, but basically there is quite a lot you must do before you can become a dog judge.


That's just reminded me that probationer cat judges must also attend their breed seminars too.


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Kare said:


> If you, he or any other breeder can give the hip and shoulder scores of all their dogs and also watching their dogs and their offspring for signs of illness and things that could not have been tested for, and if anything showed up do the best to end that line. Then no one in my option can criticise them or their lines. I do not honestly know any crossbreed breeder doing that though.
> 
> If a breeder is not doing all they can to make use of all health tests available for the breed or both parent breeds for crosses and then importantly only breeding if the results are good, then frankly they and anyone buying their dogs are part of the problem not part of the cure.


sorry but there lots of oldtymebulldogs breeder tests there dog and some oldtymebulldogs reg will not reg your pup if not parent test


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Devi said:


> I'm not sure if OTB's have the full health checks, but KC breeders have a massive amount of money put into the showing of their dogs to championship level which you wouldn't have from a non show dog. Reputable breeders usually lose money from a breeding.
> Also, the OTB project does wind me up a bit, because there appears to be no organisation to it, it's a great aim, but so far we the otb, the olde english, the able, the victorian, the aylestone, it goes on, and most of those have no standard or function to aim toward, different breeders seem to have totally different ideas on what they are looking for. Surely everyone can get together and pick a date when the bulldog looked good and functioned properly and aim for that? With a serious aim and breeding plan without outcrosses we could have a new breed registered by KC in the next decade.


the OTB ,aylestone, vb,vbf,vba,dorset,sussex,leavitt and other chat 4 3day about make 1 line but could not agress


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

would it not be better for them to find a way to agree tho?
that way a new breed could be developed...

also, i stand corrected... Old Tyme has been breeding 'dogs' for 15 years but OTB's for 8! LOL


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Zoo-Man said:


> Toy breeds generally have weight guidelines in their breed standard. For example, Chihuahuas should ideally be between 4 - 6lbs in weight.


Are there breeders, breeding runts then not for showing but for hadbags? TOWIE type zelebrities? I'm not pointing finger at KC here for everything but more to rogue breeders.


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Rach1 said:


> would it not be better for them to find a way to agree tho?
> that way a new breed could be developed...
> 
> also, i stand corrected... Old Tyme has been breeding 'dogs' for 15 years but OTB's for 8! LOL



when you got 50+ breeder saying there line is the way to go then the other said no my line is you get noway 

i know a lot of bulldog stop breeding there line and going to the blue blood and the mimi bulldogs 

i think in the next ten year the few that left will come together and make 1 or 2 lines


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

DavieB said:


> Are there breeders, breeding runts then not for showing but for hadbags? TOWIE type zelebrities? I'm not pointing finger at KC here for everything but more to rogue breeders.


Yup, they use the dreaded word 'teacup' and produce dogs like this - 










KC and the breed club do not support that word at all.


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

DavieB said:


> Are there breeders, breeding runts then not for showing but for hadbags? TOWIE type zelebrities? I'm not pointing finger at KC here for everything but more to rogue breeders.


Oh yes, these so-called 'teacup' Chihuahuas, which are just a runt, will be being bred by idiots who think it would be a good earner. They probably don't think about the almost definate c-section that such a small Chihuahua would need. The thread recently titled 'Micro Elf Pomeranian' is another example of this recent craze for super small dogs.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

oldtyme said:


> when you got 50+ breeder saying there line is the way to go then the other said no my line is you get noway
> 
> i know a lot of bulldog stop breeding there line and going to the blue blood and the mimi bulldogs
> 
> i think in the next ten year the few that left will come together and make 1 or 2 lines


 
I think this would be a positive thing, its a more effective way of breeding healthy bulldogs....
instead of competing it would be better to perhaps aim for one standard?


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

oldtyme said:


> when you got 50+ breeder saying there line is the way to go then the other said no my line is you get noway
> 
> i know a lot of bulldog stop breeding there line and going to the blue blood and the mimi bulldogs
> 
> i think in the next ten year the few that left will come together and make 1 or 2 lines


It's not really about dropping lines, more crossing lines to make one best line, since the point is breeding bulldogs of old, then maybe picking a photo or two from the past which exemplifies the golden age? It's just at the moment with no regulation it isn't being taken seriously and eejits are selling american bulldog staffie crosses as 'old english bulldogs' or really just crossing anything in there.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Devi said:


> Yup, they use the dreaded word 'teacup' and produce dogs like this -
> 
> image
> 
> KC and the breed club do not support that word at all.


 
thats an awful picture... what a damn shame...the breeders of that should be ashamed... what life has that poor thing got?


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Devi said:


> It's not really about dropping lines, more crossing lines to make one best line, since the point is breeding bulldogs of old, then maybe picking a photo or two from the past which exemplifies the golden age? It's just at the moment with no regulation it isn't being taken seriously and eejits are selling american bulldog staffie crosses as 'old english bulldogs' or really just crossing anything in there.


 
in that respect its similar to the issues faced by say chi breeders then... in that breeders produce examples such as the one above... there will always be dodgy breeders who use the latest fad to produce some horrid specimens...


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

Rach1 said:


> thats an awful picture... what a damn shame...the breeders of that should be ashamed... what life has that poor thing got?


Considering it's legs are scaffolded, it has to eat through a tube in its stomach that you can see on the side and also has hydrocephalus, none whatsoever! 
This is why anyone who truly loves the breed will hate the t word!


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Devi said:


> It's not really about dropping lines, more crossing lines to make one best line, since the point is breeding bulldogs of old, then maybe picking a photo or two from the past which exemplifies the golden age? It's just at the moment with no regulation it isn't being taken seriously and eejits are selling american bulldog staffie crosses as 'old english bulldogs' or really just crossing anything in there.


there is people cross know line 

yes there is at the min a lot of people doing f1 and call them otb which there not 

if you was look to by a otb look for a breed that can show you the dog in the line and know the % of breed in the dog if they say 25%otb or 95%bb run away lol


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Devi said:


> I'm not sure if OTB's have the full health checks, but KC breeders have a massive amount of money put into the showing of their dogs to championship level which you wouldn't have from a non show dog. Reputable breeders usually lose money from a breeding.
> Also, the OTB project does wind me up a bit, because there appears to be no organisation to it, it's a great aim, but so far we the otb, the olde english, the able, the victorian, the aylestone, it goes on, and most of those have no standard or function to aim toward, different breeders seem to have totally different ideas on what they are looking for. Surely everyone can get together and pick a date when the bulldog looked good and functioned properly and aim for that? With a serious aim and breeding plan without outcrosses we could have a new breed registered by KC in the next decade.


i post this what you put here on a otb page this was the message back 

I have no interest in what others do beyound the fact i like and admire some of your dogs, others i think do not deserve the name bulldog though some are still very nice dogs, others still are shit but i'm sure still are great companions. When it comes to bulldogs i like good ones and its my opinion that counts. I think when you've been around dogs a few years you know a good one regardless of type. I dont even have much interest in showing anything i have bred and can see no point in picking a date as its not really a an era anymore than a handful of photos of which people like the look of - probably find from another angle the dogs looked crap lol.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

I think its important to see the parents of any dog you buy if possible (rehomes obviously thats different) i saw Gus's mom and dad... and siblings and friends etc etc.
I also love that a) i keep in contact with his breeder (daily! LOL) and b) I get updates about his siblings and cousins etc.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

oldtyme said:


> i post this what you put here on a otb page this was the message back
> 
> I have no interest in what others do beyound the fact i like and admire some of your dogs, others i think do not deserve the name bulldog though some are still very nice dogs, others still are shit but i'm sure still are great companions. When it comes to bulldogs i like good ones and its my opinion that counts. I think when you've been around dogs a few years you know a good one regardless of type. I dont even have much interest in showing anything i have bred and can see no point in picking a date as its not really a an era anymore than a handful of photos of which people like the look of - probably find from another angle the dogs looked crap lol.


in some respects then OTB breeders are their own worst enemy?


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Rach1 said:


> I think its important to see the parents of any dog you buy if possible (rehomes obviously thats different) i saw Gus's mom and dad... and siblings and friends etc etc.
> I also love that a) i keep in contact with his breeder (daily! LOL) and b) I get updates about his siblings and cousins etc.



rach when i buy a otb i want to see more than parents i need to know % of the breed in the dog i buy to me is not about the look of the dog but the % of the breed in it


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Rach1 said:


> in some respects then OTB breeders are their own worst enemy?



90% of them think that way


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

yes but i kinda know that too...LOL


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

oldtyme said:


> 90% of them think that way


Neil...make a stand... LOL
lets share the OTB love! spread the word! LOL LOL LOL


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Rach1 said:


> Neil...make a stand... LOL
> lets share the OTB love! spread the word! LOL LOL LOL



:lol2: i a bit like 90% of them 

i only think about what i doing i dont care that next breeder doing unless they ask 4 help 

i have to keep to my goal and not get sidetrack cos of other breeder


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Would you welcome an old Tyme standard eventually?
Do you think that's the future for otb's or should it stay as it currently is?

I think it would be nice to see a line of otb's be included in the kc's registered breeds.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Rach1 said:


> Would you welcome an old Tyme standard eventually?
> Do you think that's the future for otb's or should it stay as it currently is?
> 
> I think it would be nice to see a line of otb's be included in the kc's registered breeds.


Some breeders are deliberately boycotting the KC though aren't they?

I think these types are still an awful long way off 'cos you know yourself that the pups coming through aren't standard yet - lots of variety - but maybe that's the point? Maybe these breeders want the freedom to adjust type and introduce new stuff when they like?

Dunno though!


----------



## NickBenger (Nov 18, 2010)

The Leavitt Bulldogs looked like a really good alternative.. 

An example photo I found on the net:


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

There are some breeders of otb's that have been doing it for years tho.
Tbh I'm not sure myself annabel.
That's why I was asking Neil!
Lol

I think my main gripe is that these breeders are stigmatised for trying to make improvements when there are some pure British breeders that are producing the monstrosities shown last might and they win prizes for it.


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

oldtyme said:


> sorry but there lots of oldtymebulldogs breeder tests there dog and some oldtymebulldogs reg will not reg your pup if not parent test


Why are you sorry? Surely that is a good thing?


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

Rach1 said:


> I think my main gripe is that these breeders are stigmatised for trying to make improvements when there are some pure British breeders that are producing the monstrosities shown last might and they win prizes for it.


I think the project may have more respect if someone took proper bulldogs and decreased the features which cause issues, that's what's going on with a lot of breeds at the moments. When it's a random crossing without attempt at standardisation it can't really be taken that seriously. It needs to legitimise itself I guess.


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

annabel said:


> Some breeders are deliberately boycotting the KC though aren't they? yes they are the vb dorset and the sussex have a standard and dont wont kc the sussex bulldog as been going for 25 year and its the hardist bulldog to get you have to past test to get a pup
> 
> I think these types are still an awful long way off 'cos you know yourself that the pups coming through aren't standard yet - lots of variety - but maybe that's the point? Maybe these breeders want the freedom to adjust type and introduce new stuff when they like? if they was kc you would not be able to add what dog you think the line need
> 
> Dunno though!


 yes they are the vb dorset and the sussex have a standard and dont wont kc the sussex bulldog as been going for 25 year and its the hardist bulldog to get you have to past test to get a pup 
if they was kc you would not be able to add what dog you think the line need


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Kare said:


> Why are you sorry? Surely that is a good thing?


sorry but you are wrong


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Surely there would have to be some cross breeding to get rid of the overly short nose tho?
Im not sure it could be altered any other way?
A bit like using the gun dog? To get rid of the urine issue in the dalmation.


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

Zoo-Man said:


> Oh yes, these so-called 'teacup' Chihuahuas, which are just a runt, will be being bred by idiots who think it would be a good earner. They probably don't think about the almost definate c-section that such a small Chihuahua would need. The thread recently titled 'Micro Elf Pomeranian' is another example of this recent craze for super small dogs.


Last night BBC showed this....tonight ITV are repeating showing their super tiny animals programme. Shame.


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

Rach1 said:


> Surely there would have to be some cross breeding to get rid of the overly short nose tho?
> Im not sure it could be altered any other way?
> A bit like using the gun dog? To get rid of the urine issue in the dalmation.


Doesn't have to be, the pointer was used because the gene in dogs that keeps urine liquid had gone missing in dalmations, as in there was not a single dal to be found that had it, but bulldogs still have a nose, it's just got a bit lost in the folds. After all the face has become shorter naturally and gradually with the legs also becoming bowed, we could just reverse that.


----------



## NickBenger (Nov 18, 2010)

Devi said:


> Doesn't have to be, the pointer was used because the gene in dogs that keeps urine liquid had gone missing in dalmations, as in there was not a single dal to be found that had it, but bulldogs still have a nose, it's just got a bit lost in the folds. After all the face has become shorter naturally and gradually with the legs also becoming bowed, we could just reverse that.


I think it's very questionable if it's possible, and even if it was it would take tens of years to accomplish meaning tons of dogs suffering with the breathing disorders. Therefore it's a lot easier to just cross out and accomplish a longer muzzle in one breeding.

There are people doing what you're talking of though, I read about a bulldog breeder Someone Davies?That is breeding for a longer tail and muzzle to increase health aswell as less wrinkling on the face.


----------



## bdargon (May 1, 2010)

In my opinion breeders are far better off being part of the KC. At least then they are controlled by some rules and regulations rather than not being part of an organisation and being able to do what they please. This is a reason why the KC may not want to be harsh on breeders, they don't want breeders to start breeding outside of the KC with no guidlines eg no rule on parent/offspring matings.


----------



## NickBenger (Nov 18, 2010)

bdargon said:


> In my opinion breeders are far better off being part of the KC. At least then they are controlled by some rules and regulations rather than not being part of an organisation and being able to do what they please. This is a reason why the KC may not want to be harsh on breeders, they don't want breeders to start breeding outside of the KC with no guidlines eg no rule on parent/offspring matings.


It wasn't until recently that parent/offspring was banned, and that was only due to pressure on the KC.


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

NickBenger said:


> It wasn't until recently that parent/offspring was banned, and that was only due to pressure on the KC.


But there are loads of other guidelines that have been around for ages, not breeding your dogs too often, or too much, age of breedings, it goes on. If the breeders leave the KC then they can do anything.


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Devi said:


> But there are loads of other guidelines that have been around for ages, not breeding your dogs too often, or too much, age of breedings, it goes on. If the breeders leave the KC then they can do anything.


the kc is all about the money untill that change and trian the staff right it wont get better


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

oldtyme said:


> the kc is all about the money untill that change and trian the staff right it wont get better


If they were all about money then surely they'd let everyone breed and not provide half the free services they do?


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

NickBenger said:


> It wasn't until recently that parent/offspring was banned, and that was only due to pressure on the KC.


Just because it was only recently banned doesn't mean that it was common practise!! Think of all the old statutes which haven't been changed in UK law - very few people make use of things which they technically could, because it's not common practise or only makes sense to use in exceptional circumstances.



oldtyme said:


> the kc is all about the money untill that change and trian the staff right it wont get better


Really?

Here's the fees list -
Registration Fees - The Kennel Club

£13 to register a pup - it could easily cost that in admin. Maintenance of kennel name for a year, £20. 

If the same amount of time was spent processing a form from an estate agents, you can bet they'd be charging over £100 in admin fees!


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Devi said:


> If they were all about money then surely they'd let everyone breed and not provide half the free services they do?


what free services ?

every time i ring them they want money they sent me wrong form and want 10 pound cos off there mistake and want 100 be4 they sent me to test out 

dont tell me about the kc i been dealing with them for 15years


----------



## Mockingjay (Feb 24, 2012)

Its ridiculous how the KC has changed the breed so much to develop health problems. I saw it when it first came out a number of years ago and I was horrified. 

If you love your pets, don't make them show quality. So glad my pup's line is showdog free.


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

annabel said:


> Just because it was only recently banned doesn't mean that it was common practise!! Think of all the old statutes which haven't been changed in UK law - very few people make use of things which they technically could, because it's not common practise or only makes sense to use in exceptional circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


to register my pup is half that


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

oldtyme said:


> what free services ?
> 
> every time i ring them they want money they sent me wrong form and want 10 pound cos off there mistake and want 100 be4 they sent me to test out
> 
> dont tell me about the kc i been dealing with them for 15years


Find a mate service with a registry of known problems and inbreeding, the grants they provide, often to studies to breed history, accredited breeder schemes, breed information, they may not be perfect, but no company with their eyes on profit will be giving anything for free.
Also all forms are downloadable online.


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

oldtyme said:


> to register my pup is half that


Lets not be silly now. Your operation is hardly comparable with what the KC does regardless of how much you charge. How many lawyers do you have to employ? Advertising agencies? Investigators to check regulations are being kept to?

Heres the Kennel clubs response.



> Kennel Club's response to Pedigree Dogs Exposed: Three Years On
> 
> The programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed: Three Years On addressed some worrying but important issues that affect dog health and welfare, which the Kennel Club is working to resolve with vets, welfare organisations, breeders and geneticists.
> 
> ...


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

Mockingjay said:


> Its ridiculous how the KC has changed the breed so much to develop health problems. I saw it when it first came out a number of years ago and I was horrified.
> 
> If you love your pets, don't make them show quality. So glad my pup's line is showdog free.


That is yet again a dreadful statement, the show was about bad breeders, showing dogs has nothing to do with good or bad breeders and non kc dogs are much more likely not to be health tested, or to be overbred.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Tbf tho, it's not just the kc that need to change but the judges,shows, the breeders, the buyers etc etc.

Neil, I didnt know you could register cross breeds with the kennel club?

How some breeders can look their dogs in the eye each morning is beyond me.
Those poor cavaliers last night... That pig that couldn't breath and those poor boxers.
If that were children being abused in that way we would want it stopped ASAP!
I applaud the breeders that have taken a stand and spoken out...
Insuspect in several cases shown last night those whistle blowers will be ostracised from the show rings etc.


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Devi said:


> That is yet again a dreadful statement, the show was about bad breeders, showing dogs has nothing to do with good or bad breeders and non kc dogs are much more likely not to be health tested, or to be overbred.


The biggest faults I can find with TKC after that show was their judges at shows and allowing dogs to sire ridiculous numbers of litters. They can only do so much and people will form seperate bodies that would be very bad. You should be able to trust the ethics of someone selling a family pets, sadly the 4 worst breeds were highlighted last night it could have done with showing some more positive sides to TKC. 

It was sensationalist journalism, but the BBC as an impartial organisation should have done more to show the positive sides of TKC, for me last night was not about TKC but about bad breeders.


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Devi said:


> Find a mate service with a registry of known problems and inbreeding, the grants they provide, often to studies to breed history, accredited breeder schemes, breed information, they may not be perfect, but no company with their eyes on profit will be giving anything for free.
> Also all forms are downloadable online.


the forms i want come with i test you cant download test :lol2:


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

The KC is the figure head tho and if they cannot even begin to control some of the antics that go on then it's a poor do!

It's a bit like being the head teacher of a school. You are the one who keeps the school running and keeps the rules going.
You have no say over individuals as such in terms if their choices but you should be able to keep order... And should have the authority to do so and use that authoriy wisely too.
If tkc were a school they'd be in special measures! Lol


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Rach1 said:


> Tbf tho, it's not just the kc that need to change but the judges,shows, the breeders, the buyers etc etc.
> 
> Neil, I didnt know you could register cross breeds with the kennel club?
> 
> ...



there is a way it get paper of the kc for a otb


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Rach1 said:


> The KC is the figure head tho and if they cannot even begin to control some of the antics that go on then it's a poor do!
> 
> It's a bit like being the head teacher of a school. You are the one who keeps the school running and keeps the rules going.
> You have no say over individuals as such in terms if their choices but you should be able to keep order... And should have the authority to do so and use that authoriy wisely too.
> If tkc were a school they'd be in special measures! Lol


Its more comparable to something like british athletics though than a school. It cant test everything all the time, it can only do spot checks on regulations, and report what poeple claim to be doing. It is doing DNA tests now, inbreeding percentages. 

My dog is Irish Kennel club where there is no limits on litters, I know where I'd rather my dog was registered. (My dogs breeder only breeds 3 times)

I'd rather deal with UKC than IKC, no family tree or anything from IKC and 13 euros to transfer ownership.


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

oldtyme said:


> sorry but you are wrong


You think it is wrong to want health testing? 

You are going to have to answer in more than one line worth of confused sentence because I have no idea what you are going on about.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Kare said:


> You think it is wrong to want health testing?
> 
> You are going to have to answer in more than one line worth of confused sentence because I have no idea what you are going on about.


I think he was just being polite - I normally say 'sorry' if I'm about to tell someone they've got their wires crossed, too :2thumb:


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

How have I got my wires crossed?

Rach said people look down on these bulldogs, I say as long as breeders health test and react appropriately to health issues noone should look down on them. If breeders are not, either pure breeders or cross breeders they all deserve to be looked down on.

Rereading it is he trying to tell me I do know crossbreed breeders who health test? because I am very sure I do not....he may know health testing crossbreed breeders but I am 100% sure I do not and I am 100% sure I do not know him let alone others he may know, so not sure how he believes I am wrong in stating the fact I do not know anyone breeding crossbreeds who health test.


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

Mockingjay said:


> Its ridiculous how the KC has changed the breed so much to develop health problems. I saw it when it first came out a number of years ago and I was horrified.
> 
> If you love your pets, don't make them show quality. So glad my pup's line is showdog free.


Despite the last sentence of this post making no sense (you can't make your pet show quality, it is born & bred that way), it is also incorrect.

In my breed (Smooth Coat Chihuahua), the dogs we show are meant to be of good conformation, healthy, & of sound temperament. The Chihuahuas you see in the show ring are far superior in many (if not all) aspects to the miniscule bug-eyed pet Chihuahua wha has a tongue that sticks out continually.


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

DavieB said:


> The biggest faults I can find with TKC after that show was their judges at shows and allowing dogs to sire ridiculous numbers of litters. They can only do so much and people will form seperate bodies that would be very bad. You should be able to trust the ethics of someone selling a family pets, sadly the 4 worst breeds were highlighted last night it could have done with showing some more positive sides to TKC.
> 
> It was sensationalist journalism, but the BBC as an impartial organisation should have done more to show the positive sides of TKC, for me last night was not about TKC but about bad breeders.


Davie, the programme would have been much more well-rounded if it had shown puppy farms, back-yard breeders, & tried to educate the viewing public on how to find a reputable responsible breeder who produces quality healthy puppies. But of course, its much easier to only paint one side of the picture.

This video is from the KC, & is very good....
Dogs - A Healthy Future - YouTube


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

annabel said:


> I think he was just being polite - I normally say 'sorry' if I'm about to tell someone they've got their wires crossed, too :2thumb:



that the 1 thank you


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

oldtyme said:


> that the 1 thank you


Seeing as you seem unable to form any reply me, Im going to have to live with the dreaded thought that some Northern guy thinks I am wrong. As you can't seem to share it I am not actually convinced you even have a clue how you think I am wrong :lol2:


----------



## Berber King (Dec 29, 2007)

Dont have time to read all this,im off to walk my pedigree pure-bred english bulldog from a long line of champions,bred by a kc accredited breeder that health tests.Hopefully an hour will tire him,but i doubt it,wont even be breathing heavily after that.Still,should be fun watching him outrun all the cross-breeds with health problems from both breeds of un-tested parents........


----------



## pigglywiggly (Jul 19, 2008)

Berber King said:


> Dont have time to read all this,im off to walk my pedigree pure-bred english bulldog from a long line of champions,bred by a kc accredited breeder that health tests.Hopefully an hour will tire him,but i doubt it,wont even be breathing heavily after that.Still,should be fun watching him outrun all the cross-breeds with health problems from both breeds of un-tested parents........


 
i so feel your pain, i suffered the same problem with mine for 10 long years

:lol2:


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

I would only get a dog from 2 sources these days.Rescue or a breeder who belongs to a breed club and upholds all the aims of that club from ethics to health testing .I can't see a place for anything inbetween with so many dogs being destroyed.I'm really shocked at all the dogs being flogged on facebook,they'd be flamed on here.Programmes like panorama are giving people justification to breed more and more crosses with false claims about health and soundness.I'm not generally anti breeding but to see the amount of dogs pure and crossed on death row with the the clock ticking and then the inevitable sad posts when time runs out.Why would anyone breed more without a really really good genuine reason,pure or crossed.Surely if someone loves dogs they wouldn't.


----------



## Mischievous_Mark (Mar 16, 2008)

sarahc said:


> I would only get a dog from 2 sources these days.Rescue or a breeder who belongs to a breed club and upholds all the aims of that club from ethics to health testing .I can't see a place for anything inbetween with so many dogs being destroyed.I'm really shocked at all the dogs being flogged on facebook,they'd be flamed on here.Programmes like panorama are giving people justification to breed more and more crosses with false claims about health and soundness.I'm not generally anti breeding but to see the amount of dogs pure and crossed on death row with the the clock ticking and then the inevitable sad posts when time runs out.Why would anyone breed more without a really really good genuine reason,pure or crossed.Surely if someone loves dogs they wouldn't.


 
Those facebook pages dont get away with shit, If ive owt to do with it. LOL :whip: Espically the ones based in my region mind you i keep getting banned :whistling2:


Sadly i didnt even know about this programme until this morning hen i woke up and decided to come have a look on here since i rarely do anymore. I wonder if i can find a repeat of it anywhere or if its available online then i can add to the discussion but for now it shall have to wait ive got errands to run which are being delayed by facebook and youtube ( dam them! ) haha


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Mischievous_Mark said:


> Those facebook pages dont get away with shit, If ive owt to do with it. LOL :whip: Espically the ones based in my region mind you i keep getting banned :whistling2:
> 
> 
> Sadly i didnt even know about this programme until this morning hen i woke up and decided to come have a look on here since i rarely do anymore. I wonder if i can find a repeat of it anywhere or if its available online then i can add to the discussion but for now it shall have to wait ive got errands to run which are being delayed by facebook and youtube ( dam them! ) haha


It's on iplayer :2thumb:


----------



## Mischievous_Mark (Mar 16, 2008)

annabel said:


> It's on iplayer :2thumb:


 
Sweet, ill get it later then. : victory:


----------



## NickBenger (Nov 18, 2010)

Rach1 said:


> The KC is the figure head tho and if they cannot even begin to control some of the antics that go on then it's a poor do!
> 
> It's a bit like being the head teacher of a school. You are the one who keeps the school running and keeps the rules going.
> You have no say over individuals as such in terms if their choices but you should be able to keep order... And should have the authority to do so and use that authoriy wisely too.
> If tkc were a school they'd be in special measures! Lol


Or in the spirit of the England vs Holland game tonight.. 

The kennel club is like a manager, if you don't get results then you must take the responsiblity. 


However I did love Fabio


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

I'm stepping out of this now as I think its turned more into a 'my dog can outrun your dog' thread really.


----------



## Mockingjay (Feb 24, 2012)

Devi said:


> That is yet again a dreadful statement, the show was about bad breeders, showing dogs has nothing to do with good or bad breeders and non kc dogs are much more likely not to be health tested, or to be overbred.


It has everything to do with dog showing. The dogs were specifical bred to hold certain trait and due to inbreeding to get as close to the breed standard, it had caused health problems.


----------



## Mockingjay (Feb 24, 2012)

Zoo-Man said:


> Despite the last sentence of this post making no sense (you can't make your pet show quality, it is born & bred that way), it is also incorrect.
> 
> In my breed (Smooth Coat Chihuahua), the dogs we show are meant to be of good conformation, healthy, & of sound temperament. The Chihuahuas you see in the show ring are far superior in many (if not all) aspects to the miniscule bug-eyed pet Chihuahua wha has a tongue that sticks out continually.


Thats their physical appearances. Inside they will most likely have some inbred gene. You don't get a showdog born out of any old litter, you have to specifically breed for that trait which quite often mean inbreeding which will impact on their health.

I was talking about other breeds that have differed so much to their 'originals' (working forms). For example the GSD, their slanted backs have caused them trouble in walking, certain bulldog breeds that have trouble with breathing because they wanted 'pushed back' noses. I didn't mean every breeds but some breeds.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Mockingjay said:


> It has everything to do with dog showing. The dogs were specifical bred to hold certain trait and due to inbreeding to get as close to the breed standard, it had caused health problems.


Aye, and it's not as if there are commonly used studs in working lines or racehorses or anything that isn't the dog showing world... :whistling2: There are no cousin marriages, either!


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

Mockingjay - You really don't know what you're talking about. There are probably more dogs in this country than there are people, for some breeds there are over a hundred that make crufts every year, which is our top dog show, even if you only bred all the crufts qualifiers together, you wouldn't have an inbred population. There is no such thing as an 'inbred gene', and you'll find more hip dysplasia in badly bred GSD than you ever will at a show.


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Mockingjay said:


> It has everything to do with dog showing. The dogs were specifical bred to hold certain trait and due to inbreeding to get as close to the breed standard, it had caused health problems.


But in the last 3 years TKC has made changes to discourage this, sometimes these changes take too long to dripfeed down to end users who have been using bad practices for decades.


----------



## Mockingjay (Feb 24, 2012)

Yes I do know what I am talking about. Inbreeding is when you breed two dogs blood related together, I forgotten the specialist term for it. 

If you breed all the qualifies there is still a small possibility to have inbred them because some of them may be cousins or just half siblings. But there is a huge gene pool in the UK so less likely to inbreed unless you want specifically two related dogs to breed for a specific trait.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Mockingjay said:


> Yes I do know what I am talking about. Inbreeding is when you breed two dogs blood related together, I forgotten the specialist term for it.
> 
> If you breed all the qualifies there is still a small possibility to have inbred them because some of them may be cousins or just half siblings. But there is a huge gene pool in the UK so less likely to inbreed unless you want specifically two related dogs to breed for a specific trait.


Right, but the way you figure out the extent to which a dog is being inbred - and if that might be a problem - is by looking at its pedigree, and through knowledge of the health problems attached to that line, so by careful breeding you can avoid the offspring being affected.

Like the breeder who imported the LUA dalmation, it's very common for good bloodlines to be imported to widen the genepool of a given pedigree breed. There is likely very little money to be made from doing this - they do it because they care about the breed and the long term prospects of their lines. Good breeders won't just use any stud available or the nearest one, they think carefully about what the best option would be.

Of course, the problem is that not all breeders are good breeders... that's when it comes down to otherwise intelligent people to make smart choices about the pups they buy and boycott people who aren't breeding for health and sound temperament.



sarahc said:


> I do notice though that a lot of the breeders of these bull breeds that are being bred for supposedly honourable reasons always keep back the pups with flatest faces etc,the characteristics infact which are part and parcel of the very breeds they are trying to breed away from,hmmm.Likewise the most 'bulldoggy' ones seem to sell the best.Also they cross breeds together to try and produce a look without good knowledge of particular breeds true character.I would never cross french bulldog into a large power breed for instance,having had them for decades I know they are dog dominant and willing to back it up physically,not much of an issue in a small low energy breed with small teeth,not an ideal mix in a large family pet though.It's just an observation,I like all bull breeds regardless of whether they are pure but I'm just as dubious of the motives of 'some' of the breeders to create healthy ones as I am about the blatantly false claim about the accidental mating in the for sales thread.


Just on this, if you have access to 18+ there's someone with an old tyme bulldog (not Oldtyme on here's line, I don't think) who's paid over £2k in vets bills on him - like you & Kare have both pointed out, you can't just cross breed an animal that's basically the same and call it 'healthier' 'cos it's a cross... should really be health testing... I wouldn't pay out a massive wad of cash for a pup from untested parents - it should be an investment towards a healthy future and I've had to learn the difference between good and bad breeding the hard way with my rabbits.

http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/forums/9721656-post25.html


----------



## Mockingjay (Feb 24, 2012)

annabel said:


> Right, but the way you figure out the extent to which a dog is being inbred - and if that might be a problem - is by looking at its pedigree, and through knowledge of the health problems attached to that line, so by careful breeding you can avoid the offspring being affected.
> 
> Like the breeder who imported the LUA dalmation, it's very common for good bloodlines to be imported to widen the genepool of a given pedigree breed. There is likely very little money to be made from doing this - they do it because they care about the breed and the long term prospects of their lines. Good breeders won't just use any stud available or the nearest one, they think carefully about what the best option would be.
> 
> Of course, the problem is that not all breeders are good breeders... that's when it comes down to otherwise intelligent people to make smart choices about the pups they buy and boycott people who aren't breeding for health and sound temperament.


I agree. There are many puppy farms out there that sell dogs who they just want to make money out of, hopefully they will never get into the circulation of breeding.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Mockingjay said:


> I agree. There are many puppy farms out there that sell dogs who they just want to make money out of, hopefully they will never get into the circulation of breeding.


Good stuff :2thumb:

I think that's why I get so frustrated - I've seen people watch the first programme and then boast about the fact they've a pedigree chihuahua that isn't KC reg because they don't agree with the KC - you can practically guarantee that dog or its parents came from a puppy farmer. By giving such a one-sided argument, she's pushing people away from considering the best breeders out their towards people who are breeding irresponsibly with no long term aim (except, maybe, a bit of cash to buy a new TV)...


----------



## Mockingjay (Feb 24, 2012)

But you never know, a dog you rescue from a rescue could be of which from a puppy farm, yet so many bad breeders getting more pups out of them for money. :hmm:


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Mockingjay said:


> But you never know, a dog you rescue from a rescue could be of which from a puppy farm, yet so many bad breeders getting more pups out of them for money. :hmm:


Yeah but that might be WHY it's in rescue to start off with - badly socialised in the critical developmental phases, bred from a nervous bitch, sold to someone without the nouse to overcome those problems or possibly unprepared for the commitment of any dog...

Or ex-breeding dogs go through, too!

That's why I kind of feel ideologically opposed to some elements of the whole thing... dunno... big issues and too much to factor in!


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

Mockingjay said:


> But you never know, a dog you rescue from a rescue could be of which from a puppy farm, yet so many bad breeders getting more pups out of them for money. :hmm:


If you have a dog from a rescue it will be neutered, you can't breed it.


----------



## Mockingjay (Feb 24, 2012)

Devi said:


> If you have a dog from a rescue it will be neutered, you can't breed it.


Yep maybe just sold from a puppy farm then.


----------



## Jb1432 (Apr 19, 2008)

My Labrador is pedigree, he has over 40 champions in his linage.

However, he is from working stock only and pure bred. Not all pedigree's are mutated but i think Crufts should be axed as to me it's just selective breeding gone wrong - absolutely dreadful.


----------



## del_044 (Jan 29, 2007)

crufts started all the inbreeding!

why people have pugs ect is beyond me...there disgusting looking animals! they are riddled with genetic mutations. its cruel and sad that people breed and buy these kind of dogs...if you class them as dogs.

as for the boxer breeders, you buy these dogs because they are KC registered, you trust the KC. 
it should be a rule that all dogs and BREEDERS be health checked. then health check the BUYER. 

why anyone buys these mutated animals is anyones guess. if you own any of the dogs discussed on the BBC3 programme, you should be ashamed!

the breeders of these dogs were breeders who had a mighty reputation with their breed...i would rather take my chances with a puppy farm anyday. reputation doesnt mean best!


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

sarahc said:


> I would only get a dog from 2 sources these days.Rescue or a breeder who belongs to a breed club and *upholds all the aims of that club from ethics to health testing* .


 Unfortunately some breed clubs are very much the problem, they are the one's who set the breed standard which the show judges then look for in the ring. I think it was rather unfair of the original programme to put all the onus on the KC in this respect, but of course they must share responsiblity when they put their name - their 'brand'- on the shows.
I understand many of these standards have now been revised by breed clubs, and some have introduced new measures to ensure health, but just look what the Cavalier Club did to the one woman who spoke out - had her chucked out!


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

del_044 said:


> crufts started all the inbreeding!
> 
> why people have pugs ect is beyond me...there disgusting looking animals! they are riddled with genetic mutations. its cruel and sad that people breed and buy these kind of dogs...if you class them as dogs.
> 
> ...


Where to start....

Not ALL Pugs are unhealthy, you just have to choose your breeder carefully. 

There are many many healthy Pugs, Boxers, German Shepards, Bulldogs, Cavaliers, Basset Hounds, etc etc etc. The programme obviously has to focus on the worst cases to get the sensationalism. 

So you'd rather buy a puppy who's mother has been bred every season & never rested, so who's health is poor & no health tests have been done? You'd rather give your money to a person who has a shed full of breeding bitches who have known nothing else other than being pregnant & raising a litter? You'd rather buy a puppy who's health would be very questionable & the likelyhood of severe physical & pshycological problems would be very high? Eeep....


----------



## Berber King (Dec 29, 2007)

Back from the park after a hard session of football,still raring to go my unhealthy pedigree bulldog...

































(Red muzzle from running around with ball in his mouth)


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

Berber King said:


> Back from the park after a hard session of football,still raring to go my unhealthy pedigree bulldog...
> image
> image
> image
> ...


You should be ashamed, you beast!!!! :devil:


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

i think what we are proving here is that it works both ways... there are healthy dogs and dogs with issues from both cross bred lines and pure bred lines....
your dog is adorable, and clearly enjoys his walks but the flip side of that...
in september time i was in my bedroom tidying and i heard what can only be described as an almost choking, gasping sound from outside, it sounded (and it made my stomach drop i can tell you) like the sound my mum made when she had a cardiac arrest last may...
so thinking someone was in need of help i rushed to the window to see what it was... only to see an english bulldog half collapsed on the pavement, gasping for breath...half walking half being dragged.
it was really stuggling to breath and was most likely overheating...
the sound it was making was truly awful.


----------



## Berber King (Dec 29, 2007)

And those fat,poor breathing bulldogs that you see struggling would not be in a show ring,they are usually from un-tested parents from back-yard breeders trying to make a quick buck.I have zero interest in showing,just wanted a healthy,well-bred dog,whos ancestry could be traced and checked.


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

Berber King said:


> And those fat,poor breathing bulldogs that you see struggling would not be in a show ring,they are usually from un-tested parents from back-yard breeders trying to make a quick buck.I have zero interest in showing,just wanted a healthy,well-bred dog,whos ancestry could be traced and checked.


You took the words right out of my mouth. That Bulldog would have been from a pet breeder, or worse, a BYB, not from a show breeder.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

yes, you are both probably right but it doesnt excuse the fact that even some registered breeders dogs have noses that are really far too short.
I'm not saying all registered breeders breed this way...

if the trend were changed across the board as it were, so that say, bulls were expected to have a slightly longer muzzle then surely thats better for everydogs health?


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

del_044 said:


> as for the boxer breeders, you buy these dogs because they are KC registered, you trust the KC.


If you are buying a dog that's not health tested then it's because you are an idiot. You don't buy anything else by just looking at the brand name, you don't buy a house because it's a well known estate agent, you don't buy a car because it's a certain make. To think you could buy a living thing that way is many levels of dumb.


----------



## Mockingjay (Feb 24, 2012)

All my dogs are health tested and purchased from breeders, lucky they are. My friend who bought a bulldog from a breeder who I was considering to get a dogs from has now developed severe breathing problems and arthritis whilst mine is still healthy. The breeder has no testing on the dogs what so ever but my friends took the gamble and lost. Just be careful who you buy from.


----------



## NickBenger (Nov 18, 2010)

Zoo-Man said:


> You took the words right out of my mouth. That Bulldog would have been from a pet breeder, or worse, a BYB, not from a show breeder.


Didn't they say that dog won it's class?Hence the importance of it.


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

NickBenger said:


> Didn't they say that dog won it's class?Hence the importance of it.


The bulldog in question was outside Rach1's window.


----------



## NickBenger (Nov 18, 2010)

Devi said:


> The bulldog in question was outside Rach1's window.


Oh sorry I didn't read all of the posts I thought we were on about one from the programme.


----------



## Kaida (Mar 9, 2006)

Devi said:


> Mockingjay - You really don't know what you're talking about. There are probably more dogs in this country than there are people, for some breeds there are over a hundred that make crufts every year, which is our top dog show, even if you only bred all the crufts qualifiers together, you wouldn't have an inbred population. There is no such thing as an 'inbred gene', and you'll find more hip dysplasia in badly bred GSD than you ever will at a show.


Devi are you saying you don't believe in inbreeding as affects pedigree dogs?

The number of dogs in the country doesn't matter as much as how many were in the gene pool when it was closed, or the lowest number there have ever been since then if that's less. Once you stop introducing new blood, the dogs in that closed gene pool don't miraculously get new genes just because more puppies are born within that gene pool. There are God-knows-how-many Cavaliers in the country now, but they all descend from 6 dogs in the 1940's, two of which were litter siblings. And each generation the majority of dogs are not bred, especially males, with especially popular sires contributing very disproportionally to the next generation, narrowing the gene pool still further. The tests that have been done on the major histocompatability complex genes show how little diversity there is in some breeds compared to in the species as a whole, and of course this has big implications for the immune systems etc of those genetically impoverished dogs.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Can you please say all that again in ladybird speak?
Or maybe add a diagram or picture to Colour!
LOL


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

Kaida said:


> There are God-knows-how-many Cavaliers in the country now, but they all descend from 6 dogs in the 1940's, two of which were litter siblings. And each generation the majority of dogs are not bred, especially males, with especially popular sires contributing very disproportionally to the next generation, narrowing the gene pool still further. The tests that have been done on the major histocompatability complex genes show how little diversity there is in some breeds compared to in the species as a whole, and of course this has big implications for the immune systems etc of those genetically impoverished dogs.


Firstly, this pertains to one breed, not pedigree dogs as a whole, but I'll explain anyway.
How we breed when there is a limited breeding pool is that we do something called line breeding. 
This is a very in depth discussion of how line breeding works - Line Breeding
Using this technique and the obvious natural mutation of genes through generations you can create a fairly diverse gene pool. The issue isn't inbreeding, but people with genetic issues breeding their dogs. If we only bred healthy animals then the problems would vanish, as the dogs who carried the issues would be wholly eliminated from the program.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

I wish everyone could understand the difference between line breeding and in breeding! :2thumb:


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Ok I'll step up to the Mark and represent the adverage Joe..
In breeding- breeding close relatives, such as mother/son, father Daugher

Line breeding- less close relatives such as cousins whom show positive/wanted traits. Thus creating the line....


Ok... Ready aim fire........
Lol


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Kaida said:


> Devi are you saying you don't believe in inbreeding as affects pedigree dogs?
> 
> The number of dogs in the country doesn't matter as much as how many were in the gene pool when it was closed, or the lowest number there have ever been since then if that's less. Once you stop introducing new blood, the dogs in that closed gene pool don't miraculously get new genes just because more puppies are born within that gene pool. There are God-knows-how-many Cavaliers in the country now, but they all descend from 6 dogs in the 1940's, two of which were litter siblings. And each generation the majority of dogs are not bred, especially males, with especially popular sires contributing very disproportionally to the next generation, narrowing the gene pool still further. The tests that have been done on the major histocompatability complex genes show how little diversity there is in some breeds compared to in the species as a whole, and of course this has big implications for the immune systems etc of those genetically impoverished dogs.


I have to say, I actually do find that I have a problem with the closed studbook system also - I wish it were more like with horse studbooks in Germany that approve exceptional stallions periodically to improve that breed.

Having said that, I know that the KC have approved _some_ outcrosses - American Toy Manchester Terriers with English Toy Terriers off the top of my head, though these share the same heritage to start off with - and there are reportedly plans to do this amongst the five worst affected breeds in terms of genetic diversity -
Dog World - 08 KC and AHT

Hopefully, the cumulative impact of these initially small steps will encourage a more relaxed attitude towards outcrossing in order to sustain pedigree breeds - provided, of course, they prove to be successful (I don't doubt they will be).


----------



## zoe6660 (Jun 3, 2007)

What happen to the dogs that are bred for purpose like hunting, rescue ect why change them so much that they become accessories like toy breeds.


----------



## del_044 (Jan 29, 2007)

Zoo-Man said:


> Where to start....
> 
> Not ALL Pugs are unhealthy, you just have to choose your breeder carefully.
> 
> ...


 
the alternitive being, pay hundreds of pounds for a dog that will cost me thousands of pounds in vet bills then eventually die?
neither option is good, i do see your point on the puppy farm. i would'nt realy buy from them. but my biggest point being, if you bought say, a pug. you are part responsible for the problem with the breed. you contribute as a buyer.


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

Whilst there are people whose mind set thinks advertising dogs in this way is acceptable there will be little progress with healthier dogs IMO
http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/foru...819361-breeding-trio-shetland-sheep-dogs.html


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

del_044 said:


> the alternitive being, pay hundreds of pounds for a dog that will cost me thousands of pounds in vet bills then eventually die?
> neither option is good, i do see your point on the puppy farm. i would'nt realy buy from them. but my biggest point being, if you bought say, a pug. you are part responsible for the problem with the breed. you contribute as a buyer.


If you buy a registered dog from health tested parents with a genuine line that you can check up on, then you have a healthy dog that will not have any inherited diseases. Whether it's a pug or any other breed it makes no difference. You contribute as a buyer in improving the breed in this way.


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

zoe6660 said:


> What happen to the dogs that are bred for purpose like hunting, rescue ect why change them so much that they become accessories like toy breeds.


Not all have, many dogs own joint titles in work and show. Take a look at this guy for example - Spark
It was in the past mandatory for show dogs of a working type to also hold an award in work, I think it's pretty sad that ended.
But also, no dog is an accessory, all dogs have an original purpose, and all dogs need to same exercise, and care.


----------



## ermgravy (Sep 19, 2009)

It ened because retarded breeders were breeding top show dogs unfit for working trials and still wanted them to be top show dogs so the show community klent on the kc and they rolled like the bunch of muppets they are... :devil: 

and yes Devi i agree this is a travesty to the breeds affected... 

as for breeds having being ruined for purpose by the show ring lets not go there i by myself could write a list about 40 breeds long if i really tried...


----------



## PPVallhunds (May 23, 2010)

im pritty sure i read somewhere that for breeds like the gundogs and border collies who have working tests that if they get the 3CC they are now called show Champion (Sh Ch) and to be a full champion they have to pass the working triles/test as well. Are they still doing that?


----------



## Navy Mam (Feb 18, 2012)

*I was shocked and saddened that not a lot seems to of changed since the last programme they did. I felt sorry for the lady that was trying to do the right thing with the Dalmatians she has by bringing in a new blood line, the stick she was getting from other breeders! They should be thanking her for what she is doing, not running her down!! We have an 11 year old Rhodesian Ridgeback and I saw that some breeders automatically get any ridgeless puppy put to sleep and was disgusted to see the attitude of the RR breeder who said that her vet refused to put her puppies asleep, so found one that did!! These vets also should have some come-back against them.......What excuse do they have for putting healthy puppies to sleep, because they are ridgeless!! The breeder we got our RR from doesn't do this, she finds loving pet homes for them, there is nothing wrong with these pups, they are just as lovable as one with a ridge. 
I come from the cat world, as I used to breed and show Norwegian Forest cats. But maybe they should do a programme on cats too. Some of the breeds that have been changed into freaks is awful! Such as the Persian cat, some of these are so bad they can hardly breath and have terrible issues with their eyes ect......So, so sad what humans do to these beautiful animals *:devil:


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Navy Mam said:


> *I was shocked and saddened that not a lot seems to of changed since the last programme they did. I felt sorry for the lady that was trying to do the right thing with the Dalmatians she has by bringing in a new blood line, the stick she was getting from other breeders! They should be thanking her for what she is doing, not running her down!! We have an 11 year old Rhodesian Ridgeback and I saw that some breeders automatically get any ridgeless puppy put to sleep and was disgusted to see the attitude of the RR breeder who said that her vet refused to put her puppies asleep, so found one that did!! These vets also should have some come-back against them.......What excuse do they have for putting healthy puppies to sleep, because they are ridgeless!! The breeder we got our RR from doesn't do this, she finds loving pet homes for them, there is nothing wrong with these pups, they are just as lovable as one with a ridge.
> I come from the cat world, as I used to breed and show Norwegian Forest cats. But maybe they should do a programme on cats too. Some of the breeds that have been changed into freaks is awful! Such as the Persian cat, some of these are so bad they can hardly breath and have terrible issues with their eyes ect......So, so sad what humans do to these beautiful animals *:devil:



THe ridgeback woman was from the program 3 years ago. Breeders are the problem now not the kennel club, and not all breeders either. They have done a good job this last 3 year. I don't understand why no one can see this.


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

ermgravy said:


> It ened because retarded breeders were breeding top show dogs unfit for working trials and still wanted them to be top show dogs so the show community klent on the kc and they rolled like the bunch of muppets they are... :devil:
> 
> and yes Devi i agree this is a travesty to the breeds affected...
> 
> as for breeds having being ruined for purpose by the show ring lets not go there i by myself could write a list about 40 breeds long if i really tried...


Go to the KC's website & search Fit For Function....... 



Navy Mam said:


> *I was shocked and saddened that not a lot seems to of changed since the last programme they did. I felt sorry for the lady that was trying to do the right thing with the Dalmatians she has by bringing in a new blood line, the stick she was getting from other breeders! They should be thanking her for what she is doing, not running her down!! We have an 11 year old Rhodesian Ridgeback and I saw that some breeders automatically get any ridgeless puppy put to sleep and was disgusted to see the attitude of the RR breeder who said that her vet refused to put her puppies asleep, so found one that did!! These vets also should have some come-back against them.......What excuse do they have for putting healthy puppies to sleep, because they are ridgeless!! The breeder we got our RR from doesn't do this, she finds loving pet homes for them, there is nothing wrong with these pups, they are just as lovable as one with a ridge. *
> *I come from the cat world, as I used to breed and show Norwegian Forest cats. But maybe they should do a programme on cats too. Some of the breeds that have been changed into freaks is awful! Such as the Persian cat, some of these are so bad they can hardly breath and have terrible issues with their eyes ect......So, so sad what humans do to these beautiful animals *:devil:


Things HAVE changed since the last programme! And they CONTINUE to do so! Just because that TV programme chose to omit much of the positives about the KC, doesn't mean things aren't happening! You only have to have a quick look on the KC's website.


----------



## Kaida (Mar 9, 2006)

Devi said:


> Firstly, this pertains to one breed, not pedigree dogs as a whole, but I'll explain anyway.
> How we breed when there is a limited breeding pool is that we do something called line breeding.
> This is a very in depth discussion of how line breeding works - Line Breeding
> Using this technique and the obvious natural mutation of genes through generations you can create a fairly diverse gene pool. The issue isn't inbreeding, but people with genetic issues breeding their dogs. If we only bred healthy animals then the problems would vanish, as the dogs who carried the issues would be wholly eliminated from the program.


By saying linebreeding creates diversity you mean because of Line A being genetically very similar to each other but different to Line B and Line C, there is retained some diversity within the genepool of the breed as a whole, yes? But that's no use for the dog IN any of those lines, who are generally inbred past the point of optimum health (anything over 6.25% CIO over ten generations reduces lifespan, for example - Dr John Armstrong tells us that a Standard Poodle bred to 5% COI will live on average 3 years longer than one bred to 35%, as well as impacting fertility and health in general). Being inbred causes less than optimum lifespan, resistance to disease, fertility, and a greater chance of having ANY recessive genetic disease (not just the ones known as common in a breed, the ones no-one knows about too). There's also not enough natural mutation to prevail against the selection against it that breeders do.

You also can't "just breed healthy animals" to make problems "vanish". There are so many unknown dangerous recessive alleles carried hidden within a population, you couldn't possibly test for them all (you wouldn't even know what to test for, let alone how), and inbreeding (and linebreeding, which is just inbreeding focussing on a particular ancestor) makes them more likely to match up and cause the diseases.




Rach1 said:


> Can you please say all that again in ladybird speak?
> Or maybe add a diagram or picture to Colour!
> LOL


Erm... which bit? 




Devi said:


> If you buy a registered dog from health tested parents with a genuine line that you can check up on, then you have a healthy dog that will not have any inherited diseases. Whether it's a pug or any other breed it makes no difference. You contribute as a buyer in improving the breed in this way.


I agree it's really important to buy only from breeders who health test and know the ancestry of their dogs, but unfortunately you can't make blanket statements like this. I know, I know, I'm going to use the Cavalier again as an example, but they're the breed I know best and try to keep up with the research in...
CKCS, for example :blush:, you buy a pup from parents who have up to date heart certificates, and have even been MRI'd. That's no guarantee the pups won't get SM, as it's a very complex trait, plus the breeding recommendations actually allow breeding of dogs with this condition in an attempt not to shrink the gene pool still further. And even if the parents don't have MVD at the time of mating, they will carry the genes and pass them on, as MVD tends to occur after the age dogs are first mated (though not for an unlucky few who get it REALLY early - 10% of CKCS have MVD by age 1!)



Zoo-Man said:


> Where to start....
> 
> Not ALL Pugs are unhealthy, you just have to choose your breeder carefully.
> 
> *There are many many healthy* Pugs, Boxers, German Shepards, Bulldogs, *Cavaliers*, Basset Hounds, etc etc etc. The programme obviously has to focus on the worst cases to get the sensationalism.


Re. the bolded, no, there aren't, unfortunately. Clare Rusbridge found 74.5% of Cavaliers she tested in her research (both symptomatic AND asymptomatic, not just dogs that were showing symptoms) had syringomyelia, and darn near 100% have mitral valve disease by their 10th birthday (for their size, that age should be only two thirds of the way through their lifespan, really). Half of all Cavaliers have MVD by their 5th birthday. See Cavalier King Charles Spaniels Overview for more details of the many other diseases CKCS are prone to.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

zoe6660 said:


> What happen to the dogs that are bred for purpose like hunting, rescue ect why change them so much that they become accessories like toy breeds.


A) Toy breeds aren't - and shouldn't be referred to - as accessories.

B) The problem with this attitude is that, actually, a dog with a strong working drive will oftentimes make a really poor pet. The joy of getting a showline Parson Russell terrier over a working line is that you're more likely to be able to meet the mental and physical requirements of the former.

Also, there really just isn't a demand for working dogs like there was - it's a symptom of a different way of life.



del_044 said:


> the alternitive being, pay hundreds of pounds for a dog that will cost me thousands of pounds in vet bills then eventually die?
> neither option is good, i do see your point on the puppy farm. i would'nt realy buy from them. but my biggest point being, if you bought say, a pug. you are part responsible for the problem with the breed. you contribute as a buyer.


If you feel strongly, then don't support that breed and instead support a breed - particularly some of the primitive breeds - which might only cost you the price of jags and the odd bill here and there for those inevitable minor issues. 

You can research health surveys, and speak to your vets about their experience with certain breeds, before you opt to take that breed on. 

Also, all life will eventually die :Na_Na_Na_Na:



ermgravy said:


> It ened because retarded breeders were breeding top show dogs unfit for working trials and still wanted them to be top show dogs so the show community klent on the kc and they rolled like the bunch of muppets they are... :devil:
> 
> and yes Devi i agree this is a travesty to the breeds affected...
> 
> as for breeds having being ruined for purpose by the show ring lets not go there i by myself could write a list about 40 breeds long if i really tried...


Why don't you suggest some breeds 'ruined for purpose by the show ring' and then the lovely people of RFUK can work through them and put forward arguments for and against?



PPVallhunds said:


> im pritty sure i read somewhere that for breeds like the gundogs and border collies who have working tests that if they get the 3CC they are now called show Champion (Sh Ch) and to be a full champion they have to pass the working triles/test as well. Are they still doing that?


The explanation of awards of championship status as taken from the KC website can be read here -
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/7464/A3370-Regs-K.pdf

'2. Championship Qualifications.
a. Title of Champion (Ch) The following dogs shall be entitled to be described as
Champions:
(1) Any Hound, Terrier, Utility,Working, Pastoral (except Border Collie) or Toy
Dog awarded three Challenge Certificates under three different Judges,
provided that at least one of the Challenge Certificates was awarded when
the dog was more than twelve months of age.
(2) Any Gundog which has fulfilled the requirements of 2.a.(1) and had
obtained either of the following.
(a) An Award, Diploma of Merit or Certificate of Merit under the
Regulations of the Kennel Club or under the Regulations of the Irish
Kennel Club.
(b) AShowGundogWorkingCertificatewhich conforms to the conditions set
out in the Kennel Club Regulations or the Rules of the Irish Kennel Club.
(3) Any Border Collie which has fulfilled the requirements of 2.b.(1) and has
passed the Show Border Collie Herding Test.'

Border collies and gundogs which don't have both working certificates / herding tests etc can be either Show Champions or Field Champions - it's labelled under 2.b. in the document.

Therefore, to reach full Champion status in BCs and Gundogs, there _must_ be evidence of working instinct.

With regards to inbreeding coefficients, and Kaida's point on the extent to which inbreeding must be given consideration, not _all_ breeds have levels which would condemn them to an early grave. Azawakhs for instance have a breed mean of 0.1%, Greyhounds 0.7%. Or German Shorthaired Pointer 5.3%, Standard Poodles as a breed 4.1%, GSDs at 3.2%, Aussie Shepherds and cattle dogs both at 2.4%... 
You can go away and look at the predicted mating if you're thinking of going on a waiting list and if it comes out at an unnacceptable level, you've time to change your mind.


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

Kaida said:


> By saying linebreeding creates diversity you mean because of Line A being genetically very similar to each other but different to Line B and Line C, there is retained some diversity within the genepool of the breed as a whole, yes? But that's no use for the dog IN any of those lines, who are generally inbred past the point of optimum health


You are focusing on stage 1 of line breeding. Line A will have issues, for example a too short nose, Line B may have a fault of a too long nose, so we breed animals with complimentary issues to build stronger offspring.



Kaida said:


> You also can't "just breed healthy animals" to make problems "vanish". There are so many unknown dangerous recessive alleles carried hidden within a population, you couldn't possibly test for them all (you wouldn't even know what to test for, let alone how), and inbreeding (and linebreeding, which is just inbreeding focussing on a particular ancestor) makes them more likely to match up and cause the diseases.


If the diseases are remaining hidden then it's not an issue is it? It's when the problems are revealed that we deal with it, test for it, and eliminate it. 




Kaida said:


> I agree it's really important to buy only from breeders who health test and know the ancestry of their dogs, but unfortunately you can't make blanket statements like this. I know, I know, I'm going to use the Cavalier again as an example, but they're the breed I know best and try to keep up with the research in...
> CKCS, for example :blush:, you buy a pup from parents who have up to date heart certificates, and have even been MRI'd. That's no guarantee the pups won't get SM, as it's a very complex trait, plus the breeding recommendations actually allow breeding of dogs with this condition in an attempt not to shrink the gene pool still further. And even if the parents don't have MVD at the time of mating, they will carry the genes and pass them on, as MVD tends to occur after the age dogs are first mated (though not for an unlucky few who get it REALLY early - 10% of CKCS have MVD by age 1!)


This is the reason why healthy parents are not a guarantee of a healthy pup, we need to see a healthy line. If a dog at 10 years old gets SM, then it should be instant block on all the offspring breeding. I will say that with the heart thing, most dogs have heart problems by 10 years old, so it isn't as simple as it sounds. In fact, try finding a human pensioner that doesn't have the slightest issue with their heart, they are very rare. Obviously we strive for healthy dogs throughout life, but early heart problems are a much bigger issue than senior ones. 
It should also be said that a cavalier is a long living breed, as long or longer than dogs we consider healthier like the labrador.


----------



## Kaida (Mar 9, 2006)

Devi said:


> You are focusing on stage 1 of line breeding. Line A will have issues, for example a too short nose, Line B may have a fault of a too long nose, so we breed animals with complimentary issues to build stronger offspring.


And then what? Breed back into the line? And while you're in stage 1 of linebreeding, all those dogs have been bred that would probably have lived longer, healthier lives had they not been inbred. As an aside, I find it sad that your definition of stronger offspring is one who looks nicer (i.e. has the perfect length nose for the breed). Outcrosses to bring in some wanted feature are rare, aren't they? Breeders worry they'll lose "type" and predictability with an outcross so it's common to go to the closest option possible and then go straight back into the line, or the only other option is to keep going with unrelated dogs, which is a tactic I've only ever heard talked of very scathingly by the kind of breeder who line-breeds. If those dogs are phenotypically similar, incidentally, it is a tactic recommended by some of the most knowledgeable geneticists around - John Armstrong for one. Discussion of Inbreeding, Linebreeding, raondom mating and assortative mating as options and their benefits and weaknesses here. A very interesting investigation into top-winning/producing Dalmatians showed inbreeding and linebreeding are not even necessary to produce very good examples of the breed, so I wish more breeders would consider the alternatives rather than being stuck in a way of thinking that comes from the era of eugenics and should have been left there.



Devi said:


> If the diseases are remaining hidden then it's not an issue is it? It's when the problems are revealed that we deal with it, test for it, and eliminate it.


That's my point, they stay hidden as long as dogs bred together are not too closely related (or linebred on an affected ancestor). When problems are revealed, 1) you now have people's beloved pets who are affected with a disease due to the vanity-based breeding practices of the breeder and 2) you CAN'T test for and eliminate everything! You seem to think that all problems can be tested for and removed from the gene pool, leaving a healthy breed. I'm telling you, scientifically, that's not possible. A lot of problems that might occur do not yet have a test for them - for instance out of the many types of PRA, there are only tests for a few. Shih tzu and Papillons both sometimes suffer from PRA, but there's no test yet for the type they have. Also even if you can test for a problem, eliminating it totally just shrinks the gene pool even further and makes other problems more likely to surface.




Devi said:


> This is the reason why healthy parents are not a guarantee of a healthy pup, we need to see a healthy line. If a dog at 10 years old gets SM, then it should be instant block on all the offspring breeding. I will say that with the heart thing, most dogs have heart problems by 10 years old, so it isn't as simple as it sounds. In fact, try finding a human pensioner that doesn't have the slightest issue with their heart, they are very rare. Obviously we strive for healthy dogs throughout life, but early heart problems are a much bigger issue than senior ones.
> It should also be said that a cavalier is a long living breed, as long or longer than dogs we consider healthier like the labrador.


Again this comes back to what I said above, with the small gene pools in most pedigree dogs, you can't just put a block on breeding all offspring of every dog with SM (or early-onset MVD, or any of the other many issues CKCS are pone to), as so many dogs get SM (roughly 75% by Clare Rusbridge's research) - are you going to eliminate three quarters of CKCS from breeding? And then the quarter who are left, how many of them have early-onset MVD, or hip dysplasia, or patella luxation, or Dry Eye Curly Coat, or epilepsy, etc etc etc

It obviously depends on how bad health and genetic diversity is in any given breed as to how quickly you'd run out of dogs by eliminating each subsequent disease, the Cavalier is an extreme example. The fact it's an extreme example is what bugs me when people treat them like other healthier breeds and say, "There are lots of healthy ones" or, "just buy from healthy parents and you'll be guaranteed a healthy pup" or similar. You can say that (or almost...) about several healthier breeds, Chihuahuas or Chinese Cresteds for instance, and you'd be right. But not CKCS, and not several other breeds in major trouble either, so it's irresponsible to make sweeping statements about all pedigree breeds when they're discrete populations with their own issues and needs.

Estimates for Cavalier lifespan vary, but the Cavalier Health website (a neutral source that makes much use of scientific studies and not just anecdotal or rose-tinted "evidence") estimates 7-10 years. The KC Health Survey says 11 years (though tbh knowing the Cavalier Club's record on health - ostriches come to mind - I wouldn't trust the sample that sent their surveys back to be representative of the whole range of lifespans in the breed). Either way, that's below other dogs of their size. CKCS should live significantly longer than labradors, because of their sizes. But with the painful conditions the vast majority will get, would they want to?


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

Kaida, please research linebreeding a little more. It is not the same as inbreeding at all and requires an awful lot of research to do correctly. The first link I posted was a decent in depth explanation if you'll have a look. You say previously that dogs should have an inbreeding coefficient under 6.25%, well the cavalier is currently 5.2%, so clearly they've managed to make a diverse enough gene pool. We use line breeding commonly with extremely endangered animals, it is used because it is the best way to make a healthy population of animals. Nobody is saying it needs to be used, and most people do not use it, but you asked how a breed could be recovered from low numbers and I explained that for you.
I used the example of the nose because that is the feature that we've been discussing for much of the thread, it works for anything else that you want to stick in there.
Eugenics means breeding for the improvement of the species or breed by selective breeding, we do this in every animal in captivity and have done for thousands of years, so the suggestion of 'the era of eugenics' is strange. The word went out of fashion due to the application on humans, but it doesn't change the meaning.

On hidden diseases, most animals, and humans in fact, have genes hidden which can cause illnesses, we can't help the occasional problem showing up, but they can be eliminated from gene pools in the way I described above. As for PRA, it stands for progressive retina atrophy, dogs with it will end up blind, I'd reckon that's a fairly good test? All issues will be revealed at some point, we then deal with it by removing the affected dogs from the gene pool, that means affected dogs and their close relatives. Shrinking the gene pool to only the healthiest animals is really not an issue is it?

Finally on elimination, you very well can take out all unhealthy dogs, and in fact must. Are you know suggesting the breeding of unhealthy animals is a good thing? You talk a lot about the percentage of dogs that has this problem or that, but you don't seem to realise that really doesn't matter if we are only using lines that are clear of those issues. It's the breeding of unhealthy dogs that leads to unhealthy puppies.


----------



## Kaida (Mar 9, 2006)

I'd be very interested in reading about conservationists using linebreeding to help save endangered species. Can you point me towards somewhere where one of the groups/biologists/zoologists doing this refers to it?


I've read the article, and it doesn't say anything different to the definition of inbreeding I already paraphrased from Dr John Armstrong – inbreeding on a specific ancestor who has a wanted trait, though it did also emphasise that one should choose the ancestor with care as he should be inbred himself in order that he is homozygous for wanted traits so will definitely pass them on.

The article is wrong on two very big counts (as well as several smaller ones): 
Inbreeding is bad for health, it has been conclusively proven many times over in many different animals.
Inbreeding is not necessary to produce top dogs, however you measure. The study I linked to in my last post investigated the COI's of top winning and top producing dalmations and found no correlation between their/offspring's success and their COI.


Re. PRA – yes, going blind is a good test (though they often go blind after they have been bred). However almost all types of PRA are recessive, so with no test you cannot identify carriers (who will not go blind themselves but on average a quarter of their offspring will be blind when paired to another carrier). With high levels of inbreeding you are much more likely to be producing dogs with recessive diseases, both yourself and that breeder's linebreeding article agree – you both acknowledge that inbreeding and linebreeding lead to increased homozygosity, in fact that's the whole point of linebreeding. Homozygosity of “genes for disease” (of which most animals will carry a couple of different types) causes disease.


Yes, most animals have hidden genes which cause illness, but surely the best thing is to avoid them being expressed? I'm not saying unhealthy dogs should be bred. I'm suggesting that in some breeds, it is not possible to completely remove all unhealthy dogs from the gene pool, as you'd be left with a tiny fraction of the original gene pool which would no doubt have problems of their own. The Cavalier Club, for instance, recommended continuing to breed dogs affected by SM in order that the gene pool isn't too restricted.



And I'm suggesting that in those circumstances, it is irresponsible to continue within a closed gene pool just because we have an idea that purity is more important than anything else. Most ordinary people want, yes, some predictabilty of form and temperament, but valuing purity over health is a foreign concept to the average person, and most people would prefer a dog with a little of some other complementary breed in it that was healthy, than a “purer” dog that was not.


There are two main options for breeding.


Breeding for purity, using inbreeding and linebreeding, “exposing” various diseases (i.e. breeding dogs who will suffer from them rather than carry them as a harmless recessive) and breeding dogs that it has been proven have shorter lifespans and worse health (both more genetic disease and a worse immune system). I will point out that this is what's been done for decades, and I'm sure we can all agree most purebred dogs are not any healthier than they were back then.

Breed for health over purity, outcrossing to other breeds or to landrace stock (where available) where necessary, and keeping recessives from pairing up, so the dogs one produces have the best chance of a long and healthy life. And if one has used assortative mating carefully (as described in the other link I put in my previous post), they might even be show winners if that's what you want.
 

If anyone else is interested, this link contains great advice agreed by genetics experts to be a variety of ways to breed healthy dogs. If all breeders were to adhere to at least some of it, perhaps purebred dogs wouldn't be in the unfortunate state many of them have been brought to by the old ways of Option 1 above.


----------



## Devi (Jan 9, 2011)

Kaida said:


> I'd be very interested in reading about conservationists using linebreeding to help save endangered species. Can you point me towards somewhere where one of the groups/biologists/zoologists doing this refers to it?


This is a good article on the original line breeding of the Przewalski Horse - Takhi Gene Pool 
As with most breeding programs they bred lines to create diversity from a limited gene pool. The horse was fully extinct in the wild and has now been reintroduced.

As for the rest of the article, you again refer to inbreeding, are you aware that closely related pairs of dogs can not be bred? The KC doesn't accept it at all.
With PRA, yes animals can be carriers, this is why when a dog develops PRA we remove it's family from the gene pool. This eliminates affected dogs and carriers. 
As far as SM, it is a little different to some diseases like PRA, it is the symptom of a skull that is too small, so dogs which have very low grade asymptomatic SM can be bred to dogs with no SM at all and will produce puppies with no SM, this is why the breeding is allowed in those cases. It is similar is dogs where hip displasia is an issue, we can breed almost perfect dogs with perfect dogs and will end up with healthy animals.
Finally you promote the breeding of mongrels, if you want a mongrel then there are thousands in rescue, by breeding more you are simply condemning those in rescue to death.


----------



## Kaida (Mar 9, 2006)

That article says no such thing. What it actually says is that inbreeding is bad ("There is a serious risk of inbreeding in animals that come from such a small founding population. These include shorter life span, increased mortality among foals, and weakened hind legs."), and that all their current breeding strategies are designed to avoid inbreeding as much as possible, including using individuals decended from mares outcrossed to domestic horses (obviously a much bigger outcross than between two dog breeds!).

There were 14 founders, but 5 of them were due to that outcross, so one group of conservationists refused to use their decendents (as they were impure) and focussed only on progeny of the other 9. That left the breeders of the decendents of those 5 out in the cold. The fracturing into two lines was not deliberate, and certainly not designed to preserve diversity - they've now re-evaluated their strategy to incorporate decendents of all of the 14 founders since "with only 14 original founders, it was important to use all the genetic diversity available to the breed," and because the outcross with domestic horse actually helped the genetic diversity of the species even if they are not now "pure". The article even said that keeping these two seperate lines would place the survival of the species in jeopardy.

Regarding SM breeding strategies, "SM has a tendency to be more severe in each subsequent generation, and with an earlier onset." (Syringomyelia (SM) and the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel) So, no, breeding affected individuals to unaffecteds does not produce healthy puppies. So you disagree with the SM Breeding Protocol? You feel that instead of doing as they are doing - breeding affected dogs to avoid shrinking the gene pool too much, they should be instead not breeding any dog with any degree of SM, and just have a tiny tiny gene pool once you've also removed all dogs with heart issues and their progeny, and hip dysplasia, slipping patellae, eye problems, etc? We'd end up with a fraction of 1% of the current number of dogs being breedable, and surely if that was alright "as long as they're healthy" then that's what the Cavalier Club would be recommending?

No, I don't promote the breeding of mongrels. I promote the breeding of healthy dogs, with outcrosses where necessary. And since there are more than enough purebreds in rescue too, I don't see how that's relevant to the current discussion.


----------

