# Aaaarrrgghhhh - Pedigree dogs programme....



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

Why on earth dont they have the poor cavalier put down if it is suffering that much


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

I thought exactly the same thing but thought it may have just been me. If an animal is suffering why let it go on like that.


----------



## welshchick (19 August 2008)

Yeah, I agree. Poor dog


----------



## spaniel (19 August 2008)

I watched 30 seconds of that and was in tears.  Ive had to turn off I found it so distressing.


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

Same goes for the boxer who is fitting.............god it makes me SO cross


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

A friend of mine went to the discover dogs event and overheard someone speaking about how cute certain breeds of dogs were. She said she just wanted to go up and say about all the health problems they have because we had looked at the KC standards and breeding at college. I don't think i would ever buy a pedigree dog, especially not one that was KC registered.


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

There are loads of reputable breeders who produce dogs who are free from genetic health problems...... god knows what the Kennel Club thinks it is doing mind you


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

LOL at the RSPCA vet slagging off comparing a dog to a prescribed standard, not taking into account temperament etc...

I take it the RSPCA dont support dressage either then


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

Well they certainly aren't being shown in a good light here


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

That ridgeback breeder should be a bit more discerning about who she sells to then!


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 I don't think i would ever buy a pedigree dog, especially not one that was KC registered. 

[/ QUOTE ]

But crossbreeds come from the pedigree dogs, and can have just the same problems. 
	
	
		
		
	


	




I can guarantee that the breeder of our IWS put a hell of a lot more time and effort into breeding her dogs than someone who accidently allows their mutt to get knocked up in the park, or some idiot who thinks lets make a "new" dog out of two breeds, give it some adorable name and charge a grand a puppy.
At least with a pedigree you know what your getting, possible problems and all.


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

Ok the breeder woman talking about breeding the rhodesian ridgebacks (sp) and culling those without the ridge in the back has made me really angry.


----------



## hellsdarkrose (19 August 2008)

The chief vet was annoying me so I had to turn the programme off.

I agree that the Cavvie they showed should have been put down and that not all pedigree dogs are that bad.


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

Yeah exactly


----------



## kanter (19 August 2008)

My last dog looked a lot like one of those wolves!  Lived to 16 with no vet problems till his back end went. There's a lot to be said for hybrid vigour. Mind you he had a wolf's temperament too and I'd been planning his replacement since he was 8!


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

Aarrrggh - white boxers are culled because they are DEAF  
	
	
		
		
	


	








 not because they are the wrong bloody colour


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Ok the breeder woman talking about breeding the rhodesian ridgebacks (sp) and culling those without the ridge in the back has made me really angry. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Evil evil old witch! I am absolutely livid. She was protecting her own income by killing puppies rather than selling them to pet homes without a pedigree. I am so angry. As if breeding deformed dogs to fit in with some manmade standard isn't bad enough!


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lets make a "new" dog out of two breeds, give it some adorable name and charge a grand a puppy.
. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe, you mean like my Yorkylier 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Dandy is a CKCS cross Yorky but he wasn't that expensive and I made up the name after I got him for a bit of fun!


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Aarrrggh - white boxers are culled because they are DEAF  
	
	
		
		
	


	








 not because they are the wrong bloody colour  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

And the reason they are deaf if because of the breeding. It also applies to Dalmatians, and is an inherent fault of manmade designs of dogs.


----------



## kanter (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok the breeder woman talking about breeding the rhodesian ridgebacks (sp) and culling those without the ridge in the back has made me really angry. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Evil evil old witch! I am absolutely livid. She was protecting her own income by killing puppies rather than selling them to pet homes without a pedigree. I am so angry. As if breeding deformed dogs to fit in with some manmade standard isn't bad enough! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. That said I can see why reputable breeders might be upset by this program too. I don't know enough about dog breeding to know what the answer is. Sadly, it's probably a case of supply and demand....


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

Yes I know - my mother used to breed boxers


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
But crossbreeds come from the pedigree dogs, and can have just the same problems. 
	
	
		
		
	


	




I can guarantee that the breeder of our IWS put a hell of a lot more time and effort into breeding her dogs than someone who accidently allows their mutt to get knocked up in the park, or some idiot who thinks lets make a "new" dog out of two breeds, give it some adorable name and charge a grand a puppy. At least with a pedigree you know what your getting, possible problems and all. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that all dogs can have problems but seem to find many of the breed standards a bit extreme. And in many cases the health problems are related to the dogs physical appearance. I think hybrid vigour is always a good thing, getting the best of both breeds in the case of crossbreed dogs. There will always be health problems that cannot be foreseen in any animal, but feel that 'mongrels' have fewer problems in my experience. I understand that reputable breeders carry out relevant health checks etc before breeding but feel that breeding to the standards causes a number of health issues (Just my opinion on the issue though).


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

Still doesnt make it right. 

I hate these snotty idiots who only care about the outer asthetics of the dogs rather than the health of them. I am so angry right now. Watching the spaniel squealing on the floor made me cry. 

And one of them was put down, the other had an operation but died a couple of days later.

I know there are good breeders too and i dont want to offend them at all.


----------



## welshchick (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Aarrrggh - white boxers are culled because they are DEAF  
	
	
		
		
	


	








 not because they are the wrong bloody colour  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

That's unbelievable! I have met a few deaf dogs and they're all wonderful.


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]


Hehe, you mean like my Yorkylier 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Dandy is a CKCS cross Yorky but he wasn't that expensive and I made up the name after I got him for a bit of fun! 

[/ QUOTE ]






 I've got nothing against crossbreeds/mongrels it's the idiots that breed them willynilly (I love that word 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 ) and charge the king's ransome for them!!
It's mainly Labradoodles that do my head in! And now they're not as "fashionable" and no longer selling for £700, they've started filling up rescue centres!


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok the breeder woman talking about breeding the rhodesian ridgebacks (sp) and culling those without the ridge in the back has made me really angry. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Evil evil old witch! I am absolutely livid. She was protecting her own income by killing puppies rather than selling them to pet homes without a pedigree. I am so angry. As if breeding deformed dogs to fit in with some manmade standard isn't bad enough! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth was she protecting her income by doing that?  She is a dog breeder/shower - her aim is to replicate the breed standard as closely as she can - in her opinion Rhodesian Ridgebacks without ridges do not do that, so they need to be discarded.  Protecting income has nothing to do with it.

I am not saying this is the correct approach, but it IS how dog showing/breeding people think


----------



## muffinino (19 August 2008)

I thought the same about the spaniels and the boxer - for the sake the animals, maybe the RSPCA vet should have a word with their owners about putting them to prevent suffering! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





I remember the GSD from Crufts and thought how awful they looked, I honestly thought there was something wrong with them. Please tell me that's not what all GSD show dogs look like. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





And I said in Amy May's thread that I was shocked by allowing mother/son, brother/sister, grandparent/grandchild breeding and I still am. That the Kennel Club allows it really is shocking. I am not a breeder but surely that can't be right?!


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

I bet they were docked, too. 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 My vet had a deaf white boxer which he had refused to pts as a puppy; he had it for 12 years. We are obviously not going to agree about this, but I have long said how concerned I am about the KC breed standards and the strict limitations they put on some breeds.


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

One of them had an operation but died, the other was put to sleep. The boxer had medication.


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

She was protecting her business and reputation as a breeder by choosing to kill healthy puppies rather than giving them away to pet homes. The KC says they must have a ridge, so she says they must die if they don't have one. I think that is shocking, and indefensible.


----------



## littlemisslauren (19 August 2008)

my mum got really upset at the bit about the ridgeless puppies (we have a rhodesian ridgeback)

both our dogs are pedigree and KC regestered (we also have a boder terrier - hes my baby) and have never had health probems with either of them.

i accept that there will be problems out there with some pedigree dogs but health problems occur to all dogs.


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

Yep they were docked, because this was thirty years ago when it was perfectly legal to do so.  And I agree that we are not going to agree on this issue, because I am an advocate of docking.

I dont actually understand the difference between breeding dogs for the show ring, and discarding those who dont make the grade, and the breeding greyhounds/thoroughbred horses for the race track and discarding those who are not fast enough?


----------



## QUICKFIRE (19 August 2008)

Not all white Boxers are deaf, I had the most wonderfull white boxer who had a pedigree as long as your arm, but because she was white was not recognised by the KC, she bred a healthy litter of pups (10) of which 3 were white and all went to loving homes. The KC are a load of baffoons. 2 years gone and still terrably missed RIP my dear dear crystal.


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

Yes there will but when the problems are actively being bred into them then that's a different thing isnt it? There's no excuse, there's so much veterinary science nowadays.


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

I was shocked to find that if Dandy was pure CKCS then he would not be allowed in a 'proper' show ring because he has an area of non-pigmented flesh on his nose. That's just ridiculous to my mind

etided to correct typo


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

Breed standards aren't actually the point, it's people that overbreed to them, and then the judges that place the overbred dogs over the well formed dogs, exactly the same as obese show horses.
The mongrels that I've come across have had more health problems than you can shake a stick at. People never seem to understand that you are never going to get the best of both breeds 100% of the time, what happens to all the mongrels that have the worst of both breeds?


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
I was shocked to find that if Dandy was pure CKCS then he would be allowed in a 'proper' show ring because he has an area of non-pigmented flesh on his nose. That's just ridiculous to my mind 

[/ QUOTE ]

Noooo, you would just colour it in with Indian ink and no-one would be any the wiser


----------



## kanter (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]


I dont actually understand the difference between breeding dogs for the show ring, and discarding those who dont make the grade, and the breeding greyhounds/thoroughbred horses for the race track and discarding those who are not fast enough? 

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not normally culled though?


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

There is no difference, so don't get me started on the racing industry! Apart from the fact that speed is not down to a human's whim; it is a fact. Animals which are bred for speed have to be fast. A ridgeless Rhodesian is a healthy animal, possibly healthier then one with a ridge, but just doesn't 'look right'.

I have spoken at length about the practice or removing the end of a dog's spine for cosmetic purposes, so will say no more. Apart from the fact that my Boxer cross uses hers as dogs were intended to; to balance and for expression.


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]


I dont actually understand the difference between breeding dogs for the show ring, and discarding those who dont make the grade, and the breeding greyhounds/thoroughbred horses for the race track and discarding those who are not fast enough? 

[/ QUOTE ]

They dont have to kill them though, again it doesnt make it right. I agree with your point about docking though, i used to be against it but then i met someone with a working springer with not enough docked, whenever she caught it , it would spout blood everywhere.


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

I said that about obese horses!


----------



## Shilasdair (19 August 2008)

This programme has really depressed me.  My OH and I have been thinking about getting a couple of dogs when/if we ever manage to move.
Now, though, I would be too worried about illness to buy a pedigree. 
	
	
		
		
	


	




My cat lived to nearly 20yrs, and she was a moggie, perhaps mongrels would be healthier....
S


----------



## Cop-Pop (19 August 2008)

It's making me so angry 
	
	
		
		
	


	




  My goldie is a perfect example of her breed - she is fabulous and only has two health problems caused be accidents not her breeding.  We wanted to breed from her when she was younger but the KC said no.  Why?  Because her legs were too long 
	
	
		
		
	


	








  So at 12 she is still in great health while the goldie stud dog down the road probably won't live much longer (he's 5), is crippled with arthritus, has a severe heart murmer and a spinal problem 
	
	
		
		
	


	




  Knowing what I know now about rescue centres and breeding I'm glad we didn't breed from her but it still makes me grrrrr


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I dont actually understand the difference between breeding dogs for the show ring, and discarding those who dont make the grade, and the breeding greyhounds/thoroughbred horses for the race track and discarding those who are not fast enough? 

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not normally culled though? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Hundreds of greyhounds who dont make the grade are culled - if not thousands.  The trouble is that no-one wants to acknowledge it happens, so the culling is done behind the scenes and not humanely


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you. I think it all comes back to breed standards. The only reason people overbreed them and judges place them over well formed dogs is because they are aiming to reach this breed standard. I understand that you may end up with the worst of both but in attempting to breed for the best of both/hybrid vigour you can at least attempt to erradicate (sp) some of the problems.


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

Working lines tend to be bred for stamina, rather than the show lines which are bred for appearance. You can still have a lovely pedigree dog, just be careful where you buy it from, and try and get one with a tail! Dogs like tails, they are important to them.


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
The mongrels that I've come across have had more health problems than you can shake a stick at. People never seem to understand that you are never going to get the best of both breeds 100% of the time, what happens to all the mongrels that have the worst of both breeds? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly Henmeister.....


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

I prefer the bassett from 60 years ago although it does look like a Dachshound


----------



## Ladyfresha1 (19 August 2008)

Er hello....furniture....dogs have furniture?????? Surely we shouldn't be so worried about obesity in humans. I am not fat, I have furniture!

Sick. Let dogs be dogs.


----------



## kanter (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]

Now, though, I would be too worried about illness to buy a pedigree. 
	
	
		
		
	


	




My cat lived to nearly 20yrs, and she was a moggie, perhaps mongrels would be healthier....
S 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Yup mongrels definiely healthier, though choose wisely, I think my old fella, PTS last autumn, was a combination of all the most neurotic breeds known to man and whilst physically the equivalent of one of the knights that say 'ni' was quite testing in the temperament department!


----------



## Shilasdair (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Working lines tend to be bred for stamina, rather than the show lines which are bred for appearance. You can still have a lovely pedigree dog, just be careful where you buy it from, and try and get one with a tail! Dogs like tails, they are important to them. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I know nothing about dogs; is there a reason tails are docked?  A health reason, I mean.  Or is it just aesthetic?
S


----------



## _April_ (19 August 2008)

Was just going to say that said..   we had a working cocker and they are much less prone to the problems that 'show cockers' are 
ie conjunctivities caused by stupid wrinkly skin over their eyes...

I can't believe how much the Pug has been ruined over the years


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

i prefer the old dachunds. they're much cuter. crazy judge "furnature" and how the hell does it move well ITS LEGS ARE LIKE 3 INCHES LONG!!


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

Some are done for asthetics (sp) but working breeds are docked prevent damage to the tail. It is now only legal to have dogs docked if they are going to be working dogs.


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

IMO a working dog should be docked so there is no risk of their tails being caught and ripped or broken badly. A pet dog shouldn't be docked. But that 's just my opinion


----------



## Shilasdair (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Some are done for asthetics (sp) but working breeds are docked prevent damage to the tail. It is now only legal to have dogs docked if they are going to be working dogs. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell me more?  Which working dogs can be docked - and what sort of injuries are the tails prone to?
S


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

I completly agree with you


----------



## kanter (19 August 2008)

[quote
Hundreds of greyhounds who dont make the grade are culled - if not thousands.  The trouble is that no-one wants to acknowledge it happens, so the culling is done behind the scenes and not humanely  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know that  
	
	
		
		
	


	





Two wrongs don't make a right though.

I don't know what the answer is.


----------



## _April_ (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]

I know nothing about dogs; is there a reason tails are docked?  A health reason, I mean.  Or is it just aesthetic?
S 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]


Tails are/were docked in working breeds to stop it geting caught on fences, bushes etc and ripped..

I worked in a vets one summer and saw some puppies having it done, to be honest it wasn't bad at all.
And you all know what a soft touch I am!!!


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

How can he say Danny is absolute perfection when all anyone can see is a hairball with eyes?


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

Awwww I was at the CKCS championship show..... it smelt!  I am looking out for my mum now


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

read one of my above posts about it.


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
I prefer the bassett from 60 years ago although it does look like a Dachshound 

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don't believe (waits to be told she's wrong) the breed standard has changed. It's peoples perception of the breed standard, and also the sepration of working and showing people and the decline of the dog actually being used for what it was bred for.
Our working cockers are still to the breed standard (sort of!!), but no judge would ever place them.
Yet the IWS we have is perfect to the breed standard and also perfectly designed to do what he was bred for.


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

Sorry, i don't know much more about it than that but i have seen some nasty damage to tails, although not first hand. I used to be completly against docking, but after seeing some of the damage to undocked working dogs i changed my view but disagree with it for cosmetic purposes.


----------



## Cop-Pop (19 August 2008)

Can't believe how nasty the people are being about Carol the woman campainging about the CKCS


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

You'd better not hear what is said off camera


----------



## Shilasdair (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
read one of my above posts about it. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Where?  You post a lot...and all about dogs....
S


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

no they are being quite viscious (sp) when i think she's doing a good job


----------



## muffinino (19 August 2008)

I have to say, Danny is one of the fugliest animals I have ever seen. Poor mite could barely waddle around or breath.

I agree about it being down to breed standards. Judges have to place animals that conform to them and therefore you get squashed faces, weak back ends, hereditary problems.

The narrator's simpering but self righteous voice is getting on my nerves!


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

Docking was originally introduced to identify working dogs, which were not subject to taxation. A dog's tail is the end of its spine, and it uses it as a rudder, as well as to express itself. Some working dogs are still docked (and docking enthusiasts will tell you it is necessary), and some are not, including Retrievers, who have a long coat and work in as much rough as Spaniels. Go figure, as they say. I can see no reason to dock pet breeds, yet many are. In America they also go in for ear pricking, which means cutting the ears of breeds like Dobermans and Great Danes to get them to stand up. Of the two practices, this probably has less impact on the dog's overall health, as many active docked animals suffer from leg joint problems as a result of balance difficulties. Docking is still carried out by vets.


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

26 litters since that CKCS was diagnosed (with that thing that i am not even going to attempt to spell)!


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

Docking is a bit like cutting off a baby's finger. It won't miss it, it's a minor operation but why do it?


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

I could not possibly comment


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
I think It's silly to have it done if the dog isn't ever actually going to work though! 

[/ QUOTE ]

But then puppies don't always have their destinys mapped out from the moment they are born 
	
	
		
		
	


	




They have to be done before 3 days, and working owners won't buy undocked dogs, whereas pet owners will buy a docked dog.
All our cockers are docked, and never have a problem with wagging or balance! They are perfectly happy, except for the one who wasn't docked short enough, when it comes to the working season, his tail explodes with infection, so much so his days often get limited. Then he is even more p!ssed off!!!


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
IMO a working dog should be docked so there is no risk of their tails being caught and ripped or broken badly. A pet dog shouldn't be docked. But that 's just my opinion 

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed, working dogs in certain cases do need to have a docked tail, our springers were purchased as pets only so we hunted high and low to find two with tails.
pugs can be traced back to 50 individuals???????
thats shocking! thats puts limited gene pool into a whole new perspective!


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

Oops, sorry. I meant when you asked about what kind of injuries. But then by the time i posted it loads of others had beat me to it.

It was just that i knew someone with a working springer spaniel that hadnt had enough of her tail docked and if she caught it on anything it squirted blood. Poor thing!


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO a working dog should be docked so there is no risk of their tails being caught and ripped or broken badly. A pet dog shouldn't be docked. But that 's just my opinion 

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed, working dogs in certain cases do need to have a docked tail, our springers were purchased as pets only so we hunted high and low to find two with tails.
pugs can be traced back to 50 individuals???????
thats shocking! thats puts limited gene pool into a whole new perspective! 

[/ QUOTE ]

And cant thoroughbreds be traced back to three stallions?


----------



## Diane_Pepper (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
I have to say, Danny is one of the fugliest animals I have ever seen. Poor mite could barely waddle around or breath. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree! His eyes were practically popping out of his skull


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

I think many working owners are happy to buy an undocked dog. Most working dogs are not docked - Collies, Labs, Retrievers...


----------



## Shilasdair (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Docking was originally introduced to identify working dogs, which were not subject to taxation. A dog's tail is the end of its spine, and it uses it as a rudder, as well as to express itself. Some working dogs are still docked (and docking enthusiasts will tell you it is necessary), and some are not, including Retrievers, who have a long coat and work in as much rough as Spaniels. Go figure, as they say. I can see no reason to dock pet breeds, yet many are. In America they also go in for ear pricking, which means cutting the ears of breeds like Dobermans and Great Danes to get them to stand up. Of the two practices, this probably has less impact on the dog's overall health, as many active docked animals suffer from leg joint problems as a result of balance difficulties. Docking is still carried out by vets. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Soots.
I know that heavy horses used to be docked as they suffered crushed vertebrae if/when they got their tails trapped in the workings...
I couldn't think of a way that a longer tail would be prone to injury in a working dog (but then, all I know are sheepdogs and maybe gundogs).   Is it due to injury or disease that they are docked? 
And another question (I did warn you all I know nothing about dogs) - if a white boxer is deaf, can it not be neutered and rehomed as a pet, rather than culled - as it will still be effectively removed from the gene pool?
S


----------



## _April_ (19 August 2008)

I saw an injury to a working dog's tail once and it was really quite nasty...   I guess they think prevention is better than cure.

I didn't think the docking experience looked that bad for the puppies, although they were so small - poor little mites

I am totally anti hunting btw - my minimal experience is from having a family who shoot and working as a vet nurse!


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO a working dog should be docked so there is no risk of their tails being caught and ripped or broken badly. A pet dog shouldn't be docked. But that 's just my opinion 

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed, working dogs in certain cases do need to have a docked tail, our springers were purchased as pets only so we hunted high and low to find two with tails.
pugs can be traced back to 50 individuals???????
thats shocking! thats puts limited gene pool into a whole new perspective! 

[/ QUOTE ]

And cant thoroughbreds be traced back to three stallions? 

[/ QUOTE ]

yes maybe but not 50 individuals as a whole, and certainly not in the last 20 years! tb's at least had many mares to dilute the gene's a bit!


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

Of course it can Shils but if the breeders won't do that and can find a vet to cull them then that's what will happen. Having said that, our rescue centres are full to the brim already without adding pedigree's that haven't 'made the grade'.


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Some working dogs are still docked (and docking enthusiasts will tell you it is necessary), and some are not, including Retrievers, who have a long coat and work in as much rough as Spaniels.  

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. A retrievers job is to retrieve shot game from the open field, a springer/cockers job is to flush the game from the rough into the open to be shot. Hence the reason for docking the dogs which flush and not retrievers like labs etc. Game which landed in the rough would usually have a flushing dog sent in to retrieve it.
Also working dogs which have never been docked, are bred to have shortish, thick tails, dogs which are bred to be docked can have anything stuck to their backside. Usually long and whiplike, and perfect for being ripped to shreds, which is a hideous injury.


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

To the Boxer question - yes. White boxers are culled not only due to deafness, but because they are not KC 'approved'. My old vet refused to put a white deaf boxer to sleep and kept it for 12 years. As I said, working dogs were originally docked for tax purposes, not for health purposes, so I do wonder about that whole argument. I have lived in the country and owned dogs for over 30 years, and have never had a tail injury. I know some thin-tailed breeds such as greyhounds are prone to them, but they are not docked on a routine basis.


----------



## Shilasdair (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO a working dog should be docked so there is no risk of their tails being caught and ripped or broken badly. A pet dog shouldn't be docked. But that 's just my opinion 

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed, working dogs in certain cases do need to have a docked tail, our springers were purchased as pets only so we hunted high and low to find two with tails.
pugs can be traced back to 50 individuals???????
thats shocking! thats puts limited gene pool into a whole new perspective! 

[/ QUOTE ]

And cant thoroughbreds be traced back to three stallions? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Four stallions...although originally the stud book wasn't closed as it is today...and the idea of not allowing AI is supposedly to ensure greater genetic diversity.
S


----------



## icestationzebra (19 August 2008)

It just makes me feel sad that there are so many unwanted dogs festering in dogs homes across the country and people continue to breed these unhealthy and sometimes deformed dogs!  And of course there are people queuing up to buy them which personally I cannot get my head around


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

Our Boxer cross has a very sturdy tail. Greyhounds are not bred to be docked (and it is highly unlikely any breed's tail would change over the short period of time that docking has been a practice - 100 years or so? Why would it?) and they have very thin tails.


----------



## kanter (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]

And another question (I did warn you all I know nothing about dogs) - if a white boxer is deaf, can it not be neutered and rehomed as a pet, rather than culled - as it will still be effectively removed from the gene pool?
S 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I believe they are more difficult to train (recall etc), and obviously may not be aware of danger (traffic etc) though have heard of some successfully trained using sign language, and also can form successful pair bonds with hearing dogs.


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

For hundreds of pounds too! It is a very lucrative business.


----------



## Shilasdair (19 August 2008)

I'd be worried about getting a dog from a dog home though - as I wouldn't be able to judge whether it was a 'good one' or not.
With horses, I know what I'm doing...but with dogs...no idea.
That's one of the reasons OH and I were thinking about pedigrees.... 
	
	
		
		
	


	




S


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
For hundreds of pounds too! It is a very lucrative business. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I must remember to tell my mum/sister that, they will be delighted to know


----------



## kanter (19 August 2008)

Kennel club response to programme:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1993/23/5/3


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
For hundreds of pounds too! It is a very lucrative business. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanted a Yorkie or a CKCS and was horrified to find that Yorkies were around £900 to £1150 for one puppy 
	
	
		
		
	


	




CKCS were around £500

And I got a cross of the two for £350. Personally I think I got the best deal as Dandy is adorable but I seriously couldn't the prices of pedigree dogs. It was...eye opening/eye watering


----------



## icestationzebra (19 August 2008)

Our family has a policy of never buying a dog from a breeder.  All our family dogs have come from rescue centres over the years and I will only ever do so again.  I adore Greyhounds and my next dog will probably come from one of the rehoming centres.  We have been lucky and never ever had a bad animal - they have all been fantastic.  Don't forget a lot of it is down to handling and training.......


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

LOL! I was thinking of the Pug - £800? Same as I was quoted for a Labradoodle! Our dog was a *surprise*, and we covered the owners' vet costs, feeding etc. and paid £150 - and that included the first vaccination. £800 is a fair old profit!


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

I think the pictures of the various breeds from years ago look so much better. Add to that the fact that they were healthier then i really dont understand why on earth these stupid, ignorant people would carry on breeding them like that? Who wants a dog that can barely breathe or walk? Surely if you have to be putting your dog on an ice pack so it doesnt die thats a bloody great clue that something's not right.


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

tis fashion that dictates at times jacks_mum.
thanks to the likes of bloody paris hilton a chihuahua puppy, particularly a bitch will set you back up to £2000


----------



## icestationzebra (19 August 2008)

Indeed it is Sooty


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

Often the best way to get a dog is through word of mouth. Or from some dodgy bloke down the pub with a bicycle basket full of Jack Russell terrier pups...


----------



## Shilasdair (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Our family has a policy of never buying a dog from a breeder.  All our family dogs have come from rescue centres over the years and I will only ever do so again.  I adore Greyhounds and my next dog will probably come from one of the rehoming centres.  We have been lucky and never ever had a bad animal - they have all been fantastic.  Don't forget a lot of it is down to handling and training....... 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but with respect, you sound as if you know a good deal more about dogs than I do...
Hey, at least I know my limitations 
	
	
		
		
	


	




S


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Our Boxer cross has a very sturdy tail. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not taking about boxers, or rottweilers, I'm talking about gundogs. You may have never had a dogs tail ripped to shreds from rough cover, but we have, and it was not a pleasant experiance. 
The dog in question had to be kept on a lead during the season (as he would not stay at home or in the car) which he did not enjoy. He was in pain for weeks. Not one of the others has had this problem, because they have been docked short enough.


IMO working dogs, that have been docked, should be docked, it prevents some orrific injuries. Dogs that are docked cosmetically I see little point in.


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
tis fashion that dictates at times jacks_mum.
thanks to the likes of bloody paris hilton a chihuahua puppy, particularly a bitch will set you back up to £2000 

[/ QUOTE ]














 I thought they were expensive 2 years ago


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

The German Shepherds upset me. The show ones are so different from the working ones - can the breeders not see what they are doing?


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

I thought you said dogs which were bred to be docked had thinner tails...


----------



## icestationzebra (19 August 2008)

I think we just learnt along the way.  Dogs are a bit like horses in the sense that you learn something from every one!


----------



## Laafet (19 August 2008)

This programme really upset me, I couldn't believe the suffering those dogs are put through. As for the show judges WTF can they not spot a lame animal, most of those GSD were crippled, why are they not sent out the ring as show horses would be. I guess with horses more money is at stake so that is the idea of performance testing etc etc. AS for the Kennel Club saying we don't want to drive the breeders away, grow some balls and put in regulations then people would choose to buy on properly bred dogs and the breeders that didn't toe the line would suffer.


----------



## kanter (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be worried about getting a dog from a dog home though - as I wouldn't be able to judge whether it was a 'good one' or not.
With horses, I know what I'm doing...but with dogs...no idea.
That's one of the reasons OH and I were thinking about pedigrees.... 
	
	
		
		
	


	




S 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your fear. My first dog came from a dog's home, and he was quite aggressive in certain situations but I didn't have the heart to take him back. He really was the most difficult dog ever though I was in bits when he was PTS. However if you go via a smaller rescue, they will have the dog's history, and often they are fostered in private homes, so here is much more information about them. Would recommend his forum as a start point:

http://www.dogpages.org.uk/forums/index.php?act=idx

Please give a homeless dog a forever home


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you said dogs which were bred to be docked had thinner tails... 

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, Im confused? What?


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

Ummmm -  'profit'  
	
	
		
		
	


	




  I am not sure where this idea that people who show and breed dogs do it for for the money comes from?  (that is a general comment Sooty, not directed at you)

My mum has bred dogs for all of my life, and I can assure you all that she has never made a profit or a lucrative income from them.  Hence she is still taking dogs for grooming at the age of 69...

People who show dogs breed litters purely to try and breed something which they consider will become an excellent example of the breed.  Whether that is what you and I would consider to be a healthy happy dog is another matter  
	
	
		
		
	


	




  They do not consider whether they are going to make a profit, or whether their top winning dog will become a succesful stud dog and therefore make them some money - they just care about whether they get a prize winning dog


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

yus....gundogs. both my springers have very thin tails. very unsuited to gun work because of it


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Often the best way to get a dog is through word of mouth. Or from some dodgy bloke down the pub with a bicycle basket full of Jack Russell terrier pups... 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have one please


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

The whole programme was very biased though and seemed to be pretty much totally against the kennel club and indiscriminate breeders. It would have been a better balanced programme if there had been an equal amount of air time for the breeders that do care for their dogs and have the various health checks etc done - I am sure there must be more than the one or two featured. I the programme had been about the horse showing world we would all now be up in arms against the BBC for showing a horrendously biased programme.


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

I think your definition of working and mine are different, hence the confusion. I am talking purely about gundogs, which I have quite a bit of experiance in (by proxy at least!), and from my experiances, I would not take an undocked springer or cocker into rough cover.
I also said they could have anything stuck to their backside, not that all their tails are thin.


----------



## Tinkerbee (19 August 2008)

at some of the prices mentioned here.

I got our two (complete mutts) for absolutely nothing and they are the healthiest dogs I know


----------



## icestationzebra (19 August 2008)

But isn't that irresponsible when there are thousands of dogs needing homes?  These people insist that they are animal lovers but sometimes their behaviour does not illustrate that especially when they are breeding animals with health problems. That is not directed at your family btw.  I also feel the same about people that continue to breed horses with bad conformation or poor temperaments.


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
The whole programme was very biased though and seemed to be pretty much totally against the kennel club and indiscriminate breeders. It would have been a better balanced programme if there had been an equal amount of air time for the breeders that do care for their dogs and have the various health checks etc done - I am sure there must be more than the one or two featured. I the programme had been about the horse showing world we would all now be up in arms against the BBC for showing a horrendously biased programme. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Jacks_Mum, my thoughts exactly


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
But isn't that irresponsible when there are thousands of dogs needing homes?  These people insist that they are animal lovers but sometimes their behaviour does not illustrate that especially when they are breeding animals with health problems. That is not directed at your family btw.  I also feel the same about people that continue to breed horses with bad conformation or poor temperaments. 

[/ QUOTE ]

not if the dog is bred to do a job! some dogs need to be trained from the time you get them (gun dog training is quite specialised and quite a lengthy process) and started young.
you couldnt find something like that in a rescue centre,and if you did per chance happen to find the particular breed there is nothing to say its going to be trainable as you have no idea how it was raised


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

Yes, but the point is that Crufts is (in the UK at least) the pinnacle of dog breeding achievement, and year after year winning dogs are deformed. The breed standard is being interpreted very differently from how (I assume) it was intended, and there are mutant freaks as a result. Some bulldogs cannot give birth naturally because of the oversized heads. If breeders want to make a living, they need to produce dogs people want, and people want what they see on tv and at Crufts. They want deformed flat faces, docked tails, oversized heads, twisted tails... This programme was long overdue, IMHO.


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
But isn't that irresponsible when there are thousands of dogs needing homes?  These people insist that they are animal lovers but sometimes their behaviour does not illustrate that especially when they are breeding animals with health problems. That is not directed at your family btw.  I also feel the same about people that continue to breed horses with bad conformation or poor temperaments. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Responsible breeders will not breed from dogs which have health issues, and will always find good homes for all of their stock which do not make the grade for showing purposes (i.e. 99% of them!)

As for the rest - well, as with indiscriminate breeders of any animal, they cannot be considered in the same way?  I know that sounds like a cop-out, but there is nothing more I can say really - just wanted to make the point that you cannot consider that all dog breeders are irresponsible and uncaring as the BBC would like you to believe


----------



## Shilasdair (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be worried about getting a dog from a dog home though - as I wouldn't be able to judge whether it was a 'good one' or not.
With horses, I know what I'm doing...but with dogs...no idea.
That's one of the reasons OH and I were thinking about pedigrees.... 
	
	
		
		
	


	




S 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your fear. My first dog came from a dog's home, and he was quite aggressive in certain situations but I didn't have the heart to take him back. He really was the most difficult dog ever though I was in bits when he was PTS. However if you go via a smaller rescue, they will have the dog's history, and often they are fostered in private homes, so here is much more information about them. Would recommend his forum as a start point:

http://www.dogpages.org.uk/forums/index.php?act=idx

Please give a homeless dog a forever home  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that would be the problem - I have not, nor have my family ever got an animal that we didn't then keep the end.  And I don't want 15 yrs of snarling aggressive howling predator in my house 
	
	
		
		
	


	




And would the dog rehomers tell me truthfully, or would they be keen to palm their worst mutts off on us, lol?
Oh dear, I think I'll have to stick to horses and hamsters.
S


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

PMSL! I totally misenterpreted that comment!


----------



## jacks_mum (19 August 2008)

And year after year fat horses win shows, even HOYS


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

But what are the thousands of dogs needing homes? Mainly crossbreds, so aren't people allowing crossbreeds to breed just as irresponsible?
People would be up in arms if breeders stopped breeding purebreds, we would be losing our heritage, just as we are with shires, cleveland bays etc.
I know you were talking about pedigrees with health problems, but people irresponsible enough to breed unhealthy dogs are hardly going to be the types to think, oh there are lots of stray, Ill stop breeding!


----------



## Laafet (19 August 2008)

Well I suppose I could say the same about their racing reports but then others would not agree. We have always bought pedigree animals and as I said on the other thread my beautiful but deformed rescue burmilla cat is a result of hideous inbreeding. Our current ESS is perfect but a working type deemed too light for the show ring, he is perfect for us and touchwood healthy so we like him for not being heavy enough for the show ring. Out last dog, a Welsh Springer Spaniel rescue dog was so inbred it was untrue I believe a father -daughter is I remember rightly we would never have bought her from a breeder but rescued her from a cruel home, she had terrible conditions which our vet said come of which were genetic. She lived to 10 years, Mum had her put down as she started to fit like that Boxer and that was too much, our previous dog was a ESS x Collie he lived to 18.


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

I agree that it was very biased against the KC. I always like to know both sides and have looked into breeding for some college work, so have some knowledge of both sides. As with everything there is good and bad, the same can be said about breeders but i don't think the KC are doing enough eventhough they have research programmes etc.. in place.


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

Personally I would not advise getting a first dog from a dogs' home. Like most things in life, dog ownership is a learning curve, and it is much easier to start with a puppy. I have had a couple of dogs from a home, and one had to be pts due to his extreme aggression. It is not always a happy ending.


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

The KC endorses mother/son mating and docking - it deserves bias against it!


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
PMSL! I totally misenterpreted that comment! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you didn't read up their backside instead of on!!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





We're good at this agreeing to disagree marlarky thing! We haven't even descended into personal insults 
	
	
		
		
	


	




I was trying to think up my best ones too


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Responsible breeders will not breed from dogs which have health issues, and will always find good homes for all of their stock which do not make the grade for showing purposes (i.e. 99% of them!)

As for the rest - well, as with indiscriminate breeders of any animal, they cannot be considered in the same way?  I know that sounds like a cop-out, but there is nothing more I can say really - just wanted to make the point that you cannot consider that all dog breeders are irresponsible and uncaring as the BBC would like you to believe 

[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely. a friend of mine went to see two gsd breeders. one tried to sell her a puppy based on colour (it was a blue), and the other wanted her to know that her dogs were hip scored, eye tested, and she had references and thankyou letters from people who had bought from her repeatedly (when they lost their old dog they would call her when ready for a new one).
guess which one she bought from!


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
The KC endorses mother/son mating and docking - it deserves bias against it! 

[/ QUOTE ]

So does Gloucester!


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

Oh I like to think we can have differing views without falling out! 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 I've been with my OH 20 years on that basis, only the insults are not so witheld...


----------



## icestationzebra (19 August 2008)

Completely agree Hen - the people that breed indescriminately, allow their bitch to be mated by any old Tom, Dick or Harry down the park and the breeders continuing to breed mutant dogs are all as bad as each other!


----------



## Laafet (19 August 2008)

Like I said I can see the biased point that is being made but A LAME DOG IS A LAME DOG! How can judges say 'oh yes that is to type and better than the version that is actually doing the job it is meant for'?


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but the point is that Crufts is (in the UK at least) the pinnacle of dog breeding achievement, and year after year winning dogs are deformed. The breed standard is being interpreted very differently from how (I assume) it was intended, and there are mutant freaks as a result. Some bulldogs cannot give birth naturally because of the oversized heads. If breeders want to make a living, they need to produce dogs people want, and people want what they see on tv and at Crufts. They want deformed flat faces, docked tails, oversized heads, twisted tails... This programme was long overdue, IMHO. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Sooty I say again - these people very very rarely make a living from dog breeding, unless they are puppy farmers and the like who do not show dogs anyway.  

And in the dog showing world Crufts is generally not the pinnacle of achievement - far more prestigious to win best in show at your breed championship show


----------



## Coffee_Bean (19 August 2008)

Was sickened by some of the things on that programme and me and my folks watched in horror. Culling rhodesian (sp) ridgebacks for not having a ridge which is actually a mild deformity anyway... sick. Some of those breeders are so bloody ignorant as well. And breeding from those CKCS with that really long named disease is wrong, the dog was clearly in absoloute agony.

My dog has epilepsy, shes a labrador. She is on tablets and has not fitted since having them (apart from one time when she ran off and ate a load of sweetcorn husks that got lodged down her intestines (7 to be precise) so she didn't eat anything for 48 hours, until she was operated on and didnt have the tablets...but thats a different story) But I think that if she was as bad as that boxer we would have had no choice but to p her ts.


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The KC endorses mother/son mating and docking - it deserves bias against it! 

[/ QUOTE ]

So does Gloucester! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

That made me LOL!


----------



## Cop-Pop (19 August 2008)

Speak to the guys at Many Tears - they are fabulous and most of their dogs are in foster homes so they have a good idea how they behave in a home environment


----------



## Starbucks (19 August 2008)

Jumping in a bit late here but I'm a bit slow so I'd never catch up!!

That really upset me!!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	








  I do not understand the mentality of some of those breeders.... so many just replied with "Well I think thats a load of rubbish!" Why do they care so much more about what it says in some stupid book than the health and comfort of there own dogs!!!!!  SO WRONG!!!!!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	









I don't really see how it can be compared to horse racing etc.  fair enough some aren't fast enough to race, but they are healthy animals that can go on to do another job, and they don't suffer from extreme painful conditions brought on by breading to meet a set of rules.

It really confuses me.  So if in a certain breed characteristic it says it should have a long back for example.... does that mean that the ones with the longest possible back is one that most fits that characteristic, even if that would prevent/hinder them doing the job they were set out to do?


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 allow their bitch to be mated by any old Tom, Dick or Harry down the park  

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we still talking about dogs here!?


----------



## Laafet (19 August 2008)

I would have too Coffee_bean, our WSS fitted three times and that was enough. PTS it is better for the poor animal, atleast we have that choice for them.


----------



## kirstyhen (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
So if in a certain breed characteristic it says it should have a long back for example.... does that mean that the ones with the longest possible back is one that most fits that characteristic, even if that would prevent/hinder them doing the job they were set out to do? 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Thats how a bad breeder/judge would interpret it, however a good breeder would still keep in sight what the dog was originally bred to do.


----------



## icestationzebra (19 August 2008)

Agree.  My comments were aimed at those continuing to breed unhealthy animals whether it be for profit or in pursuit of a show dog....


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

Oh okay - but they must do it for the money, if not to live on. My problem is with the KC, and has been for many years.


----------



## Starbucks (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 People who show dogs breed litters purely to try and breed something which they consider will become an excellent example of the breed. Whether that is what you and I would consider to be a healthy happy dog is another matter  They do not consider whether they are going to make a profit, or whether their top winning dog will become a succesful stud dog and therefore make them some money - they just care about whether they get a prize winning dog 


[/ QUOTE ] 

So they do it to get "a prize winning dog" so for there own glory basically.  Is that any better than doing it for money??


----------



## icestationzebra (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
 allow their bitch to be mated by any old Tom, Dick or Harry down the park  

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we still talking about dogs here!? 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I was, but to be honest I have been watching a bit of Jeremy Kyle recently so I KNOW it could quite easily be used to describle human behaviour too!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	




  Not mine I hasten to add


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

sooty the k.c might play a small part, but the bigger fault has to lay with the person buying the dog for its looks. same old, same old, if there was no demand there would be no supply


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Oh okay - but they must do it for the money, if not to live on. My problem is with the KC, and has been for many years. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I give up  
	
	
		
		
	


	




  I have known people who show and breed dogs for 38 years and not one of them has 'done it for the money'.....


----------



## Sooty (19 August 2008)

So why do dog advertised in the local paper cost £150 for a mutt, and a Pug costs £800?


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

For their own ridiculous gain... its so sad. More people need to have the courage and sense to stand away from the "correct" crowd and go with whats best for the dogs and the breed.

Thats not to say some havent already.


----------



## Laafet (19 August 2008)

I see what you are saying but for the GSD's, why are they allowed to show if they are lame and cannot stand that is wrong and endorsed by the KC.


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
So why do dog advertised in the local paper cost £150 for a mutt, and a Pug costs £800? 

[/ QUOTE ]

like i said, supply and demand. people are prepared to pay £800 for a deformed dog, so people breed and sell them. but its peoples ignorance of what they are buying into, and they who are at fault, not the k.c


----------



## Starbucks (19 August 2008)

On the whole cross breed thing, ok so it's bad because the puppies will go to bad homes, end up in rescue etc. etc. but at least they would be much more likely to be healthy individuals!!  

Poor dogs is all I can say, all down to stupid humans, for there own entertainment.


----------



## xspiralx (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh okay - but they must do it for the money, if not to live on. My problem is with the KC, and has been for many years. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I give up  
	
	
		
		
	


	




  I have known people who show and breed dogs for 38 years and not one of them has 'done it for the money'..... 

[/ QUOTE ]

But presumably money is part of the incentive?

I mean, one litter of say 10 puppies, each going for around £500, that must make a pretty substantial profit, even allowing for the odd illness or accident?


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
So why do dog advertised in the local paper cost £150 for a mutt, and a Pug costs £800? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the dog advertised in the local paper is not a result of years of careful selected breeding, the best veterinary attention, the stud fee for the right stud dog, etc etc etc ....


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh okay - but they must do it for the money, if not to live on. My problem is with the KC, and has been for many years. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I give up  
	
	
		
		
	


	




  I have known people who show and breed dogs for 38 years and not one of them has 'done it for the money'..... 

[/ QUOTE ]

But presumably money is part of the incentive?

I mean, one litter of say 10 puppies, each going for around £500, that must make a pretty substantial profit, even allowing for the odd illness or accident? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldnt know TBH - cavaliers dont have 10 in a litter, they usually have four or so?


----------



## Laafet (19 August 2008)

Still no answer on the obviously lame deformed GSD's, why are you not defending them?


----------



## Starbucks (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 Quote:


So why do dog advertised in the local paper cost £150 for a mutt, and a Pug costs £800? 


like i said, supply and demand. people are prepared to pay £800 for a deformed dog, so people breed and sell them. but its peoples ignorance of what they are buying into, and they who are at fault, not the k.c 

[/ QUOTE ] 

So some people don't do enough research and do not understand, probably through ignorance, but also nievity, TBH who would think that knowledgable breeder would breed from animals which they knew would pass on hireditory disorders??

You are saying that, as long as there is a market, then it is fine for breeders to produce dogs that they know could potentially haves serious problems, and to be supported by the KC??


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

Acolyte, i can see where in certain cases the whole "breed standard" is wrong.
i can go and buy a pug for £800 and that dog is likely to have respitory problems amongst other things. that to me is not carefully selected breeding. 
if someone could show me a pug that did was not going to show up a whole host of problems later on down the line i might think about it but until then.....
now i know there are some very good breeders out there, and its only a few that bring everyone else down, but in certain breeds i can sort of see the argument here


----------



## GinaB (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
On the whole cross breed thing, ok so it's bad because the puppies will go to bad homes, end up in rescue etc. etc. but at least they would be much more likely to be healthy individuals!!  

Poor dogs is all I can say, all down to stupid humans, for there own entertainment. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

They can have just the same problem as pedigrees though eg take a lab with dodgy hips and breed it to something else and it's still going to inherit the bad hips, regardless of what it has been crossed with. Just because it is a crossbreed does not mean it is going to be healthy.


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 [ QUOTE ]
 People who show dogs breed litters purely to try and breed something which they consider will become an excellent example of the breed. Whether that is what you and I would consider to be a healthy happy dog is another matter  They do not consider whether they are going to make a profit, or whether their top winning dog will become a succesful stud dog and therefore make them some money - they just care about whether they get a prize winning dog 


[/ QUOTE ] 

So they do it to get "a prize winning dog" so for there own glory basically.  Is that any better than doing it for money?? 
	
	
		
		
	


	













[/ QUOTE ]

Starbucks I dont think it is any better than doing it for the money - I detest the dog showing scene, I would never be a part of it, and I totally agree that the Kennel Club needs to take a serious look at what the hell is going on in some breeds.  I have been trying to respond to what I have considered to be inaccurate statements in this thread and have tried to show what the true picture of dog showing/breeding is when it involves responsible caring breeders.

However I think I give up now


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

starbucks i never said it was right. i said that as long as people show an interest in these dogs there will always be someone ready to sell you one!


----------



## Laafet (19 August 2008)

Have to say when we have bought pedigree dogs or cats we check out their breeding for serious cases of inbreeding just to try to minise the risk for disaster. Do the same with horses as well but then even with the TB's the inbreeding doesn't seem as rife and I like PB's anyway.


----------



## littlemisslauren (19 August 2008)

my dad bred his own terriers and showed them for 10 years, he did not do it for the money, and when he got my mother up the duff (with moiiii) he had to sell his dogs and a job as a bricklayer to support a growing family - so surely that demonstrates how un-lucrative (if that is even a word) breeding was. (this was 20 years ago though)


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Still no answer on the obviously lame deformed GSD's, why are you not defending them? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Laafet please dont adopt an confrontational style of questioning with me.  I have responded to one of Starbucks posts above - which is what I was doing rather than responding to your particular post at that moment in time - to explain how I feel about dog showing/breeding in general.  If you could take that as a response to your query too I would be most grateful as it would save me typing it all over again

Ets - oops, that should have been 'above' not 'below'!


----------



## Starbucks (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 Quote:

So why do dog advertised in the local paper cost £150 for a mutt, and a Pug costs £800? 


Because the dog advertised in the local paper is not a result of years of careful selected breeding, the best veterinary attention, the stud fee for the right stud dog, etc etc etc .... 


[/ QUOTE ] 

Carefully selected breeding... that could have made the puppy totally knackered from day one basically.


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 [ QUOTE ]
 Quote:

So why do dog advertised in the local paper cost £150 for a mutt, and a Pug costs £800? 


Because the dog advertised in the local paper is not a result of years of careful selected breeding, the best veterinary attention, the stud fee for the right stud dog, etc etc etc .... 


[/ QUOTE ] 

Carefully selected breeding... that could have made the puppy totally knackered from day one basically. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Could have done - but wouldnt have done from a responsible breeder.


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
starbucks i never said it was right. i said that as long as people show an interest in these dogs there will always be someone ready to sell you one! 

[/ QUOTE ]

although with the king charles spaniels, say a family was buying their first dog, they'd go to a breeder because thats usually advice and buy a perfectly healthy looking pup. i dont think its neccessarily fair to blame the buyers as they're not to know. it shoudl be the responsiblity of the breeders to ensure their dogs are healthy and the responsibilty of the KC to ensure the reputablility of the breeders.


----------



## Starbucks (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 Quote:


On the whole cross breed thing, ok so it's bad because the puppies will go to bad homes, end up in rescue etc. etc. but at least they would be much more likely to be healthy individuals!! 

Poor dogs is all I can say, all down to stupid humans, for there own entertainment.  

They can have just the same problem as pedigrees though eg take a lab with dodgy hips and breed it to something else and it's still going to inherit the bad hips, regardless of what it has been crossed with. Just because it is a crossbreed does not mean it is going to be healthy. 


[/ QUOTE ] 

I said more likely, which I believe is proven - no??

I'm not going on a anti pedigree rant - obviously there are breeders who do there tests and everything and thats all good.  But if what I saw on the programme is correct, if they win at shows they don't really care about that stuff, just breed anyway!!


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

Acolyte i have yet to meet a pug that can run without making a strange noise when it tries to draw breath.
i think we have to accept that as a whole, mankind has messed a little too much with certain breeds.
you are right in that not all breeders are bad ones, in fact they are fairly few and far between thankfully, but it is going to take more than a few good breeders to try and rectify the mess thats been made in some breeds


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Acolyte i have yet to meet a pug that can run without making a strange noise when it tries to draw breath.
i think we have to accept that as a whole, mankind has messed a little too much with certain breeds.
you are right in that not all breeders are bad ones, in fact they are fairly few and far between thankfully, but it is going to take more than a few good breeders to try and rectify the mess thats been made in some breeds 

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly what I have said somewhere above here in response to one of Starbucks questions....


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
starbucks i never said it was right. i said that as long as people show an interest in these dogs there will always be someone ready to sell you one! 

[/ QUOTE ]

although with the king charles spaniels, say a family was buying their first dog, they'd go to a breeder because thats usually advice and buy a perfectly healthy looking pup. i dont think its neccessarily fair to blame the buyers as they're not to know. it shoudl be the responsiblity of the breeders to ensure their dogs are healthy and the responsibilty of the KC to ensure the reputablility of the breeders. 

[/ QUOTE ]


sorry but i totally disagree.
its the buyers responsibilty to make sure the they know about the breed BEFORE going out to purchase one, and these days with the internet there is no excuse for not knowing, because a search engine isnt "bias" and will show good and bad alike


----------



## Starbucks (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Starbucks I dont think it is any better than doing it for the money - I detest the dog showing scene, I would never be a part of it, and I totally agree that the Kennel Club needs to take a serious look at what the hell is going on in some breeds. I have been trying to respond to what I have considered to be inaccurate statements in this thread and have tried to show what the true picture of dog showing/breeding is when it involves responsible caring breeders.

However I think I give up now   

[/ QUOTE ] 

Thanks for your reply A, I wasn't having a go, it's just got me really angry!!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





That stupid woman about the bull dogs who said something along the line of "well they are fine normally, it's when they get excited they can't breath properly, they might pass out, but then they come round ok."  I mean WTF???????

I wouldn't be suprised if there are a lot fewer peeps at Crufts next year!!


----------



## Laafet (19 August 2008)

Was not being confrontational, that response was not up when I typed my original question or the last time I posted a remark.


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Acolyte i have yet to meet a pug that can run without making a strange noise when it tries to draw breath.
i think we have to accept that as a whole, mankind has messed a little too much with certain breeds.
you are right in that not all breeders are bad ones, in fact they are fairly few and far between thankfully, but it is going to take more than a few good breeders to try and rectify the mess thats been made in some breeds 

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly what I have said somewhere above here in response to one of Starbucks questions.... 

[/ QUOTE ]
apologies, i have just read back what i missed!


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 Thanks for your reply A, I wasn't having a go, it's just got me really angry!!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





That stupid woman about the bull dogs who said something along the line of "well they are fine normally, it's when they get excited they can't breath properly, they might pass out, but then they come round ok."  I mean WTF???????

I wouldn't be suprised if there are a lot fewer peeps at Crufts next year!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree - dog showing people are beyond belief sometimes, which is why I dont want anything to do with it


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

yes but if the problem with the breed doesnt show until later then how on earth are they supposed to know? i'm not saying people shouldnt take responsibilty for buying their dog but how are you supposed to tell between the two.

i agree that if you bought a dog with an obvious problem then yes that would be your fault. (not you personally - crap wording!)


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]


I completely agree - dog showing people are beyond belief sometimes, which is why I dont want anything to do with it  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

good for you!!


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

moomoo if i could get a potentially "dodgy" dog from a certain breed i would look into another breed suited to our needs and wants, you dont need to limit yourself to a certain breed if you are buying as with the intention of keeping as a family pet


----------



## Acolyte (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Was not being confrontational, that response was not up when I typed my original question or the last time I posted a remark. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I interpreted the comment "why arent you defending them?" as being confrontational, hence my response.  If you read all of my responses you will see that I have never, and would never,  advocate the breeding of dogs to achieve the exagerated types which the Kennel Club appears to want to achieve now


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

i suppose, but its a shame that it has to be that way. and it could be so difficult to distinguish between the good and bad breeders.

and by the looks of things there are quite a few popular breeds that can be "dodgy".


----------



## smallbutgreat (19 August 2008)

Did anyone catch the name of the report that was quoted ... sounded like the "Cork" report, but googled that and nothing came up so I must have mishead.


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

May have been something by the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC). Not sure though, i remember hearing this mentioned but not sure if it was this document.


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

then those breeds should be steered clear of IMO. if people stopped screaming for tiny little chihuahua's that can no longer give birth without assistance, pugs and peke's that cant draw a breath at a sedate walk, then people would stop breeding them to be that way!


----------



## Starbucks (19 August 2008)

One positive is that the programme will have raised awareness to the public. 

J - I think when you use the internet and forums, such as this one, it is much easier to catch onto what is generally acceptable/ethicially correct with dog/horse breeding, but a lot of people still don't use it!!  In which case they can't google something and see the good and bad points, they contact breeders and take their word for it.


----------



## xspiralx (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]

sorry but i totally disagree.
its the buyers responsibilty to make sure the they know about the breed BEFORE going out to purchase one, and these days with the internet there is no excuse for not knowing, because a search engine isnt "bias" and will show good and bad alike 

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't really agree with you there. Yes, someone should do their research on the breed before buying, of course they should.

However, if you go to a reputable KC reg'd breeder who has a good performance record, you would expect to be able to trust what they were selling you to be a good example of the breed, and healthy etc.

As much research as you can do, the inexperienced eye will not necessarily be able to tell if the puppy has a problem that will show itself later in life - you ought to be able to trust that a reputable breeder will be breeding good healthy dogs - that is why people are prepared to pay hundreds for them!


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
then those breeds should be steered clear of IMO. if people stopped screaming for tiny little chihuahua's that can no longer give birth without assistance, pugs and peke's that cant draw a breath at a sedate walk, then people would stop breeding them to be that way! 

[/ QUOTE ]

but its not just those is it, labs, GSD'd, spaniels - all popular breeds. your average family isnt screaming for one of those breeds, the people in the programme whos dogs died because of it werent screaming for it either

the only thing i saw screaming was that poor dog


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

starbucks i honestly dont think that is the case.
NOTHING is a substitute for researching and knowing about the breed you are going to buy.
if you cant get internet access or find what you are looking for then you ask word of mouth, people are always quick to bad mouth if they have had a bad experience.


----------



## sade1986 (19 August 2008)

I do believe there is something mentioned in this report, but am not sure if it was the one quoted. Section 5.7 Breeding strains whose welfare may be compromised. I had a brief read, here is the link 

http://www.cawc.org.uk/sites/default/files/CAWCRepNDA.pdf


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

moomoo they bought the dog didnt they?
they should have seriously done their homework beforehand, and then maybe they would have known what could have gone wrong later down the line.
i wouldnt dream of buying ANY animal, be it dog, horse, cat, or any other pet without knowing the in's and out's of the breed and be sure i could cope with what maybe could go wrong, and if i felt the animal had been bred to be a "type" and NOT a healthy individual i wouldnt touch it with a barge pole, i would look elsewhere!


----------



## smallbutgreat (19 August 2008)

Thanks a lot! Twill make interesting reading ... see they also refer to horses and ... wait for it ... goldfish!


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

so basically you're saying that we shouldnt buy any dogs at all because a selfish bunch of people decided that mutation looks good? and seeing as KC reg'd seems to count for little its hard to see where the good ones are coming from.

and no...i dont think for a second that the people who bought those dogs knew that would happen, they could have done all the research in the world and still not known.


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

i am saying we shouldnt buy certain breeds until the standard is drastically improved, particularly as its the animals themselves who suffer because of it.
most of these breeds are the small and toy breeds, and they really do seem to have suffered from bad breeding/inbreeding, call it what you like, but if we refused to buy a breed due to its problems, you can guarentee breeders would soon start trying to breed better healthier dogs which would benefit everyone (the dogs themselves especially!)


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

ok i agree with you there. not having a go or anything, i just think it would be harsh to place too much blame on the owners. i cried just watching a few seconds of it so god knows how it felt to see that for the first time happening to a loved family pet.


----------



## Starbucks (19 August 2008)

That's what I was thinking moomoo!!

In that case some breeds would surely become extinct (can't think of a better word)!!??  Because of the bad breeders... surely that's not good or what anyone wants. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





So say if I wanted a CKCS for example, I have read up about the problems they may have (which all pedigrees have some of), how would I know if the parents have the big-brain, small-skull thing, if the breeders do not tell you???  And all the majortiy of other people who are in with the showing circles think the breeder is great because there dog wins stuff??

I really don't see how you would know!!


----------



## MooMoo (19 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]

I really don't see how you would know!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

especially when kennel club recognition or registration (whatever its called!) seems to count for very little. they're supporting this mutation! 

i cant believe that one guy (he's the chairman i think) "oh i dont need some scientist to tell me...yadda yadda" - well evidently he does because he's not doing a very good job is he? or maybe he is just completely stupid/blind/selfish. take your pick!


----------



## joeanne (19 August 2008)

starbucks, i would find a breeder that could show me several generations of the puppies parents in question, that would pretty much rule out anything nasty rearing its ugly head in years to come.
and if i couldnt i wouldnt buy. better a breed die out than continue to be badly bred at the animals expense
a lot of breeders keep several dogs from a family line for exactly this reason.


----------



## Starbucks (20 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I really don't see how you would know!!  


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



especially when kennel club recognition or registration (whatever its called!) seems to count for very little. they're supporting this mutation! 

i cant believe that one guy (he's the chairman i think) "oh i dont need some scientist to tell me...yadda yadda" - well evidently he does because he's not doing a very good job is he? or maybe he is just completely stupid/blind/selfish. take your pick! 
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I really don't see how you would know!!  


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



especially when kennel club recognition or registration (whatever its called!) seems to count for very little. they're supporting this mutation! 

i cant believe that one guy (he's the chairman i think) "oh i dont need some scientist to tell me...yadda yadda" - well evidently he does because he's not doing a very good job is he? or maybe he is just completely stupid/blind/selfish. take your pick! 


[/ QUOTE ] 

Yea I know what you mean. 
	
	
		
		
	


	




  He was the border terrier guy wasn't he??  I don't think they are too mutated, probably just lucky that there breed characteristic doesn't have anything too freaky in it!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Joanne - I understand what you are saying.  I would think twice, well 100 times before I bought any pedigree now!!!!  I have 2 rescues now, one of which is a pedegree, but not sure I would buy any puppy, espeically now.


----------



## kickandshout (20 August 2008)

do you know what your talking about  !!!!
 or are you just referring to a man who used a gun to killed unregistered 'flapping' dogs which the press then made headlines with ( and no i seriously don't agree with that either)

registered dogs are mainly put into organisations to re-home or they have to have a good reason to pts not all greyhounds are suitable for homing in much the same way as some pet dogs aren't actually suited to being pets !!!!


----------



## jacks_mum (20 August 2008)

I went to bed last night but I'm coming back to this thismorning as it's been on my mind all night. Sooty made a comment about Crufts being the pinnacle of the dog showing world and that 'deformed' dogs consistently win. I responded by saying that fat horses consistently win at shows. To elaborate on that, excuse the upcoming pun, but I think you are all barking up the wrong tree blaming breeder, the KC and the buyers. You need to get to the judges. I'm sure we all agree that a fat horse is a 'bad' or unhealthy horse and should not win a class when in with other healthy horses, but how many times do we see that fat horse placed high up the line, if not first, by the JUDGE. You need to change the ideals and attitudes of the judges in any type of showing to place the healthy well conformed animal over the unhealthy malformed animal.  When breeders see that their particular type of animal is no longer being placed and highly prized on the show circuit and the buyers will be looking for the healthier winning 'style' of animal then the breeders will have to fall in line with what the public buyer is requesting them supply.


----------



## MurphysMinder (20 August 2008)

Not read all the way through the thread so apologies if I am duplicating anything.  I thought the RSPCA chief vet was sensationalising a bit, but do agree that some breeds have been totally spoilt and the KC do not seem interested.  In my own breed (GSDs) responsible breeders have been asking for years that the KC insist all breeding stock is hip scored, and that a maximum score be set for breeding, but nothing has been done about it.    I thought the attitude of some of the cavalier breeders was very wrong, particularly the woman with the winning cavalier who allegedly had the neurological problem but still allowed it to be used at stud.   Not a problem with showing the dog imo, just using it at stud.  I had a GSD with a hip score of 96 who did a lot of winning in the show ring (she was sound as a bell until the day she died) but she was obviously never bred from. If a judge cannot see a fault they cannot penalise a dog for it, bear in mind that in this country the judge is not supposed to know who the dog is.  Whereas in some countries they see the dogs full pedigree.

 Couldn't believe the culling of ridgeless RRs, so wrong, but would disagree that white gSDs are culled nowadays.  Instead they are sold at ridiculously high prices as "rare", which in my opinion is also wrong, the reason they are rare is that it is a disqualifying fault according to the breed standard.  But they should not be culled, just sold without papers and the breeder should ensure they are neutered by the new owners.
Sorry, bit of a rant there.  Just so annoying that a programme like this can band all the responsible breeders with what I hope is just a few totally irresponsible ones.


----------



## TarrSteps (20 August 2008)

The idea that "some people do worse" isn't really a defence in any arena, but leaving that aside I think what's most worrying to people not involved in dog showing, looking in at the situation, is how little the people involved SEEM to care about the dogs involved.

Yes, they love them and talk in glowing terms about the breed etc. but then they KNOWINGLY reproduce an animal with proven health problems.  The reason is immaterial - love or money, they're still putting dogs on the ground that will most likely suffer in completely unnecessary ways.  THAT'S the hard part to fathom.

To knowingly breed a conformation/genetic makeup that leads to suffering seems insane to me, be it a brain condition or turned in eyelids.  It would be so easy to stop doing that and I think that's the part that stuns people.

But then again, horse people do that all the time.  Technically speaking, anyone who breeds a horse that did not remain sound because of a conformation fault in potentially making another horse with the same fault that will have the same restricted future.  (All very well to say one is "fixing" the fault by careful choice of a mate but genetics don't actually work that way.)

And both the Kennel Club and the breed organisations actually SAY they have the dogs' best interests at heart - they have codes of conduct/ethics etc.  Perhaps if they just said, "We don't care.  Prettiest dog wins." people might be a little more aware that they cannot rely on getting a healthy dog just because it's registered.

On the rescue/rehoming front, I got my current dog from a small one that concentrates on the type of dog I wanted and had a superior experience.  They visited and interviewed me, the dog was in a foster home where he was systematically tested with cats, kids, recall etc., all of which was reported both on the website and to me personally, he was seen by a vet and received whatever he needed before being rehomed, and we were encouraged to use the rescue, knowledgeable about this particular type of dog, as a resource after we got him.  True, I know many pedigree breeders who would offer the same framework and I would never deal with one that didn't.

I thought the program was biased - they could have shown more people on the other side of the story - but they were going for sensationalism.  The good part is at least it gets people talking and breeders can defend themselves publicly however they please.  I don't think simply saying spina bifida or a neurological condition is "rubbish" is exactly a defence though . . .


----------



## HeatherAda (20 August 2008)

I see what your saying but the judges interviewed last night were adamant that breed standards were the be all and end all.  Who sets the standards - the KC...?


----------



## cefyl (20 August 2008)

Breed standards are set by the breed society with approval from the KC.  The UK KC standards differ in the main part for each breed from the American KC and the FCI, the variation depends on the breed but it may be a slight difference in the shape of the rear / front feet.  

Interestingly it is a strict NO NO to film dogs in the show ring WITHOUT permission from each individual exhibitor.  I take it that the BBC footage shown from Crufts of the Bassetts, GSD, and others was from their footage taken for their own live programme each day of the show in March.  There could be cause for the exhibitors to come down on the BBC for later showing this out of the context of the original show coverage.


----------



## Alibear (20 August 2008)

Not reading all the way , read  2 pages through.
THe breeders that cull the pups that don't make the grade. 
Well isn't that actually better than adding them to the 1000's of unwanted dogs we already have in this country? Is it not better to give them a certain and peacful (I Hope) end rather then send them off to very uncertain lives?
After all we have many posts on here about PTS our lame or older horses rather than trying to loan or sell them on the uncertain futures?
Just a thought.


----------



## girla (20 August 2008)

What was shown on TV last night has been going on for years. There are many reputiable breeders and exactly the same amount of un reputiable breeders. Demand will always be there and so will the supply.

Responsible horse breeders have there stallions vetted and licensed (i did) and even though i loved my welsh cobs and bred some good horses i stopped breeding in the end because i just felt that there were just too many foals out there and to many bad homes they ended up in.

If every stud dog was made to have a compulsory vetting and then obtain a license surely this would help towards cutting down on bad confirmation etc.

One last comment i was absolutely gutted to see the state of the so called prize winning german shepherds. I have never seen such deformed confirmation and terrible movement in a dog, and to think that judges were awarding them championships send s shivers down my spine.

Money leads to a lot of evils if you know what i mean


----------



## Sooty (20 August 2008)

Little bit different, because they were culling pups purely because their aesthetics were wrong. In the case of the Ridgebacks, if what the vet said is correct, the ones without the ridge were better physical specimens than those with (the ridge is caused by a mild type of Spina Byfida).


----------



## Acolyte (20 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
do you know what your talking about  !!!!
 or are you just referring to a man who used a gun to killed unregistered 'flapping' dogs which the press then made headlines with ( and no i seriously don't agree with that either)

registered dogs are mainly put into organisations to re-home or they have to have a good reason to pts not all greyhounds are suitable for homing in much the same way as some pet dogs aren't actually suited to being pets !!!! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I do know what I am talking about thanks, I have had rescue greyhounds for about eight years now and have read a lot of information which the rescue organisation has available


----------



## kick_On (20 August 2008)

i was genuine shock last nite with programme. 

Are some people blind to conformation defects (german sheppard springs to mind). Even if breed standard!!!!!!!! i'm sorry WTF the dog couldn't walk sound!!!! totally out of order

I think the industry does need a GOOD kick up the bum to get it's house in order. And this is a good way to bring it more into public eye.

As most things i'm sure there are good breeder out there and have their dogs screened and use a bit more brain in NOT inbreeding through parental lines. BUT others in my eyes are greeding money grabbing bast8rd and have a totally warped sense of totally inbreeding.............

If i ever got dog, i'll be off to local resue centre


----------



## Fantasy_World (20 August 2008)

QR I too watched this programme last night and was appalled by it.
In my opinion it was not biased. What other sides of the story could they show? The programme was about the KC and breeders and the practice of breeding unhealthy and deformed dogs. While it is true that there are millions of happy tail wagging pedigree dogs living their lives in good homes with equally satisfied owners, that is not what the programme was about so why was there a need to show perfectly 'normal' dogs as I think many of us can surely see many of those in our day to day lives.
The programme was an expose. True while many people may be already aware of the problems that are surfacing ( and have been for years) in pedigree dogs, there are those who perhaps might not know and it was for those people this programme was made for.
I don't think the documentary was sensational in my opinion. In fact I think the coverage of Crufts is more sensational including the old TV adverts of champion dogs being fed by certain dog food manufacturers.
I was not aware of the condition affecting CKCS at all. My dad used to own one and I can say that they have been a favourite little dog of mine for a while as they are charming to look at and have wonderful temperaments. I found the footage of the dogs suffering with the condition who later died very distressing. But even more distressing was the dismissive views of some of the breeders who were depicted last night. The woman outside parliament for example. What a snotty woman she was ( could say worse). Talk about not looking past the end of your nose. The lady she was  referring to in the first place who had been interviewed after her dog won a show well what do they say about brains and looks. How the hell could this woman allow her dog to sire litters when he was suffering with that awful condition and would pass it onto his progeny is beyond me. The same could be said of the woman who vehemently stated that she would not pay for her dogs to have CT scans. Does the phrase eating into profits spring to mind? Because it does to me. Breeding dogs in my opinion should be about producing healthy , disease and condition free dogs. Whether that in turn means extra costs for the breeders so be it. How the hell could anyone defend that they want to produce true to dog types and prevent a breed becoming existent when people around them are breeding specimens that will ultimately lead to the demise of the said breed is beyond me? Instead of all this defensive attitude of we dont think like that and not all breeders are the same and having a go at people who are questioning breeding ethics including last nights journalists and people on this forum for example ; why not do something  even more constructive and turn your attentions to the very people who are fellow breeders? The breeders who are in turn not only slurring the very name of a pedigree dog breeder but who are also jeopardising the health and in some cases the very existence of some breeds by their attitudes and own actions!
While we are on the subject I do believe that many dog breeders do it for the money. Even allowing for stud ( if needed), medical intervention, feed, vaccinations (which is usually covered by the high price for the puppy anyway), worming and sometimes insurance I would love for someone to show me a poor pedigree dog breeder and one who makes no profit at all from selling their puppies even allowing for such thing as deaths and illness too!
When referring to actual breeds the pugs are just cruel beyond belief. To produce dogs that that can barely breath and are in danger of overheating. Cue the part where the Crufts champion was placed on an ice mat for the photo shoot. There was a woman who was dismissive of their suffering who said something like they may pass out and then come round again. WTF! Even the champion dog of 2003 it was revealed had had surgery on his soft palate because it was interfering with his breathing too much. A palate which was produced by breeding and part of his genetic makeup. Which in turn he would pass onto to any of his offspring but that wouldnt matter because he was KC registered and had won Crufts so he would be in high demand. Personally I thought the couple with the pug were cruel. That dog should have been pts with all its conditions and ailments. 
The same was true of the boxer with epilepsy. Now true I know that dogs can lead normal lives with that condition so long as they have medication. It is a subject close to my heart because my mums last dog a border collie died at the vets through a massive fit when in for the night under observation. But I think with the boxer the medication it was on was a lot. The fitting was horrible and as someone who did a lot of research about it a few years ago it is very, very distressing for the animal. That boxer was in severe distress. Now whether it had been brought upon by withholding medication so as to induce a fit for cameras I dont know( very questionable code of ethics if that were true) or whether it is still fitting with meds I dont know for certain. But surely if it was the latter then how many drugs i.e. type and quantity can you give to a dog before it is deemed a cruel waste of a life? One interviewee said last night that dogs are very stoical and dont usually show outward suffering. The boxer last night certainly did. Its howls were very upsetting as that was distress. The dog was most probably blind and/or deaf at the time. 
The GSDs shown were awful. My friend had one years ago. He was a direct descendant of a champion as I saw his granddad or greatgrandad ( cant remember which) in a book once and neither looked like the show type of today. Carpet, rug or no surface that was poppycock. That dog was lame! Its gait was uneven. Its back looked odd. It did not look anything like the GSD dogs that I remember as a kid and I am only talking late 70s-80s. Cruel just plain cruel. I just cannot comprehend or condone the breeding of any animal for fashion and to make them look aesthetically pleasing for influential individuals especially at the expense of health and welfare of the said animals.
Dont start me on Ridgebacks either. My uncle has two. One healthy and the other which has had to have growths removed ( most probably the type discussed in last nights programme). I know of someone who owns a ridge less too and she is a very sweet dog. It angered me to hear that it is acceptable practice by their own club to cull ridge less pups. Surely finding a pet home and neutering would be a better alternative. To cull an unhealthy individual fair enough but to do it purely on the grounds of cosmetic reasons and the inability to have them KC registered is not a valid excuse in my opinion!
As for inbreeding too and incestual pairings between individuals I find that not only morally sick but also very worrying from a genetics point of view. Over the years I have bred small animals, gerbils, hamsters and now ferrets occasionally. I keep records and never ever have I ever inbred any of them. My own morals stop me from doing it as well as the fear of producing individuals who may or may not be unhealthy either in the first, second, third and so on generations. For me personally the risk is too great. I cannot comprehend dog breeders especially who do this. There needs to be a complete review of the breeding ethics by the KC in my opinion. People may not like being told what to do but it is sheer stupidity and blatant disregard for mother nature that has helped to create these dogs that have so many genetic faults. The buck has to stop somewhere. Someone has to be responsible. In my opinion it should be the people who are responsible for regulating the breeding of pedigree dogs since it is the KC status that gives breeders the edge over non KC registered rivals in the first place when it comes to prices, showing status and credibility. 

There is so much more I could say about this programme. I admired the lady who was campaigning about the condition in CKCS  and I commend her efforts. I was appalled by some of the attitudes towards her though. I think the grey haired man ( cant remember his name) who was speaking on behalf of the KC who laughed a lot ( including outside parliament) was a comedian. His whole attitude on the matter was a joke. Personally I have a great deal of time for the RSPCA head vet Mark Evans ( not necessarily the organisation though) who spoke on their behalf last night. I can remember him from BBC childrens TV programmes from a few years back. He has a great deal of knowledge about animals which I have seen him display countless times on TV over the years so I was really annoyed by one comment by someone on another thread about him. I have viewed him over the years as someone who is very sensitive and very passionate about animal care and welfare so was appalled to read what I did. I dont think he was being sensational in his approach and choice of words. He is clearly a man who cares deeply about animals. 
I only hope that now this subject has made national TV that something good can come from it. Eyes have been opened in some cases and I think any breeder good or bad should seriously question their own codes of practice as well as others. The buying public need to be more aware of what they are taking on. Personally I would recommend a rescue dog or mongrel any day. I have two. One is a crossbreed from the RSPCA, the other a JRT who may look like a pure bred but isnt. Had her from some nice gypsy folk. She has her tail too, only drawback is hind dew claws which I wish I had had removed a pup as the nails can be  a pain to cut sometimes. She is also what looks like a pudding JRT in that her back length is longer than the height from the front. But I wouldnt have her any other way. We have thought about pedigree dogs though and I would like a mini YT to be honest when the older dog passes away as he is older than the JRT and I dont like keeping animals alone that are group animals. When the times comes I will look for another rescue dog and give it a good home. I would not buy from a breeder personally as I think in most cases dogs are overpriced. You could buy a horse or pony cheaper than what you could for a puppy in some cases which is absurd.

sorry for long post 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Caz


----------



## MotherOfChickens (20 August 2008)

I've had rescue dogs all my life and done my utmost for them-they've mostly been great dogs. however, 10 years of living and coping with a completely neurotic collie and the sudden presence of kids in my life led to to take on a pedigree pup. havent regretted it for a minute-he's well socialised, well trained and fabulous to have around and I get really pi55ed at people suggesting I should feel guilty in some way for not having a rescue. I did all my home work and chose a breed not given to conformation/health problems.

wrt dog breeders, they've been at this for decades-take away a dogs (or horses!) job and you get an animal at the mercy of people's ideas of what they want them to look like with no regard to soundness etc, its gross.


----------



## M_G (20 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Kennel club response to programme:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1993/23/5/3 

[/ QUOTE ]

How can the even try to say they would never put looks above health did you see the German Shepherd???
 FFS the poor animal could hardly walk, if the KC judges did not place such bizarre looking and unsound dogs over healthy sound animals then surely the breeders who  *do*  breed to win would start breeding for health


----------



## Hovis_and_SidsMum (20 August 2008)

I don't want to add too much on my views on the program because I might fill several pages suffice to say it was extremely distressing.
Interestingly last friday I took our pedigree GS to the vets for her jabs.  There I was sat with a woman with her GS who was the same age as mine.  Hers was obviously crippled with its back end and looked really odd - she however turned to me and said that Amazon was quite cute for a mongrel!!
Amazon is a real working dog type GS, fit as a fiddle but looks nothing like a show GS.  When I told her my dog was actually a pedigree she smiled and said I was obviously "done".
Cue the vet (bless him) actually piping up as he came to get Am and I that she was in far better health than hers and he'd rather see them like mine any day. 
My point being that this was a lay person off the street who now believes a GS should look like those horrific examples on the TV and if its doesn't they wouldn't buy it.
The whole thing makes me feel ill.


----------



## M_G (20 August 2008)

I was so horrified to see the "show" GS...If ever I buy a dog it will be a working dog from a breeder who has the animals best interest at heart


----------



## jacks_mum (20 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can the even try to say they would never put looks above health did you see the German Shepherd???
 FFS the poor animal could hardly walk, if the KC judges did not place such bizarre looking and unsound dogs over healthy sound animals then surely the breeders who  *do*  breed to win would start breeding for health 

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly My point earlier but more concisely put.


----------



## M_G (20 August 2008)

I went back and read all the posts &amp; great minds think alike eh


----------



## ladyt25 (20 August 2008)

Right I have not been able to read ALL these posts (there are soo many and i guess that's good the programme has made people realise what goes on). I was pretty much appalled by the attitude of the KC and the judges (especially that rude lady who turned up to court, made her snide comment but then didn't have the balls to justify herself!)

I just find it disgraceful that these breeders of pedigree dogs care more about what the dog looks like rather than the dogs health or well being. Why do not any of them grow a pair and stand up to the KC 'rules and regulations'??? Honestly, what sort of people are they. If more thought "actually, that doesn't look good, that animal looks in severe discomfort/pain" then that animal would NOT then be used to breed from. That pug was revolting - i thought that at the time when it won.

And as for that horrible fat, smug KC rep bloke (could have happily punched him!), he was just pathetic and came up with no good arguments and half the time didn't even answer teh reporetr's question.

Honestly I could go on with this but will be FAR too long (prob is already) but surely common sense and animals welfare issues should be the most important aspects. WHY breed from a dog (KCS) you know has a severe disease that is so debilitating and results in such suffering? That is just totally irresponsible. Oh and I think these people need to get some basic understanding of genetics - breeding mother/son etc?? WTF!!! Even wolves and many other animals in the wild do not do that - they have an alpha male and female!


----------



## xspiralx (20 August 2008)

Could someone please post some pictures of the difference between "working" type dogs and show bred dogs? I know they are different but I don't have much experience, and I think it would be interesting to see.


----------



## abb123 (20 August 2008)

We have a pedigree golden retriever. We went to a KC registered breeder after doing our research as we were told from lots of different sources that these would be reputable breeders and we would get a healthy dog. He has had a lot of skin tumours and had to undergo several particularly aggressive surgeries to remove them.  I wouldn't swap him for the world but I wish that we had got a working version of the breed as it could have saved us so much distress for both him and us. We thought we were doing the right thing.....


----------



## prose (20 August 2008)

They're not a working breed any longer, but Boston Terriers haven't, for the most part, changed that much since the early twentieth century (the breed was established in 1891 and split away from the earlier pit bull-type dogs). 

Boston from the 1920s







My Stella







I do see some worrying trends in my breed, with dogs getting way too small, too pug-like in the nose. On the plus side, one of the reasons they do so poorly in the show ring is because the breed is fairly new and tends to throw mismark colours and a huge variety of sizes, structures and head shape.

This is Stella, 17lbs. That is Catfish, 29lbs.







I hope to god we stay where we are in terms of appearance etc. Stella is my running companion, the unofficial world champion at fetch, and a sane, happy dog. She lost her eye in a tragic accident three months ago--which had nothing to do with her short nose, as she whacked her head behind her ear and damaged the optic nerve--but she has been genetically healthy. The vet always comments on her excellent heart-rate and perfect knees, hips and back. I will be so upset if we start seeing BTs really struggling like pugs in the heat, or as tiny, wispy dogs, reduced to nothing like the modern day Yorkshire Terrier.

She's fast as a bunny 
	
	
		
		
	


	





And she can fly


----------



## prose (20 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Acolyte, i can see where in certain cases the whole "breed standard" is wrong.
i can go and buy a pug for £800 and that dog is likely to have respitory problems amongst other things. that to me is not carefully selected breeding. 
if someone could show me a pug that did was not going to show up a whole host of problems later on down the line i might think about it but until then.....
now i know there are some very good breeders out there, and its only a few that bring everyone else down, but in certain breeds i can sort of see the argument here 

[/ QUOTE ]

They do exist. I don't know where these dogs hail from, but there are literally thousands of pugs in NYC, and they run the gamut from being fat, waddling and hardly able to breathe, and longer-legged, very slim and able to outrun just about any other dog at the park. I'll see if I can try to get a picture of two black pugs at my dog park that are leggy and lean.


----------



## claire1976 (20 August 2008)

Wow, I've not read all the posts but I am not surprised this programme evoked such a response.
It was a thought provoking programme and echo's my concerns that for years now (many) breeders have become irresponsible and greedy by continuing to produce dogs for cosmetic reasons and not for the good of the breed.  The breed standards set by breed clubs, and approved by the KC, have been monumentily altered in the last 100 years.  I would urge anyone who doesn't believe this to go to their library and reasearch historical pictures of dogs, especially working ones.  They are a world away from the dogs we see today.
Most dogs were bred with a purpose in mind yet if you put any of these modern day champs to work in that field of purpose they would be dead on their knee's.
The GSD's shown were horrendous and it's no wonder that the british police try to keep breeding in house as there is no way these poor dogs could scale walls etc with back legs like those.
As for ridgebacks, well this is truly shocking, the likelihood is that the ridge is formed due to a defect but yet this is encouraged. Unbelievable.
The cavaliers were truly hearbreaking to see and the woman with the champion with a severe neurological problem showed no remorse when admitting her stud dog has sired many litters. Truly irresponsible.
The KC need to stop being ruled by their members beliefs. They are a governing body and should govern for the good of the breed and not to please some upper class twits who are spoiling dogs long term. Genetics play a massive part in the future of some of our best loved breeds and the KC need to step in fast and re-think the breed 'standards' for many, many breeds.


----------



## joeanne (20 August 2008)

Prose i think that might be as stateside they have been bred to be healthy, in the uk i have certainly never seen a healthy pug, and i certainly couldnt afford to buy, import and quarentine one from the states! LOL


----------



## Onyxia (20 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
I think the pictures of the various breeds from years ago look so much better. Add to that the fact that they were healthier then i really dont understand why on earth these stupid, ignorant people would carry on breeding them like that? 

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure about that?
Got any evidence?
IMO,we will never know for sure if all breeds had better health then or now because we couldnt test them 100 years ago the way we can now.
I have known plenty of perfectly healthy purebred dogs as well as shcking walking vets bills of crosses- a lot is down to luck.

[ QUOTE ]
Who wants a dog that can barely breathe or walk? Surely if you have to be putting your dog on an ice pack so it doesnt die thats a bloody great clue that something's not right. 

[/ QUOTE ]
You would think so 
	
	
		
		
	


	




I dont agree that ALL breeds are in a bad way as the show says-but some are beyound doubt allready in a lot of trouble.
Surely anyone can see that breeding a flat face in pugs is not for the good of the animal?Or that the ld bulldog was far better looking and looks able to do the job it was bred for which the version we see today couldnt possably.


----------



## Adina (20 August 2008)

Well I didn't watch the programme but have heard about it.  I'll add my views as a GSD breeder - over 20 yrs ago.  When I first went to Africa I took dog and bitch with me and I had a lot of pleasure breeding and showing my dogs.  That bitch was X-rayed but at that time hip-scoring was not available.  A second bitch I was able to have hipscored with a score of 0 !!  I bred for soundness in mind and body.  It is my view that there has to be a pet market for those that dont make it in the show ring - so they have to have excellent temperaments and free from health issues.
We had visiting judges from UK or Germany.  I well remember one UK judge telling how she argued with her co-judge over the selection for Best of Breed.  Her co-judge wanted to award to the bigger dog as it made him more dramatic !  But he was over-sized - so he wanted to but an incorrect dog over a correct one.  Judges should award to the standard not something dramatic.
I haven't bred dogs in the UK- I'm fussy about homes.  I sold most of mine when I was abroad by word of mouth.  I do have a rescue GSD but she has a gluten allergy, narrow ear canals so they get gummed up and infected, a tail so flat over her anus that repeated infections meant her anal glands had to be removed.  Her temperament is lovely but she had been incorrectly trained as a guard dog - so was very confused.
On another issue- look at Hyenas, they can run for miles clamber over obstacles.  They are not unsound but have a peculiar shape and movement.  Say no more.


----------



## MooMoo (20 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]

Sure about that?
Got any evidence? 

[/ QUOTE ]

there's no need to be like that about it, its just what i think

the pugs from 60 years ago or whatever didnt have flat faces, he ones today that do can barely breathe so yes i would say that they were healthier.


----------



## Baggybreeches (20 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
So why do dog advertised in the local paper cost £150 for a mutt, and a Pug costs £800? 

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience what dogs are advertised at and what they sell for are 2 completely different things......

As an example, I bred my own litter of pups, from my male dog who I had since he was a pup and had been asked on many occasions to use him as a stud (he is German Shorthair Pointer X Lab) I turned down all offers. By chance I rescued a Choc Lab bitch from an unsuitable home and 2 years later we let them mate. She had 9 puppies, we lost one overnight on the first night (this was her first litter) I sold 6 of the pups at £150 each, I kept 1 and gave one to my nephew. Keeping 8 puppies for 8 weeks including good quality food &amp; wormers, not to mention the hours put in, I dont think I made a profit of more than £100, so £100 for 8 weeks work is hardly raking it in is it?
Just incase anybody wishes me eternal damnation, the bitch will not be bred from again as we have subsequently found out that her hips are poor (due to being severely overweight in adolescence) and poor old Chip has had his knackers off!


----------



## CorvusCorax (20 August 2008)

Hmm, was loath to comment on this as I didn't see the show.

But QR....My two bobs' worth as regards GSDs.....

-The dogs that reach the top in Germany HAVE to have working qualifications (in a number of different disciplines) so I don't really see the 'showy German types can't work' points that have been made.
Horses for courses, as they say.

-A dog moving in a small triangle on a shiny carpet that is used to running at an extended trot for long periods around an athletics track or similar is going to look a bit odd.

- I don't respect Crufts as a barometer of quality, I thought it was a bit belittling of the Sieger to have him there at all, personally.
Also, the German showing and breeding system and their whole outlook is very different to what we have in the UK.

-Most of my favourite dogs have been from the 70s and 80s and to my mind, could easily win today. 

We have left the show scene and have not bred a litter since the late 80s, so I am not being biased.


----------



## MurphysMinder (20 August 2008)

According to a post on a GSD forum, the first 2 GSDs shown on that programme were actually veterans. So whilst they weren't very good specimens (imo), some unsoundness could perhaps be excused, and more to the point, slightly devious of the programme makers not to mention that fact.  Zamp, the Crufts winner did appear to be moving very cow hocked.  As I posted earlier on this thread I have never seen him in the flesh but cannot believe that the German Sieger is not a fundamentally sound, good moving dog.  As HH says the dogs in Germany have to work before winning top awards, and also have to have their hips x rayed and of a certain standard.
I'm not in any way trying to justify unsound dogs winning, when I was judging I always asked to see the dogs go on a loose lead so I could see if they were sound front and back.  Sadly many were not, and this was over 20 years ago so doesn't look like much has changed.


----------



## Onyxia (20 August 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sure about that?
Got any evidence? 

[/ QUOTE ]

there's no need to be like that about it, its just what i think

[/ QUOTE ]
Just a question,not intented to come across nasty so sorry if it did.
Point is,we KNOW nearly every tiny fault with dogs today because we can test them to a very high standared.
100 years ago we could not so although we may assume they were better its not known for sure although, its a damn good guess from looking that some breeds have gone very downhill,pugs/peks being the first to spring to mind.
The overly flat faces are disgusting to look at and are beyound doubbt responsable for lots of problems.

[ QUOTE ]
the pugs from 60 years ago or whatever didnt have flat faces, he ones today that do can barely breathe so yes i would say that they were healthier. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Cant agree more,but the show was trying to say EVERY breed si worse for ear now and were better then 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Some are MUCH worse (personaly the pug from yesteryear is something I wouldnt be ashamed to be seen out with,the modern pug I wouldnt touch for any reason!) but some are no worse and some are better.

Inherited problems dont pop up over night so muct have been there in the old breeding stock but unnown because of lack of ability to test them.
Solution?
Simple to say,hard to put into practise- reward healthy dogs and their breeders with the ribbons and dismiss anything that isnt healthy no matter how "good" it might look.
Surely it wouldnt be too tricky to ask breeders/handlers to take a vet cert saying the dog is in good health to shows? We all get our animals checked over when they go for their jabs anyway...
But IMO the biggest thing that needs to change is the law(or rather lack of) re dog breeding.
It wouldnt stop backyard breeders after a fast buck,but changing the law to force anyone thinking of breedign to have some health tests done on the dogs and then to only breed from ones with vets stamp of aprovel would put off breeders with a reputation to maintain from breeding when they know their is a problem.


----------



## MooMoo (20 August 2008)

its ok d/w about it. i didnt really get that vibe from the show as it showed some really extreme examples although i suppose it could be interpreted that way. i agree the law needs to change as it seems the kennel club and basically everyone involved isnt taking responisibilty/actions to change.

i also think its a shame that the genuine breeders who steer away from inbreeding and breeding disease into dogs are basically tarred with the same brush. those are the ones that should be leading the example to others. unfortunately these "others" just think they know better/just dont care.


----------



## The Original Kao (22 August 2008)

well i've just been an watched it. i cried watching that poor boxer 
	
	
		
		
	


	




if it's on that much meds and still fitting and being that distressed i'd have it PTS rather than allowing him to suffer anymore.
i also had no idea about the ridgebacks. i'm gobsmacked.
a friend of mine when i was a kid had 1 and he was gorgeous and such a lovely natured dog, never researched  into the breed tho, so my eyes have now been opened. 
if i do decide to get 1 in the future i'll be asking for a rhodesian non ridgebacked dog. 
i have 1 pedigree dog, a great dane, i didn't pick her, my old boss has had us looking after her since february. she's still here. 
wonderful temperament, very pretty and thankfully very healthy. huge and drooling tho 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 not sure if i'd go out and buy 1 as it seems buying pedigree dogs is a bit of a lottery anyway unless you really know your breed and know of reputable breeders 1st or 2nd hand. 
our family dog is a black lab, not registered and she's out of a chocolate lab, her sire is a working black lab. tho she has some white on her (white on her tummy and a few white hairs on her leg-like 4 of them) so maybe her dad was actually a springador? who knows? but she's a fab temperament and no real health issues apart from smelly itchy ears. she cost us £140 and she's the best dog anyone could've asked for 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 not biased at all


----------

