# Pedigree Dogs. A step too far?



## YoshiHCG (Feb 21, 2012)

I noticed there's another post about the program that was on tonight, but I figured I'd try and get some feedback as I am keen to discuss, being a dog owner myself, it does really wind me up when i see those programs. It just seems that many breeders nowadays; especially showing/crufts breeders just don't want to listen or take into account the problems! They go by the kennel club breeder book and follow exactly what is says, regardless of the actual animal in front of them. I currently have 3 dogs. 2 pedigree and 1 mixed. My labarador has epilepsy as is permenantly on sedation pills and my border terrier has a cleft palate with breathing problems. My mixed breed terrier...has no health problems whatsoever. My old labrador again had epilepsy and arthritis. 

It actually almost puts me off buying another pedigree ever...what about you guys? Thoughts on pedigree dogs nowadays and their breeding? Do you think that the show is only pin pointing a minority of breeders who are ignoring health problems or is it a majority? Thoughts please x


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

There are healthy pedigree dogs out there, find one of them instead of encouraging poor breeding or buy from working lines and forget the certificate.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

LOL... i will wait to see how others respond... this could go totally unmissed OR will cause havoc...


----------



## YoshiHCG (Feb 21, 2012)

DavieB said:


> There are healthy pedigree dogs out there, find one of them instead of encouraging poor breeding or buy from working lines and forget the certificate.


I'm not too bothered about having a pedigree, top show winning champion dog...I just want a family pet...me and my boyfriend both love pugs and pomeranians. But the pug section on tonights programme really shocked me...would take a LOT of looking into to find dogs nowadays that are mostly unrelated bloodlines....my lab is most likely interbred hence the problems she has and the fact she is probably the worst conformation of labrador ever (i still love her to pieces of course)


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Rach1 said:


> LOL... i will wait to see how others respond... this could go totally unmissed OR will cause havoc...


Why nt say what you think? Don;t worry about whether it annoys people or not.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

well, One of the reasons we chose Gus is because we love bulldogs but dont like the health issues many of them have.
Gus is an Old tyme bull dog from old tyme on here, he has been well raised and is a truly wonderful dog.
What annoys me is the purists who refer to dogs like Gus as a mongrel (yes i know technically he is) and yet can stand there and say our current bulldogs are in some way superior.
Gus maybe a cross breed but he is a bull type..and a healthy one at that.
I totally back neils (old tymes) aims and fully support his breeding project. And, that of true old tyme breeders such as the dorset line or such like.
They are trying to take bulldogs back to what they used to be before we ruined them.
its taken less than 100 years to breed their skulls to such a ridiculous shape... and it will take as long to sort it.


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Rach1 said:


> well, One of the reasons we chose Gus is because we love bulldogs but dont like the health issues many of them have.
> Gus is an Old tyme bull dog from old tyme on here, he has been well raised and is a truly wonderful dog.
> What annoys me is the purists who refer to dogs like Gus as a mongrel (yes i know technically he is) and yet can stand there and say our current bulldogs are in some way superior.
> Gus maybe a cross breed but he is a bull type..and a healthy one at that.
> ...



Ive asid before i agree with crosses like yours but I am pessimistic as to whether anyone will continue it for long enough to make a difference to do it, althouhg I hope they do. This is where KC could make a huge difference but won't. 

I've also said I disagree with "designer" breeds which I think are seen as a fast buck and often double the problems giving bother from each breed.


----------



## YoshiHCG (Feb 21, 2012)

I think mongrels/cross breeds/mixers etc whatever people call them...are perfect. we wouldn't have our murphy any other way, just because they are not one breed does not make them any less inferior. 

I really think we all need to really make an effort as it appears TKC really wont do much to support & promote healthy breeding, introduction of different breeds to help get these health problems that are evident and can be avoided, removed as much as we can.


----------



## YoshiHCG (Feb 21, 2012)

DavieB said:


> I've also said I disagree with "designer" breeds which I think are seen as a fast buck and often double the problems giving bother from each breed.


Agreed DavieB. the smaller breeds such as poms and pugs, chihuahua's etc being bred to be teacup puppies or micro pups is just beyond crazy. It creates so many bone problems, breathing problems, heat problems! Argh I just dont understand how they dont see that!!


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

the leavitt bulldog (featured as the comparison in the film) has been being bred since 1971 i think... although i believe there is only one breeder of these in the uk? Lonsdale Bulldogs... and you cannot breed from their puppies. this may be wrong but if i'm right i honestly cannot see the sense in that?


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

YoshiHCG said:


> Agreed DavieB. the smaller breeds such as poms and pugs, chihuahua's etc being bred to be teacup puppies or micro pups is just beyond crazy. It creates so many bone problems, breathing problems, heat problems! Argh I just dont understand how they dont see that!!


 
becasue many breeders see this...£££££££
that includes breeders of designer dogs too...
but there are some breeders out there who have said, ive had enough and are taking their dogs back to their roots...
such as the many old tyme breeders.

BUT, what happens is they are then villified for breeding cross breeds... its happens all the time on here.
Old tyme for instance has had his fair share of :censor: over his breeding...people accusing him of breeding mongrels etc.
whats wrong with him taking the dog back to what it used to be and should be?


----------



## herp_derp (Nov 11, 2011)

I was never a dog person until a few years ago, got a 6 month old full pedigree Springer Spaniel whose owner had apperently being diagnosed with cancer. Was possessive, not so much his toys but anything he shouldn't have hold of! Was nervous, but got attacked by a local dog twice.

Had to rehome him after 3 years, 5 people bites, first three my ex's kids otherwise he would've been put to sleep. He was assessed and a trainer found him a home, he didn't just go to anyone.

Since then my Miniature JRT and this week Terrier cross have been absolutely perfect. i'd never have another expensive pedigree, too many great rescue dogs needing good homes. When i got my Springer it was because I wanted people to stop and say how great my dog was, now I know personality is far more important than looks.


----------



## Draco (Nov 23, 2005)

I'm a pedigree dog fan, and when I know people that spent loads of mony on health testing there dogs andtrying to help there breed, it makes my blood boil seeing idiots like the boxer and dalmation breeder on this programe.

But I say part of the blame must fall on the puppy buying public, to many people are happy to buy un reg un tested dogs, and then moan when there somethig wrong with itand the all breeders must be the same.


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

YoshiHCG said:


> I think mongrels/cross breeds/mixers etc whatever people call them...are perfect. we wouldn't have our murphy any other way, just because they are not one breed does not make them any less inferior.
> 
> I really think we all need to really make an effort as it *appears TKC really wont do much to support & promote healthy breeding*, introduction of different breeds to help get these health problems that are evident and can be avoided, removed as much as we can.


The Kennel Club does a LOT to promote responsible healthy breeding practices. Take a look at their website, they have the Mate Select programme, health testing schemes, the Fit For Function scheme, etc etc.

Also watch this http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrrWjVFKuAg8&h=pAQFBMj8dAQHwruRhw5GJ5fCkDvknpWDVZiH3z9j4k2GXJg


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

barrow_matt said:


> I was never a dog person until a few years ago, got a 6 month old full pedigree Springer Spaniel whose owner had apperently being diagnosed with cancer. Was possessive, not so much his toys but anything he shouldn't have hold of! Was nervous, but got attacked by a local dog twice.
> 
> Had to rehome him after 3 years, 5 people bites, first three my ex's kids otherwise he would've been put to sleep. He was assessed and a trainer found him a home, he didn't just go to anyone.
> 
> Since then my Miniature JRT and this week Terrier cross have been absolutely perfect. i'd never have another expensive pedigree, too many great rescue dogs needing good homes. When i got my Springer it was because I wanted people to stop and say how great my dog was, now I know personality is far more important than looks.


You got him at six months and it sounds like he didn't have sufficient socialisation to override a tendency towards nervousness. Just because he was a recognizable breed type aka 'full pedigree' doesn't _inherently_ make him well bred, also.

And, whilst I think getting rescue dogs is absolutely brilliant and to be congratulated, I think if you remove the root cause - in large part, badly bred animals sold to incompetent owners or people who don't appreciate the responsibility they've taken on - then you'd remove the need for rescues in the first place.

After all, in what way is it fair that people who don't actually care can dispose of damaged goods which then fall to the excellent, loving homes who could spent that time raising doggy ambassadors that would be a joy to have as part of a community? 

I feel I need to qualify - not ALL rescue dogs are damaged goods, not all owners who sign dogs over to rescues are bad owners, and not all homes taking on a rescue dog _could_ raise a well-rounded dog but nothing is clear cut and the 'rescue stereotype' is founded on examples which really do exist.

Things I would say:

Man-made breeds seem to have far more health problems than primitive types - for instance, some of the wolf-a-like breeds have absolutely SHOCKING hip scores as a breed average; breeds which are not yet recognized by the KC and so you can't blame them for that. 

Pedigree does not ALWAYS mean 'unhealthy' - that's absolutely ridiculous. I'm sorry, but if you're surprised a dog with a flat face has trouble breathing then you are not thinking clearly! If people were aware of what a sound animal looked like to start off with and not so fussed with 'cute' ness then things would be in a much better state.

Crossbreeds are not always healthier, either, as if you spend enough time on here you're sure to find out.

Right, going to stop there as this is a right essay and no-one will read it.

A pedigree provides you with a documented genetic history of that animal - in theory, this allows you to identify problems and exclude them in the future. In many instances, it shows very carefully considered matches for generation upon generation designed to capitalise on the best attributes of the two mated dogs. At worst, it's just names on a page.

I wish people would stop trying to blame everyone else and make sensible decisions based on researching health and suitability.


----------



## Jaina_Organasolo (Jan 7, 2012)

I have to say, what I saw on the program did sadden me a great deal. My Oh would love a Pug but I have told him it's not going to happen.

I am sure that there are GOOD breeders out there who do their best to make them as healthy as possible, but the morphology of the actual breed is not a good one, it's not encouraging a healthy animal.

It's a genetic lottery with any animal you buy and even buying from responsable people doesn't guarrentee anything. The only serious animal buying I have done is with Chinchillas. The Chinchilla community as a whole is fairly responsable when it comes to show breeders. I know of many who will destroy whole breeding programs and start from scratch when a genetic issue crops up and it is these people I choose to buy from and I get pedigreed animals as a general rule. I have done everything that a responsable owner should do. It has not really helped. I have owned a total of 6 so far (Have 3 at the moment). Of the 3 that I have lost, none have lived beyond 4 (in a species that can live into teens and twenties!). Of the 6 that I have owned, 50% of these have developed GENETIC tooth issues. All animals have been unrelated to each other, and have come from 3 breeders (although 1 of those, 2 were from his own lines and 1 was from someone elses). One of those breeders imports regularly to ensure he has fresh bloodlines from the US and Europe. Doesn't matter. I have been left with dealing with a mess of one that has been PTS, one that is under a lot of care from myself (and will have to be PTS) and another who is suffering early symptoms (and may well need to be PTS in the future). My 10 month old baby is young enough that he may still develop it.

I would like to say however that all these breeders are responsable ones, sadly it is a ressescive problem that can be hidden for generations. In fact, two of the tooth problem boys came from a breeder who gave up after the problem appeared in her lines. One of those boys was not related to the affected line but had suffered trauma when little (so may not be genetic 100%) and the other was related but the vet investigating her case again believed the father to have been caused by trauma rather than genes. In both cases, I knew the histories, and she was very honest but they needed a new home and I love them dearly.

So even if you do it right, there are no guarrentees. I would love a dog, but am scared of the outcome. I do not want a rescue, I would like the best chance of having a potentially healthy dog. A mongrel can give hybrid vigour or as some state a higher chance of shared conditions.

I think maybe its important to consider the individual breed as well as the breeder. For this reason we will not be buying any 'extreme' dog. No flat faces, no boggle eyes, no tiny breed and no large breed. For this reason I have decided the dog for us is probably a Shiba Inu. They are a primitive breed and the only unsual feature is eye shape. They also seems to have few (but some) health issues and more importantly the more independant personality would suit our lifestyle. I did go to crufts and speak to the breed club about whether they are a good fit for us :flrt:

I will be happy to buy a pedigree puppy from a KC reg breeder with parents with the appropriate health tests. Of course all I need is a pile of monies now. 

I agree that as a potential 'consumer' of a puppy, my choices will shape how this all works - after all, if people do not buy for a reason, the breeders will have to change how they do things.


----------



## ermgravy (Sep 19, 2009)

pedigree standards and breeding for the ring ruin breeds... end of.

If a dog is not working line from working stock, sorry but its trash... 

British bulldogs and american bloodline akitas or gsd are my case in point.....

There is no such thing as a bad temperament just bad training.... 
BUT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS BUST GENETICS....

my opinion tell me im wrong i dont really care i work dogs and i stand by my point. go and try working an american blood gsd in defensive drive and tell me they have not eff'd that dogs natural abilities to high heaven ...


----------



## pigglywiggly (Jul 19, 2008)

disagee that theres no such thing as a dog with a bad temerament, 
buts thats because i`ve owned one that would quite happily rip you appart for the fun of it.
and theres :censor: all training to stop that

of all the pedigree dogs i`ve owned i`ve only had one healthy one.
( my kc registered english bulldog )
and it saddens me that i`ll never own another bullmastiff.
they`re too broken too


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

So many breeds that look healthy on the outside and even after some research. If you look hard enough you will find faults with them all. Heinz included.


----------



## samurai (Sep 9, 2009)

I don't know much about dog breeding so this could be a stupid thing to say, but i was thinking a restriction on the number of litters a stud dog is allowed to father may be helpful in reducing some health issues, i don't see how it can be a good idea for one dog to be so closely related to that many offspring. Just something going through my head while watching. The fact that every breed has some commonly occuring health issues is saying something. 
Do many breeders of pedigree dogs that were originally bred with a specific function in mind actually use the dogs for this function? if not how can they say they are improving a breed? I was asking myself if we even need some of todays breeds at all?
I found it sad that out of all the dogs that were shown as a comparisson of old fashioned and modern breeds, that the old fashioned or working types they showed were beautiful and looked far superior to the modern dogs being bred, yet there was a bulldog breeder who was horified by the thought of making changes to improve the health of the breed  
The ridgeback breeder and any others with the same outlook from the last program they showed again, who pts any ridgeless pups should be banned from breeding. she cares only about the look of the dogs and weather they are showable :devil:


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

Draco said:


> it makes my blood boil seeing idiots like the boxer and dalmation breeder on this programe.
> .


Are you referring to Fiona? I thought the breeder was very brave, her dogs are every bit as beautiful as 'pure' dalmations, but free from a nasty potentially fatal condition.


----------



## YoshiHCG (Feb 21, 2012)

All good points raised here. I don't deny that cross breeds (will not refer to them personally as mongrels in my eyes, they are every bit a dog a a pedigree) have health issues too. just with the pedigrees being in limelight so much (crufts, breed shows, splashed all over google images) then its highlighted alot more. 

A lot of ideas of how we can help the breeds slowly but surely regain healthy bodies...it'd take over our own lifetimes sadly to get to that point...but its something we really need to start! 

Certain breeds will always be in popular demand - labradors as my example, fabulous dogs and beautiful too, such a good family pet...but watching your dog fall to the floor in a fit (both labs) is heartbreaking and sadly it is linked to her breeding. The breeder had a 1 year birthday party and we saw all the other litter....one of them looked so skinny and unwell, one looked fat and healthy, others just like my lab...each puppy was affected differently from what looked like a healthy mother and father...Its SO hard to tell and know...

I just really dislike the suffering it causes  but its getting people, well renowned breeders, top breeders to do something to raise awareness and change it.


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

samurai said:


> I don't know much about dog breeding so this could be a stupid thing to say, but i was thinking a restriction on the number of litters a stud dog is allowed to father may be helpful in reducing some health issues, i don't see how it can be a good idea for one dog to be so closely related to that many offspring. Just something going through my head while watching. The fact that every breed has some commonly occuring health issues is saying something.
> Do many breeders of pedigree dogs that were originally bred with a specific function in mind actually use the dogs for this function? if not how can they say they are improving a breed? I was asking myself if we even need some of todays breeds at all?
> I found it sad that out of all the dogs that were shown as a comparisson of old fashioned and modern breeds, that the old fashioned or working types they showed were beautiful and looked far superior to the modern dogs being bred, yet there was a bulldog breeder who was horified by the thought of making changes to improve the health of the breed
> The ridgeback breeder and any others with the same outlook from the last program they showed again, who pts any ridgeless pups should be banned from breeding. she cares only about the look of the dogs and weather they are showable :devil:



The ridgeback ones get to me especially. I believe the ridge is caused by mild spina-bifida and yet its seen as a quality. Beautiful dogs ridge or not.


----------



## XOX (Feb 18, 2012)

I think there r many healthy pedigree breeds u just need to find the right breeder. But mongrels could just have 2 sets of problems for example if u bred a lab and german shephered u could just have hip, joint and twisting stomachs all in one dog


----------



## YoshiHCG (Feb 21, 2012)

XOX said:


> I think there r many healthy pedigree breeds u just need to find the right breeder. But mongrels could just have 2 sets of problems for example if u bred a lab and german shephered u could just have hip, joint and twisting stomachs all in one dog


Good point i guess...sigh...i just want dogs to be healthy. i know that'll never happen as im not an all powerful genie! hah. just at least the problems that can be avoided by careful breeding...to be avoided!!


----------



## Draco (Nov 23, 2005)

5plusmany said:


> Are you referring to Fiona? I thought the breeder was very brave, her dogs are every bit as beautiful as 'pure' dalmations, but free from a nasty potentially fatal condition.


I ment the dalmation breeders that hated the idea of fiona being registered.

Such short sitedness has no place inthe dog world.

to call a dog not pure when the pointer blood was introduce 12 generations ago is stupied.


----------



## Draco (Nov 23, 2005)

DavieB said:


> The ridgeback ones get to me especially. I believe the ridge is caused by mild spina-bifida and yet its seen as a quality. Beautiful dogs ridge or not.


not true they the illness that is related to the ride is Dermoid Sinus.

Rhodesian Ridgeback - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Dermoid sinus
> Dermoid sinus is a congenital neural-tube defect that is known to affect this breed. The dermoid is often likened to a thin "spaghetti noodle" beneath the skin. Puppies should always be screened at birth by the breeder and veterinarian, and the examination repeated as the puppies grow before they go to their new homes. This is done by palpation of the subcutaneous dorsal midline from the base of the skull to the insertion of the tail. Surgical removal is an option for affected neonates, puppies and adult dogs. All affected dogs, even those surgically corrected, should be spayed or neutered and never be bred, since surgical dermoid sinus removal can be extremely cost prohibitive, and because all unremoved dermoid sinuses will eventually abscess. Abscessed dermoid sinuses will be at best a recurrent, painful problem, and if the sinus communicates with the tissues around the spinal cord, cause meningitis and often death. However, it has been shown that supplementation of folic acid to the diet of the brood bitch before mating and during pregnancy reduces the incidence of dermoid sinus.[11] Slightly less than 5% of Ridgebacks are affected with the condition.[12]


Culling is against the KC code of effects so a breeder would be banned from the KC if found to have culled non ridge puppies, but nothing can stop them breeding just not regersting


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Draco said:


> _not true they the illness that is related to the ride is Dermoid Sinus.
> _
> Rhodesian Ridgeback - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Thats not what causes the ridge thats what can be caused by a double dominant gene that creates the original ridge. It is a very slight spina bifida mutation but double the mutation cases dermoid sinus (leading to bad spina bifida I believe) . ( i just done some googling myself lol) 
It wasn't at time of the original program when that old cow admitted to culling.


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Rach1 said:


> the leavitt bulldog (featured as the comparison in the film) has been being bred since 1971 i think... although i believe there is only one breeder of these in the uk? Lonsdale Bulldogs... and you cannot breed from their puppies. this may be wrong but if i'm right i honestly cannot see the sense in that?


there 3 uk breeder of the leavitt bulldog


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

When I googled it it said only the one..
Naughty google.


----------



## oldtyme (Mar 16, 2008)

Rach1 said:


> When I googled it it said only the one..
> Naughty google.


they was the 1s in the uk start 2005


----------



## RhianB87 (Oct 25, 2009)

My friend brought up a very good point when we were at a show a few months ago. She is a breeder and said that all dogs bred should be fit for their purpose that they were orginally bred for, even if they arent use for that purpose now. 
We saw so many dogs that yes might be the correct "type" but I doubt they could do any proper exercise!

I didnt see the programme but I saw the first one and it was so upsetting see poor dogs that are the correct look and size but just have so many issues.


----------



## YoshiHCG (Feb 21, 2012)

FallenAngel said:


> My friend brought up a very good point when we were at a show a few months ago. She is a breeder and said that all dogs bred should be fit for their purpose that they were orginally bred for, even if they arent use for that purpose now.
> We saw so many dogs that yes might be the correct "type" but I doubt they could do any proper exercise!
> 
> I didnt see the programme but I saw the first one and it was so upsetting see poor dogs that are the correct look and size but just have so many issues.


Yeh  lol my labrador a retrieiving dog, wont retrieve anything if her life depended on it, she hates chasing balls or frisbees....xD


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

I have a working lines golden retriever from Holway lines. KC registered, but definitely not standard

I have not met any other Retriever that can keep up with her. Most Poodle crosses can, but a pure golden? No way, they are far far too heavy dogs now days to do what she can do.

Apparently the massive size change in Goldens for show can be tracked back to one single dog. He must have been used anywhere and everywhere to have changed the entire breed bar a few lines that stuck true to a retriever who could actually do some work!!


----------



## Mockingjay (Feb 24, 2012)

I find non-showing dogs the best. They are not as expensive (so can save you a few pounds). Also I find mixed breeds have less health problems than pedigree.


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Mockingjay said:


> I find non-showing dogs the best. They are not as expensive (so can save you a few pounds). Also I find mixed breeds have less health problems than pedigree.


Quite simply thats not true. None of it in fact. Mixed breeds can cost as much and more than a pedigree whilst having double the amounts of health problems.


----------



## Draco (Nov 23, 2005)

Kare said:


> I have a working lines golden retriever from Holway lines. KC registered, but definitely not standard
> 
> I have not met any other Retriever that can keep up with her. Most Poodle crosses can, but a pure golden? No way, they are far far too heavy dogs now days to do what she can do.
> 
> Apparently the massive size change in Goldens for show can be tracked back to one single dog. He must have been used anywhere and everywhere to have changed the entire breed bar a few lines that stuck true to a retriever who could actually do some work!!


 
I hate how heavy they are becoming, some of the blocky head you see in the males now is horrible.

My boys 13 this year and I been looking at lines for a posable next puppy, and having a hard time finding anything like realy like. Shame Max's breeder not breeding anymore.

Any idea what dog has made the breed larger.


----------



## son_lou_wak (Jun 16, 2011)

I own Ollie (Running River Lad) a 3 year old pedigree cocker spaniel. 
His certificate shows all his champion heritage ( I did not buy him for this ) I did lots of research into the breed before I bought him and found a breeder in Retford that breeds Cockers how they used to be ( larger & Healthier ) Ollie is a huge cocker and always gets misidentified as a springer spaniel. 

He's the best dog ever part of our family and my best friend ( I'd die for him ) 

Think people should take more care when purchasing pedigree dogs health over looks and above all a dogs not just for shows and medals ! 

Thought about entering Ollie in shows when he was a puppy but after going to a few shows & seeing how they get stuck in cages for hours and not allowed to act like dogs I chose not to!











---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?b102pb

www.madaboutminishow.co.uk


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

What a handsome dog!
Lovely.


----------



## Mockingjay (Feb 24, 2012)

DavieB said:


> Quite simply thats not true. None of it in fact. Mixed breeds can cost as much and more than a pedigree whilst having double the amounts of health problems.


Less likely to have commen breed problems that pedigrees have, simply because mixed breeds have no specific health problem. My friend used to have cross-breeds and never got any re-occurring health problems among his dogs just sometimes arthritis in older dogs and some other problems here and there. It is rarer for mixed breeds to get serious illnesses than those breeds who are known to be prone of it. 

Thats just my opinion, I prefer mixed breeds.


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

Of the dogs I was brought up around all were pedigree and not one had a life-long problem. That's 2 Springers a lab and a cav. I now have a dog which is a (rescue) cross, also has no illnesses/problems. Must be very lucky.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Mockingjay said:


> Less likely to have conmen breed problems that pedigrees have, simply because mixed breeds have no specific health problem. My friend used to have cross-breeds and never got any re-occurring health problems among his dogs just sometimes arthritis in older dogs and some other problems here and there. It is rarer for mixed breeds to get serious illnesses than those breeds who are known to be prone of it.
> 
> Thats just my opinion, I prefer mixed breeds.


See my post on the other thread. Someone with a cross-bred bulldog type in 18+ has paid out £2k on operations for it - that's heavy duty. 

Also, less chance of conmen breeding in an entirely unregulated way with no reputations to protect? Yeah, right.


----------



## cathspythons (Jun 29, 2008)

Theres good breeders n bad breeders. Id take my chances with a health tested KC registered dog every time over a backyard breeder which doesnt give a shit or understand health issues :devil:. All my dogs have current health certificates,before some smart ass asks.:2thumb:


----------



## Mockingjay (Feb 24, 2012)

There are lots of pedigrees who have a hefty health problems also.

I don't understand what you are trying to say in the second sentence.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Ok, so we've established that both pure breds and cross breeds can have health issues.
It comes down to many issues on both sides such as good breeding for both parties, health checks, good lines, a good upbringing when pups, etc etc etc!

Do we think we could get back on to the topic of PEDIGREES- A STEP TOO FAR?

Regardless of which is superior do we think (some) pedigree breeders have gone too far in their pursuit of the perfect dog?
Why do they do this?
What could be done to stop this?
Is it right to introduce new lines/ cross out breeds to stop problems?

Please lets move on from this my dog is better than yours debate and agree that all our dogs are fab in their own unique way!


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Mockingjay said:


> There are lots of pedigrees who have a hefty health problems also.
> 
> I don't understand what you are trying to say in the second sentence.


Was that for me or carly?

Also, sorry if it comes across like I'm attacking you - I turn into a dobermann when I care about things, find it hard to let them drop :lol2:

Yep, absolutely, lots of pedigrees with hefty health problems. However, you can educate yourself on these beforehand and fingers x'd you'll be able to reduce the chances of ending up as one of those people who has to have their prize pup PTS before the age of two...

In the second sentence, I got confused cos I read the typo 'conmen' as actually meaning 'conmen' rather than 'common' but point still stands - non-KC breeding world has less rules so more chance of people being done over. Anyway, was me having a thick moment - I get stressed about things I care about!! :lol2:


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

Rach1 said:


> Ok, so we've established that both pure breds and cross breeds can have health issues.
> It comes down to many issues on both sides such as good breeding for both parties, health checks, good lines, a good upbringing when pups, etc etc etc!
> 
> Do we think we could get back on to the topic of PEDIGREES- A STEP TOO FAR?
> ...


Yes, some have gone too far, short muzzels, short legs, bug-eyed, droopy eyes, too small, too long, too much skin.... 
...all ugly
Why do they do it? I really have no idea, different taste to me and they think they are cute and so don't care that it comes with problems and causes pain. 
They could stop showing for looks and only have working dog trials, might help, but probably not much, I don't think you will ever change the way people think. Ugly seems to mean cute these days.


----------



## son_lou_wak (Jun 16, 2011)

I personally wouldn't cross bread I'd just breed healthy happy dogs. For example breed Bull dogs with bull dogs that from a show basis don't make the grade . . nose to long/wide etc. . . over time this would sort out the breathing problems and hopefully the Bull Dog breed would be much healthier  

I personally would LOVE a British Bull Dog but I don't think I could cope with their constant struggle to breathe ( this is why I can't buy one as I'd feel sorry for it all the time ) 

Same point of view with cocker spaniels stop turning them into little balls of fluff they are supposed to be a medium robust sized dog not a tiny little ball of fur to take to shows. 


Breeding shouldn't be so select it's causing the dogs to become i'll and that's the last thing we want for our furry friends  

If every breeder had health as their first main aim a lot of these issues wouldn't happen  


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?wkxjrc

www.madaboutminishow.co.uk


----------



## son_lou_wak (Jun 16, 2011)

And working dogs (Trial) dogs are still pedigree and trust me they still interbreed to get what they believe is the best dog 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?2tr5wm

www.madaboutminishow.co.uk


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

Mockingjay said:


> Less likely to have commen breed problems that pedigrees have, simply because mixed breeds have no specific health problem. My friend used to have cross-breeds and never got any re-occurring health problems among his dogs just sometimes arthritis in older dogs and some other problems here and there. It is rarer for mixed breeds to get serious illnesses than those breeds who are known to be prone of it.
> 
> Thats just my opinion, I prefer mixed breeds.



Mixed breeds more often than not get all the health problems of each of the parent breeds, once you get a few generations away whilst breeding with other random dogs then yes it can be true, but that would be poor breeding wouldn't it, a lot of dogs that would end up in the pound.


----------



## Disgruntled (Dec 5, 2010)

My dog is kc reg and from a reputable breeder that did all the hip and eyes tests. Her dad was crufts champion of the breed three times. I don't care much about that side of things, only that the parents are healthy. I don't like non reg dogs because at least the kc prevent breeders registering dogs whose parents were too young or bred too often. Also dogs do get stolen by people who intend only to breed pups for cash. How do you know where the parents came from if not registered? With expensive breeds it would be pretty lucrative to steal a bitch, breed it half to death and then dump it..


----------



## PPVallhunds (May 23, 2010)

Rach1 said:


> Regardless of which is superior do we think (some) pedigree breeders have gone too far in their pursuit of the perfect dog?
> Why do they do this?
> What could be done to stop this?
> Is it right to introduce new lines/ cross out breeds to stop problems?
> ...


----------



## kitschyduck (May 30, 2010)

With so many dogs already being put to sleep because of the lack of homes and spaces in shelters, I really don't see the need for dog showing. What we need is a mandatory license and/or welfare exam for anyone wanting to breed their dogs or cats. Without the correct documents people should be fined, with the money going towards ways which could help these animals.

I have a Chinese shar-pei myself, and within three years of owning him I've paid for eye surgery for him twice. Without it he would have gone blind because of his wrinkly skin folds around them, curling his eye lashes inwards. No matter how much I love him now he's here, knowing what I do now I would never buy a purebred dog again.


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

kitschyduck said:


> I have a Chinese shar-pei myself, and within three years of owning him I've paid for eye surgery for him twice. Without it he would have gone blind because of his wrinkly skin folds around them, curling his eye lashes inwards. No matter how much I love him now he's here, knowing what I do now I would never buy a purebred dog again.


Your story should not put people off owning purebred dogs, but definitely is a reminder that you do not get such unusual looks and expect no side effects.


----------



## kitschyduck (May 30, 2010)

Kare said:


> Your story should not put people off owning purebred dogs, but definitely is a reminder that you do not get such unusual looks and expect no side effects.


And what are the benefits of continuing to breed 'purebreds'? They're a human invention with imaginary importance placed on them (in the pet world) just because we like how they look. I can understand the argument to breed for working dogs, but that's usually not the case. There is no need whatsoever to breed dogs with wrinkly skin and bodies so deformed they can't give birth naturally or breathe properly.


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

kitschyduck said:


> And what are the benefits of continuing to breed 'purebreds'? They're a human invention with imaginary importance placed on them (in the pet world) just because we like how they look. I can understand the argument to breed for working dogs, but that's usually not the case. There is no need whatsoever to breed dogs with wrinkly skin and bodies so deformed they can't give birth naturally or breathe properly.


The benefits? I am not anti cross breeds. However the number of people who health test and breed crossbreeds is absolutely miniscle compared to pure breed breeders who health test from all they can. We will never make progress unless people start at least trying to health test. I know a number of cross breed breeders, not one health test for any condition which affects EITHER of the parent breeds just as there are pure breed breeders who do not, but at least with pure breeds with some work you can find one doing all they can

Another- The ability for a good breeder to find out a good history on their pure breed dog is 100 times easier than to find the history of a cross breed, most importantly, but not limited to not normally having paper work to prove that the labradoodle who sired your pup is not related to the labradoodle who whelped it. 

Another-In reverse the ability for bad breeders to hide that dogs are related or that you have bred that bitch every year is a lot harder to hide with a KC registering a litter

Another-what if say a cross breed pup looks so like one of its parents, ie a pure rather than cross that some unscrupulous breeder registers it, say as part of another litter they have of pure breeds. That pup could then go on to sire or whelp more dogs that get registered as pure. Hoever that one dog (or bitch) is now not just prone to all the issues of the breed it is registered as, it is now prone to all the issues of the other parents breed also, and possibly introducing more conditions to a breed. (think it cannot happen, research something as simple as the two types of Russian hamster)

Cross breeds do not reduce conditions, they often double them, prone to conditions that affect either breed involved. If a condition is genetically dominant that is, of course if it is recessive then both parents would have to have it, and as long as not line breeding in most cases that would make it not unlikely that 2 dogs from the same breed would result in a pure breed pup with the condition either. 

Yes with the breeds with wrinkly skin and bodies so deformed they can't give birth naturally or breathe properly then a cross will lessen those things in most cases, but the answer is not necessary to turn to untested cross breeds. If you want a cross breed, then get one, just lets dispel the myth it will be healthier as it is a cross as that just allows the breeders of them to sit on their laurels and never start health testing. A health tested pure breed of a breed without large exaggerations will likely be more healthy than those crosses.

Above and beyond that as DavieB has pointed out, all it takes is some research and you will find breeds that have very very limited health issues, they just take some looking for as they tend to be rarer breeds, more over then tend to be the very old breeds, not the ones someone crossed and popped a special name on in in the last decade or two. Saying purebreeds are messed up when talking something as odd looking as a Pug or shar-pei that has issues as a result of how they look and then saying therefore the other choice is a crossbreed is frankly under the title of going from the sublime to the ridiculous. There is a plenty of breeds in between that would be far far healthier than either of those two ends of the spectrum.


----------



## YoshiHCG (Feb 21, 2012)

Rach1 said:


> Do we think we could get back on to the topic of PEDIGREES- A STEP TOO FAR?
> 
> Regardless of which is superior do we think (some) pedigree breeders have gone too far in their pursuit of the perfect dog?
> Why do they do this?
> ...


Agree with the gone too far in pursuit of perfect dog...those pugs with their noses, are breeders happy with this because they look like a "good" example of a pug? the GS dogs with their lower backs/hips?


----------



## kitschyduck (May 30, 2010)

Kare said:


> The benefits? I am not anti cross breeds. However the number of people who health test and breed crossbreeds is absolutely miniscle compared to pure breed breeders who health test from all they can. We will never make progress unless people start at least trying to health test. I know a number of cross breed breeders, not one health test for any condition which affects EITHER of the parent breeds just as there are pure breed breeders who do not, but at least with pure breeds with some work you can find one doing all they can
> 
> Another- The ability for a good breeder to find out a good history on their pure breed dog is 100 times easier than to find the history of a cross breed, most importantly, but not limited to not normally having paper work to prove that the labradoodle who sired your pup is not related to the labradoodle who whelped it.
> 
> ...


Thankyou so much for taking the time to answer my question. I knew this issue would prove to be a lot deeper than it seemed on the surface. You're right that a crossbreed isn't necessarily better off now I think harder about it (both for the fact the breeders of these are less likely to health test and the dog could inherit unfortunate genes from both parents). I haven't watched the programme yet (I have it recorded), so hopefully they put this fact across too, but I doubt it.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

i think what confuses/amazes/scares me is how on earth did say the bulldog go from this









to this 








in about 100 years or so?

again, cockers... getting smaller and fluffier?
GSD's... lower and lower backs.

why did no one think atr any time that this was getting out of hand?
and i agree with the point made that the breed clubs have alot to answer for here...


----------



## king chameleon (Dec 7, 2011)

kitschyduck said:


> And what are the benefits of continuing to breed 'purebreds'?


easy, they make vets and breeders big money. :lol2:
seriously people, get your animals from animal shelter/rescue centers...please : victory:


----------



## PPVallhunds (May 23, 2010)

kitschyduck said:


> With so many dogs already being put to sleep because of the lack of homes and spaces in shelters, I really don't see the need for dog showing.


I fail to see what dog showing has to do with dogs in rescues. Any good breeders will take there pups back at any age if the owner cant keep them. When i got my girl i had a contract to sign and one of the conditions on there was that at any point i could not longer keep her for any reason i was to return her to the breeder and she would find her a new home. Good breeders want to knwo where there dogs are, its people trying to make money out of there dogs who dont care where they end up.

Im sorry to hear about your shar-pei, entropian is common in the overly wrinkly type ive hurd. If you like the breed (i asume you do as you have one) prehaps look into the bone mouth type in the futrure? they have less wrinkels unlike the popular meat mouth type.
meat mouth
http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/breedinformation/non-sporting/images/sharpei.jpg
bone mouth
http://www.difossombrone.it/images/articoli/MOU-NGAN2.jpg



kitschyduck said:


> And what are the benefits of continuing to breed 'purebreds'? They're a human invention with imaginary importance placed on them (in the pet world) just because we like how they look. I can understand the argument to breed for working dogs, but that's usually not the case. There is no need whatsoever to breed dogs with wrinkly skin and bodies so deformed they can't give birth naturally or breathe properly.


Sounds like you painting all purebreeds with the same brush, not all breeds have been bred to the extreem. Yes the ones who are bred this way the breeders should work to fix it and breed away from that, but not all breeds are. Also not every home would suite a working dog. My brother brought a working bred dog and they ended up having to rehome him as they couldnt cope with him as he needed and wanted to work but they dont work there dogs. They now have 2 dogs who are not working dogs and are doing good. 
The reason why purebreeds are popular is that they are predictable, you know roughly what you will get, size, coat, exersize needs ect ect. Thats one of the reasons mixbreeds and mutts end up in rescues as they didnt grow up to be what there owner wanted. For example say an older less mobile person wanted a small lapdog who had lower exersize needs and got a mutt puppy form someone who bred there small mutt, then imagin if this pup grew up to be larger and had a high energy level and needed more exersize than the owner can cope with. What happens to this dog? it would most likley end up in a rescue centre sitting around in kennels wating for a new home. With purebreeds you can research them and find one that matches your lifestyle and what your looking for in an animal the best.


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

Rach1 said:


> i think what confuses/amazes/scares me is how on earth did say the bulldog go from this
> image
> 
> to this
> ...


Aye but what about this -








15th century (e.g. mid 1400s) by Memling, featuring an italian greyhound - they look much the same now.


















Morland, 1792, pointer and setters.

















Renoir, 1878.









Also, art is an _interpretation_, not a photograph...
Also, do you know when that painting was from?

There's one here, 1920, which shows the modern bulldog - roach back, wide front, wrinkled face etc -
http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/s....aspx?id=ab4b6f89-063d-4166-a117-4691d5af0515
Crufts has only been around since 1886 so by this point I would highly doubt, with the lack of internet / mass photographs etc, that this 'type' was _created_ by the tastes of a particular dog show...
Another, 1904...
http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/s....aspx?id=869322f6-3fd8-44b0-aa9b-42b0dff74906


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

You can blame Crufts and the KC until you are blue in the face, but few breeds outside the UK are massively different or massively healthier than they are in the UK and the UK Kennels club does not has that massive a sphere of influence.

I know before finding a Holway type breeder I looked at the US type Golden, not massively different, but different enough. For a start they are smaller and importantly for me their Goldens are actually, can you believe!?, Golden!!

I would have preferred anything to the white monstrosities they have in shows now, seriously if I wanted a White large dog I would get a pyrennes!!

Unfortunately the US retrievers suffer from bone cancers which are common in our Flatcoats (the breed Goldens originally split from) but not in our Goldens.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Annabel- I wasn't posting the pictures as a definitive look at what the KC has done... More of a look at what we've done to some of our breeds.
There are of course many breeds that are the same or very similar to te dogs of old but, the ones we have altered seem to have been altered considerably, and that's what I dont understand.
And I do think the breed clubs should have kept a more closer eye on what was going on.


----------



## miss_ferret (Feb 4, 2010)

annabel said:


> Aye but what about this -
> image
> 15th century (e.g. mid 1400s) by Memling, featuring an italian greyhound - they look much the same now.
> 
> ...


just a theory but as those breeds are traditionally working dogs (or racing in the greyhounds case) rather than the breeds that have, like the bulldog, become more for pets, do you think that has an impact on there changing look over the years?

what im trying to say is that collies, for example, are still very commonly used as working dogs. the 'pet' collie is a relatively new thing. therefore the majority of the selective breeding over the years has gone into making a dog that was better at herding sheep, rather than its looks. whereas the traditional use of the bulldog, ie bull baiting, is long gone.

any of that make sense?


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Yes... It did and the post made sense!
Lol
It also raised a good point.


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

Rach1 said:


> Yes... It did and the post made sense!
> Lol
> It also raised a good point.


It is a good point. It links well to the fact that the rarer and older breeds that are not kept so often as pets and the majority are kept for showing, can often be those with the least health issues.

Not always of course, for example the Clumber Spaniel is far from a common breed and has shockingly high hipscore averages, especially for its size.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Now this may show me to be a complete fool but,
Maybe the reason the clumber is showing these scores is because it's less 'popular' or well known.
It's not been overbred to feed a demanding public?
It's had time to move along steadily and at a pace that allows for almost natural changes... Benefitting the dog?

Sorry if that's stupid.


----------



## buddah (Dec 23, 2009)

I completely disagree with pedigree dogs or having the papers to prove they are inbred. If you want a healthy dog get a cross theres thousands at animal shelters. The whole thing is an out dated practice that i dont see has any relevance.


----------



## king chameleon (Dec 7, 2011)

Rach1 said:


> Now this may show me to be a complete fool but,
> Maybe the reason the clumber is showing these scores is because it's less 'popular' or well known.
> It's not been overbred to feed a demanding public?
> It's had time to move along steadily and at a pace that allows for almost natural changes... Benefitting the dog?
> ...


makes sense to me! not stupid at all!


----------



## Postcard (Aug 29, 2010)

miss_ferret said:


> just a theory but as those breeds are traditionally working dogs (or racing in the greyhounds case) rather than the breeds that have, like the bulldog, become more for pets, do you think that has an impact on there changing look over the years?
> 
> what im trying to say is that collies, for example, are still very commonly used as working dogs. the 'pet' collie is a relatively new thing. therefore the majority of the selective breeding over the years has gone into making a dog that was better at herding sheep, rather than its looks. whereas the traditional use of the bulldog, ie bull baiting, is long gone.
> 
> any of that make sense?


Italian greyhounds have historically been 'toy' dogs e.g. lapdogs!

Also, I picked a picture of a heavier looking 'pet' collie because surplus working dogs would have ended up as household pets.



Rach1 said:


> Now this may show me to be a complete fool but,
> Maybe the reason the clumber is showing these scores is because it's less 'popular' or well known.
> It's not been overbred to feed a demanding public?
> It's had time to move along steadily and at a pace that allows for almost natural changes... Benefitting the dog?
> ...


Higher hip scores are generally worse just so you know.

I think the Clumber's a tricky one, because for some reason they didn't become established as 'pet' dogs in the same way the other spaniels did, and their slow / heavy set is no longer relavent to the type of land around and the pace of modern working dogs. Because of this, there's been a marked change in a sleeker faster more modern type of working clumber and trying to preserve the older heavier type which has historically been the way the breed looks... I think that's right, anyway, can't remember the details - you'd need to ask someone in the breed.

Also, hip scoring is relatively new and people's attitude to lameness in dogs has shifted and possibly if they're anything like horses, bilateral hind lameness could look like a sound animal? Because of this, decisions made in the past with regards to studs could have big impacts that weren't known in the past.

It's worth bearing in mind that hip dysplasia is not fully understood - some in a litter could have perfect scores with siblings with scores above the breed average dependent on diet, exercise and genetic inheritance so there's no easy solution.

Having said that, some breeds, like the clumber and the otterhound, who don't really have a working job to do anymore and haven't really taken off as pet animals seem to suffer more than they should for it.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Lol.. Sorry my bad I read it wrong!
I do have to say tho.. I'm. Glad this thread has returned to a proper debate and not a my dogs better than yours thread.


----------

