UK BBC "Pedigree Dogs Exposed"

Chuffy

 This is what drove me nuts when we had the Docking Debate.... snipping off a dogs tail is NOTHING next to the deformities that are being bred into some breeds, in the name of "breeding for type". YUK!  THAT is mutilation.

Sorry, I don't mean to go OT or spark a dialogue on docking... but if they WANTED to ban it they ought to have tackled this issue first IMO. 

But how do you legislate something like that?  Who decides what is a deformity and what isn't?  

Let's say that you want to end assisted breeding and whelping for bulldogs.  That is going to take some time.  If you just ban the breeding of any dog that cannot breed or whelp on its own then you would wipe out the entire breed.  If you don't so it that way then how do you measure success--monitor every bulldog breeder?  Most people have trouble getting animal control to remove loose and dangerous dogs, much less monitor the breeding practices of bulldog breeders.  

I wish people would realize that they are not going to fix this issue by making into an "Us vs Them" deal.  Referring to peoples' pets as "mutants" because they are purebred and comparing fanciers to N-a-zis only puts people on the defensive.  Jack is not a "mutant"----he is my buddy, my sunshine, my companion, my friend---and I'm sure that owners of bulldogs, Boston terriers, etc don't feel any differently about their dogs....

ETA--Am I the only one that finds it silly that the name of a historical if evil political party is edited by the filter? 

sillysally

You think what Gina says is untrue?  Pretty much the entire horse racing industry counts on the fact that drive makes up for structural faults......

I have a lab with elbow dysplasia, and maybe he's just weird, but I completely see this in him.. I'm convinced he actually has no idea anything is amiss with his body.  *I* am the one that limits what he can do--he would do the things he loves all day long regardless of his elbow.  Maybe this is not true of all dogs, but certain dogs have been bred (by performance breeders, BTW) to be less aware of pain so that they can work longer in less favorable conditions. 

When the dog is competing against the clock and against dogs that do not have structual faults, particularly at the top levels of competition, you will see such dogs starting to not win events like they use to do, and as the structual fault increases in severity you will see owners retiring their dogs. Then sometime later you'll see some owners come back to the scene with a young upstart.

Structual faults could even affect things like scenting ability even in champion tracking dogs, say like in difficult sections of the scent track where they start taking ages to try to work their way through it and where they start to give up trying and where previously they did such sections rather easily, and where this can become obvious over time as the structual fault increases in severity where the giving up tends to increase in proportion. Yes I've had a number of dogs over the years who were also champion tracking dogs with great drive, and I have personally experienced what I've just mentioned, and over the years I have known a number of others tracking enthusiasts who also had such experiences.

 However, I have still personally never seen documentation that there are less incidents of dysplasias, etc in dogs bred for field work/competition.  Actually, I've run into a number of lab people who breed dogs for hunting that have not yet OFA'd their dogs....

Before any of you judge based on the article, please watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1LyjlX4Mp8

It has interviews with representatives from the kennel club and crufts, and personal account stories.

I think this puts it into perspective of why it's so F**** up.   I can't even believe what some of the Crufts judges actually say to justify things like "culling Rhodesian Ridgeback puppies that are perfectly healthy and born without a ridge," and one that says "the ideal show GSD isn't supposed to be a working dog" blah blah.

 It's about time someone's looked into this.
 

sillysally

Actually, I've run into a number of lab people who breed dogs for hunting that have not yet OFA'd their dogs....

Talking about Labs here is something interesting. With the Lab Clubs in Australia if breeders want to register pups then they MUST do health testing, if not then the pups registration will not be processed by the registry, and this has been in effect for some years. I hear their registry has updated their computer and software, and the registry is including health testing information on pedigree certificates. Via this link have a read of this on a Lab Club website, document in Microsoft Word format:-
http://www.labvic.org.au/Documents/Certificate%20checklist.doc

Just to add, I was reading some more through that Lab Club's website and found it interesting and the word MUST being used even regarding eye certificates, I might do some more reading, anyway if interested here is a link:-
http://www.labvic.org.au/Pages/Pups%20Pages/pup_code_ethic.htm
.

papillon806

It's about time someone's looked into this.
 

I think so too. I was just on a UK forum and was reading about that Cavalier who won their Champ Show, and where the Nero Specialist was talking about that skull brain condition where it's like a size 10 foot squeezed into a size 6 shoe. Well on the forum someone in the US came on and mentioned they imported and obtained a puppy from that Champ Show wining dog, and that puppy later on developed that skull brain condition and at the age of 2 had to have special surgery which cost heaps, and 6 months later died. That owner has got veterinary documentation and pedigree certificate which shows the sire was that Cavalier that won the Champ Show. Then watching the entire video of the documentary which goes for about an hour, well I think it's about time someone looked into the scene.

sillysally

Chuffy

 This is what drove me nuts when we had the Docking Debate.... snipping off a dogs tail is NOTHING next to the deformities that are being bred into some breeds, in the name of "breeding for type". YUK!  THAT is mutilation.

Sorry, I don't mean to go OT or spark a dialogue on docking... but if they WANTED to ban it they ought to have tackled this issue first IMO. 

 

But how do you legislate something like that?  Who decides what is a deformity and what isn't?  

I don't deny that legislating it would be a major problem.  But I believe that poor breeding practises cause A LOT more suffering than tail docking ever did.  Docking was a scape goat if you ask me... they wanted to be seen to be doing SOMETHING about animal cruelty and docking was something "easy" to tackle. 

Quincy

sillysally

Actually, I've run into a number of lab people who breed dogs for hunting that have not yet OFA'd their dogs....

Talking about Labs here is something interesting. With the Lab Clubs in Australia if breeders want to register pups then they MUST do health testing, if not then the pups registration will not be processed by the registry, and this has been in effect for some years. I hear their registry has updated their computer and software, and the registry is including health testing information on pedigree certificates. Via this link have a read of this on a Lab Club website, document in Microsoft Word format:-
http://www.labvic.org.au/Documents/Certificate%20checklist.doc

Just to add, I was reading some more through that Lab Club's website and found it interesting and the word MUST being used even regarding eye certificates, I might do some more reading, anyway if interested here is a link:-
http://www.labvic.org.au/Pages/Pups%20Pages/pup_code_ethic.htm
.

That's awesome.  it's nice to see a registry doing something like this for the health of the breed.  I really, really wish the AKC would do something like this.  But that might cut into their registration revenues .  If you come up with any more info on the subject, I would be interested in seeing it....

sillysally

That's awesome.  it's nice to see a registry doing something like this for the health of the breed.  I really, really wish the AKC would do something like this.  But that might cut into their registration revenues .  If you come up with any more info on the subject, I would be interested in seeing it....

One thing I do know is that registry delegates around the world periodically do have meetings over days, and I feel that they are aware of what is occurring with other registries around the world even in relation to the above. As to the AKC doing something, well that’s up to the AKC, Breed Clubs and including their Members where the vast majority are breeders/show exhibitors.

.

That is very interesting. I would *love* to see the AKC do something like that, particularly for breeds that are uber popular and commonly have debilitating congenital defects. My puppy came from a far less than scrupulous breeder, with full registration. I know *lots* of dogs who are registered, and being bred, and have terrible health and/or temperament issues.

DumDog

well the majority of you know how i feel about this... so i'll just say "ITS ABOUT TIME!"

.. if you didnt or couldnt watch the show you probably saved yourself some tears of grief for the suffering these highly prized purebreds go through....

i am an advocate for outcrossing RESPONSIBLY.. and i believe in the working dog... not the exclusively bred show dog. 

      Dumdog - I feel the same way, in that breeds that were created for work and still have work available to them SHOULD be used for work. But that's my opinion, my breeding program, my goals. It's not for me to say that so and so who only shows has beauty contest dogs, because I KNOW that is not true. Regardless of the working ability, there is still the same blood, sweat, tears that goes into breeding rabbit dogs as there is with dogs bred for conformation. When you start to sepearate different groups and classify one type of breeder as being the ones who are worthy to breed, and the others inferior or inherently irresponsible, that's the very note the AR's will play on. Anyone who believes we have the right to own and breed purebred dogs needs to be unified with ALL breeders or realize that YOUR right to own dogs - not just purebreds - but dogs in genreal is in jeopardy.

     This program HAS caused a frenzy in the UK. Something on the level of paranoia. On other dog boards with Brit members, people are saying that those who are walking purebred dogs are being harassed. The AR movement in the UK is strong. Hunting is banned, it's illegal to crop ears and dock tails, they were one of the first countries the first to ban breeds ... these are all AR goals that are being accomplished by their propoganda.

     I believe that people who want mutts should be free to own them, but to accuse breeders of purebred dogs - ANY purebreds - working or show - of intentionally breeding unhealthy dogs due to all the inbreeding is just ridiculous. But these people are buying it. They don't understand that health problems and extremism exist in all forms of life. No, it's show breeders who are causing dogs to have health problems. ::sigh:: Somedays I feel like this is a loosing battle. I'm sorry, but if you don't breed dogs, you just don't understand. It's an all encompassing hobby.

     The crux of the matter is this - even those who want shelter mutts - how long do you think it's going to be before neutering everything ensures that the population of shelter dogs die out? You do know it's the AR agenda to ensure none of us own dogs, right?

DumDog

yes that spaniel looked beautiful writhing around on the floor.... i'm sure he'd make an ideal therapy dog. he only has to lie there and be petted.

if the dog is just going to lie there like a stuffed animal to be petted then why not use a stuffed animal instead of breeding a dog to suffer with that sort of sickly life? i dont think thats very pretty.... and the breeds purpose for creation makes me sick too.

     Now that comparison is just assanine. Do you honestly think purebred breeders intentionally TRY to breed for genetic health problems? DO you understand that these issues, even in the best & most thought out breeding programs, still occur? That humans who are not inbred are afflicted with the very same genetic diseases? No one sets out to breed sick dogs, but EVERYONE will encounter them in their breeding program if they breed long enough - yes, even working dog breeders. So now you believe breeding for companions is despicable, that makes you sick? Oh, boy. Why do you have dogs yourself then? Someone bred them at one point, they didn't simply miraculously appear in the world. Breeding for companions is probably the single best reason to breed today, as most of our dogs, even the working/show ones are still pets. I believe it was Ray Coppinger who has said that is the direction breeders should be going in, but what does he know? The mor eemphasis placed on companionship & temperament the less dogs would be in shelters ... and sorry, but even those mutts that were accidents have health problems. I had a mix 20+ years ago that had a heart murmur AND epilepsy. And I do know people living with the latter disease, and they are not in physical pain, or suffering from it. They are at serious risk of injury from falling and brain damage should the seizures go unmanaged, but the disease itself is not painful. It's horrendous to watch, tho. Honestly, I don't understand your stance on breeders. You're plucking out examples of the msot extreme circumstances, breeders and suggesting it's all purebred dogs that aren't in the working group who are afflicted with inherent genetic problems tolerated by the breeders. That couldn't be farther from the truth. You have a small percentage of breeders who are ribbon chasers, yet the majority of show breeders are there to preserve and improve the breed.

HoundMusic

     Now that comparison is just assanine. Do you honestly think purebred breeders intentionally TRY to breed for genetic health problems? DO you understand that these issues, even in the best & most thought out breeding programs, still occur?

Well when you see a purebred Cavalier breeder in front of a camera in that documentary mentioning that they will NOT MRI test any of their dogs, where that is similar like a purebred Labrador breeder saying they will NOT Hip and Elbow test any of their dogs, well to me that makes me really wonder what in the hell is going on in the purebred dog scene and that something should be done about it. And there were a number of other things in that documentary that I think something should be done about it.

jennie_c_d

That is very interesting. I would *love* to see the AKC do something like that, particularly for breeds that are uber popular and commonly have debilitating congenital defects. My puppy came from a far less than scrupulous breeder, with full registration. I know *lots* of dogs who are registered, and being bred, and have terrible health and/or temperament issues.

The AKC offers a comprehensive set of voluntary and mandatory programs to ensure the integrity of the AKC registry: voluntary DNA Profiling; the Frequently Used Sires requirement; the Fresh-Extended/Frozen Semen requirement; the Multiple-Sired Litter Registration Policy; the Import Breeding Stock requirement; and the Kennel Inspections/Compliance Audit Program. The AKC has built the world's largest database of canine DNA profiles for parentage verification and genetic identity purposes.

 Oh dear. I'm partway through the program, but not thrilled with the coverage of ridgebacks. Ridgebacks are actually bred for function more than many other breeds. The ridge is not a defect. And whether or not to breed ridgeless RR's is a matter of frequent discussion in the ridgeback community. Breeders are working HARD to eliminate dermoid sinus. They are working HARD to keep puppy millers at bay, and to breed dogs that function as ridgebacks were intended to function. Are there idiots and callous people involved in ridgebacks? Sure. But they don't, in my experience, represent the breeding community as a whole.

I am a fan of breeding dogs for form and function,  with health and temperament at the top of the priority list. And for all of the talk about how much healthier mutts are, they also frequently come with temperament issues. Which ones they'll have is a roll of the dice, as their parentage is unknown.

I believe in rescue. I don't believe every breed needs to be kept going, simply because it exists. (I see no reason to keep breeding English bulldogs, for example.) I also believe, with all my heart, in purposefully breeding functional and reliable dogs.