UK BBC "Pedigree Dogs Exposed"

Dog_ma

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. 

 I couldn't agree with you more..  I love Rottweilers and Great Danes with all of my heart, and someday I hope to actively compete in showing and obedience with them.  People are jumping on purebred dogs, which have been around for hundreds of years, yet their overlooking designer dogs, which IMO are a far worse threat.  Haphazardly bred animals, with little or not thought to genetics, temperament or health.. these are the types of dogs which should be slowly fazed out.

Rottweilers have brilliant minds, and need to be worked.  Why more people don't compete in obedience/tracking/herding/Schutzhund etc. with them is beyond me.  Same goes for Danes, they can be more than just a good looking dog, yet when I mention that I'd like to title a Dane someday in obedience, people often chuckle.  I also believe that there are some breeds like the Bulldog, which are a walking disaster zone as far as health issues go, and really even properly bred Bulldogs are still ticking time bombs. 

A dog should be an equal combination of brains/working drive/temperament, health and conformation.  When an unethical person breeds dogs, tossing aside all of these considerations, it opens up a huge chasm of breed problems.  No dog should be bred for looks alone.

Honestly, I think a large part of the problem is that purebred dogs are a status symbol. People into a dog for status aren't really interested in the dog's abilities or talents. They often aren't equipped to deal with that particular breed's needs.

Get a purebred dog that fits your family. Don't get a purebred dog because its "better" or will help you keep up with the neighbors. 

Dog_ma

Oh dear. I'm partway through the program, but not thrilled with the coverage of ridgebacks.

To me the Rhodesian Ridgeback parts focus was on ETHICS. Their breed club’s “Code of Ethics” stated “Ridgeless puppies shall be culled at birth”, and which their members must comply with where failure to do so may place their club membership in jeopardy. I saw on camera one of their club members admitting this quite openly. When news that this was going to air the club went into damage control, which included deleting their website’s “Code of Ethics” page, see via this link and you will see now on that page “Currently under review” :-
http://www.rhodesianridgebacks.org/ethics.html
 
Do other Breed Clubs around the world cull (KILL) at birth healthy ridgeless puppies where they are NOT prone to Dermoid Sinus which is a congenital condition, well I think probably not and instead spay neuter such puppies and place them in pet homes.
 
To me the documentary was intended as a shake and wake up call to some of the problems in their backyard, and where public pressure will help to achieve this, and going by that Breed Club already reviewing their code of ethics I think some good for dogs is already coming from that documentary.

Edited in update - looks like things have happened for I noticed this "Ridgeless puppies should not be sold, but homed without pedigree certificate, at rearing cost only, with a written undertaking that it will be neutered", see via this link:-
http://www.rhodesianridgebacks.org/breederlist.html
.
.

Dog_ma

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.

First let me say right up front that I am not very experienced with the ridgeback breeds not am I trying to pretend to be knowledgeable about them, but I do have a few questions.  If the main concern of a breeder is that they breed healthy dogs why would someone follow a breed standard for these dogs that assures that a unhealthy trait (in this case the ridge) is not only accepted but actually required?  Wouldn't the "responsible" and "ethical" choice be to attempt to breed out the ridge which has been shown to predispose the dogs to dermoid sinus?  Instead it appears that in the upside down world of "show breeders" that were portrayed in this film they felt that one should kill the healthy dogs that do not have the ridge while breeding those that have the genetic defect that will cause a painful death.  How the heck is that considered "ethical"?

Mark

Marklf

 that were portrayed in this film

I think the above pretty much answers your questions.

I don't consider the ridge a defect. It was not artificially created by breeding for "cuteness." It existed naturally in a native African dog, and in the opinion of early colonialists the mixed dogs with ridges appeared to be better hunters. So they then brought in European dogs to cross with the native dogs so build a better all around farm and hunting dog. A ridge itself causes no problems. It is believed, but not known for sure, that two copies of the dominant ridge gene predispose a dog towards dermoid sinus. There is research being done to find out the cause of ds and eliminate it.

The breeders in the film were not, in my experience, representative of the ridgeback breeders I know. The ones I know aim to minimize dermoid sinus, with a focus on elimination in the long run. They don't overlook it, and they keep a pup with DS until it is old enough for surgery. Surgery is performed, and the dog is adopted out to a suitable home. Surgery sucks, but it is hardly a "painful death." They also don't cull ridgeless pups. That once happened frequently in all dog breeds, and thankfully culling healthy pups is getting less and less acceptable.  Ridgeless dogs are present at all our local RR fun day events. They are loved and appreciated as much as any "fancy" ridged dog.

BannedBreed Lover

People are jumping on purebred dogs, which have been around for hundreds of years, yet their overlooking designer dogs, which IMO are a far worse threat.  Haphazardly bred animals, with little or not thought to genetics, temperament or health.. these are the types of dogs which should be slowly fazed out.

What you seem to be ignoring is that purebred dogs are designer dogs!  What this film exposed was that many of these "purebred designer dogs" are being bred, not "hapazardly" but deliberately with little care about the genetics, temperament or health!  Yet somehow these are what pass for "responsible" and "ethical" breeders while BYB's and "puppy mills" are blamed for "ruining" dog breeds?

Mark

Dog_ma

I don't consider the ridge a defect. It was not artificially created by breeding for "cuteness." It existed naturally in a native African dog, and in the opinion of early colonialists the mixed dogs with ridges appeared to be better hunters.

It seems that some "experts" disagree with you. 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118727827/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

In that study the "experts" even refer to the ridge as a mutation. 

While the colonalist may have believe that the ridge somehow made them better hunters is there any scientific studies to support that?  Even if it is true that those with the ridges made better hunters does that justify the deleberate breeding of dogs that will be predisposed to dermoid sinus?  After all how many of these "show dogs" are being used to hunt lions?

Dog_ma

The breeders in the film were not, in my experience, representative of the ridgeback breeders I know. The ones I know aim to minimize dermoid sinus, with a focus on elimination in the long run. They don't overlook it, and they keep a pup with DS until it is old enough for surgery. Surgery is performed, and the dog is adopted out to a suitable home. Surgery sucks, but it is hardly a "painful death."

Actually from what the RR Club of the US says that surgery and the recovery from it is very traumatic and often not successful.  In many cases they recomend putting the dog down so as to avoid having it endure that "painful death".

http://rrcus.org/club/breedinfo/dermoid.htm

Dog_ma

They also don't cull ridgeless pups. That once happened frequently in all dog breeds, and thankfully culling healthy pups is getting less and less acceptable.  Ridgeless dogs are present at all our local RR fun day events. They are loved and appreciated as much as any "fancy" ridged dog.

Until this film was coming out the Breeders "Code of Ethics" required the breeders to cull those pups that were not born with the ridge mutation!  So it appears that those that were "ethical" would indeed cull healthy pups!  This is not just something that  "once happened".

 Mark

Marklf

While the colonalist may have believe that the ridge somehow made them better hunters is there any scientific studies to support that?  Even if it is true that those with the ridges made better hunters does that justify the deleberate breeding of dogs that will be predisposed to dermoid sinus?  After all how many of these "show dogs" are being used to hunt lions?

I think you might have a point there, and today does it really matter if the ridged ones might somehow make better lion hunters when heaps who breed and show plus heaps of pet owners do not go hunting lions.
 
Just a thought, way back when the Rhodesian Ridgeback was a multi crossbred dog it was then that the European Colonists dogs were actually being used by the Colonists to hunt lions, and even to protect their farms from wandering lions looking for a feed which did happen way back then. When European Colonists came in they multi crossed the dogs they brought with them with the dog the Rhodesian Natives were ALREADY USING FOR MILLENNIA to hunt lions and to protect their homes from wandering lions, the Natives used a "half-wild native hunting dog". Maybe in that "half-wild native hunting dog" it was the physical features and temperament including the "half-wild" that had more to do with the function in relation to lions than some ridged coat which grew in the opposite direction to what coat normally grows. The abnormal coat growth maybe an indication that other abnormal things just might happen in such an area, maybe even an abnormal thing like a Dermoid Sinus condition.

Marklf

BannedBreed Lover

People are jumping on purebred dogs, which have been around for hundreds of years, yet their overlooking designer dogs, which IMO are a far worse threat.  Haphazardly bred animals, with little or not thought to genetics, temperament or health.. these are the types of dogs which should be slowly fazed out.

What you seem to be ignoring is that purebred dogs are designer dogs!  What this film exposed was that many of these "purebred designer dogs" are being bred, not "hapazardly" but deliberately with little care about the genetics, temperament or health!  Yet somehow these are what pass for "responsible" and "ethical" breeders while BYB's and "puppy mills" are blamed for "ruining" dog breeds?

 

Mark

If I found out a breeder was deliberately breeding without knowlegde and/or care of genetics, temperment or health I would not call them "responsible".  Some breeders may have poor practises and still fool people that they are "responsible breeders", but they are NOT responsible, by definition, if they do not take utmost care over these things and they share in the blame of "ruining" breeds. 

Chuffy

If I found out a breeder was deliberately breeding without knowlegde and/or care of genetics, temperment or health I would not call them "responsible".  Some breeders may have poor practises and still fool people that they are "responsible breeders", but they are NOT responsible, by definition, if they do not take utmost care over these things and they share in the blame of "ruining" breeds. 

Take a look at the examples shown in this film.  How can one justify breeding those dogs such as the Cavalier King Charles with their skulls too small for their brains?  Or the ridgebacks which are deliberately bred to have a trait that predisposes them to dermoid sinus.  How about the Bassets that no longer even resemble their original "breed" but now drag their chest on the ground when they walk.  Can anyone really justify what they are doing to the GSD, those dogs could barely walk?  Or the bull terriers whose heads are deformed on purpose?  Or the English bull dogs that could no longer mate or give birth naturally, heck they cannot even breath right?  Yet ALL of those dogs are being bred to the "standard" for their breed by so called "responsible" and "ethical" breeders!  How can one condemn the "BYB" while turning a blind eye on the breeding policies of the "show breeders"?

 Mark

Marklf

Chuffy

If I found out a breeder was deliberately breeding without knowlegde and/or care of genetics, temperment or health I would not call them "responsible".  Some breeders may have poor practises and still fool people that they are "responsible breeders", but they are NOT responsible, by definition, if they do not take utmost care over these things and they share in the blame of "ruining" breeds. 

Take a look at the examples shown in this film.  How can one justify breeding those dogs such as the Cavalier King Charles with their skulls too small for their brains?  Or the ridgebacks which are deliberately bred to have a trait that predisposes them to dermoid sinus.  How about the Bassets that no longer even resemble their original "breed" but now drag their chest on the ground when they walk.  Can anyone really justify what they are doing to the GSD, those dogs could barely walk?  Or the bull terriers whose heads are deformed on purpose?  Or the English bull dogs that could no longer mate or give birth naturally, heck they cannot even breath right?  Yet ALL of those dogs are being bred to the "standard" for their breed by so called "responsible" and "ethical" breeders!  How can one condemn the "BYB" while turning a blind eye on the breeding policies of the "show breeders"?

 Mark

And you think that BYB's dogs are NEEVR afflicted with these problems?  Riiiight.

I am GLAD that breeder's with poor breeding practises are being exposed.  I don't automatically assume a breeder is responsible and ethical just because they show, or even just because they work their dogs.  YES, I think the dogs should be proven, but that is ony ONE box I want  ticked. 

If they show but do not do health tests, you can forget it.  If they show and do health tests but have no take-back policy on the pup - again, forget it!  If they show, do health testing, have a take back policy on the pup.... but the pups are kennel reared, or reared in squalor.... or whose dogs I can't meet because "they are out on a walk at the moment", "they are intimidated by strangers", "some other excuse because the dog frankly has a poor temperament", then yup, you guessed it.  I'm gonna run a mile.  Does this mean I struggle to find breeders I "like" enough to purchase from?  Yeah.  But that's the price you pay for having a standard and sticking to it.

Chuffy

And you think that BYB's dogs are NEEVR afflicted with these problems?  Riiiight.

 Nope thats not what I said!  I asked how one can condemn BYB but turn a blind eye to the breeding policies of the "show breeder".   I did not state or imply that BYB are not afficted with these problem. 

Chuffy

I am GLAD that breeder's with poor breeding practises are being exposed.  I don't automatically assume a breeder is responsible and ethical just because they show, or even just because they work their dogs.  YES, I think the dogs should be proven, but that is ony ONE box I want  ticked. 

But these breeders are following the "Code of Ethics" set out by the breed clubs!  In order to for a dog to be "proven" in the conformity ring they must follow the "standards" that the breed club established.  It seems however that many of those "standards" are detrimental to health and well being of the dogs!  So how does one "responsibly" breed if the very "standards" one is supposed to breed to are what is causing the problems?

Mark

Marklf

Chuffy

And you think that BYB's dogs are NEEVR afflicted with these problems?  Riiiight.

 Nope thats not what I said!  I asked how one can condemn BYB but turn a blind eye to the breeding policies of the "show breeder". 

I don't know of anyone who does "turn a blind eye".  Some may have been unaware, but happily that is no longer the case! 

Marklf

But these breeders are following the "Code of Ethics" set out by the breed clubs!  In order to for a dog to be "proven" in the conformity ring they must follow the "standards" that the breed club established.  It seems however that many of those "standards" are detrimental to health and well being of the dogs! 

I know!  It is LUDICROUS!  I sincerely hope that something can be done about it now that it is being brought to the attention of the public.  As I said... the fact that the parents are shown/proven/fit the standard... is not the only box I want ticked when looking for a purebred puppy.

Marklf

So how does one "responsibly" breed if the very "standards" one is supposed to breed to are what is causing the problems?

Well, if YOU were going to breed, how would YOU do it?  Do you not KNOW how to be ethical, how to be responsible, how to breed for health and betterment of the breed?  Or tp put it another way... how would you choose a breeder to buy a purebred pup from?

I don't think it's going to be legislation, or getting such and such in writing that cures this problem.  It's a slippery slope that many folks don't want to venture out on.  I think it is going to be EDUCATING the people buying the pups, and squeezing the breeders with poor practises out of the market. 

Chuffy

I don't know of anyone who does "turn a blind eye".  Some may have been unaware, but happily that is no longer the case! 

How is that they were "unaware"?  Was it because they did not research the breeding practices of the breeds they were interested in?  Did they not read the "Code of Ethics" established by their breed clubs?  Did they not look into the genetic problems associated with their breed?  Did they not look at the physical differences between their breed today vice how it was in the past?  Isn't all that just "turning a blind eye"?

Chuffy

Well, if YOU were going to breed, how would YOU do it?  Do you not KNOW how to be ethical, how to be responsible, how to breed for health and betterment of the breed?

I do not breed!  But if I were to breed then it would depend on the desired outcome.  If I was breeding for the purpose of having pets the only concern that I would have would be for the health and temperament of the dogs.  As pets I could care less if they met the strict letter of the breed standard as long as they were healthy and had temperaments that were suitable for companion dogs.  If I was breeding for a "working" dog then in addition to the requirements that I would have for pets I would also breed for the desired ability to perform the "job" they were bred for.  Again strict conformation to a "breed standard" would not be of any concern to me just their health, temperament and ability.  But it seems that I would be "unethical" and irresponsible" for doing that while those that follow the "breed standard" even if it means deliberately breeding traits that predispose the dogs to serious problems are able to get that "box checked off" by you.

Chuffy

  Or tp put it another way... how would you choose a breeder to buy a purebred pup from?

When selecting a breeder I want to be able to see and interact with both of the pups parents.  I want the parents to have been health tested appropriately for the breed.  Of course I want to make sure that all of the breeders dogs are kept in a healthy environment preferably in the house but clean, weather appropriate, adequately sized kennels may also be OK provided the dogs are given ample attention and socialization.

Chuffy

I don't think it's going to be legislation, or getting such and such in writing that cures this problem.  It's a slippery slope that many folks don't want to venture out on.  I think it is going to be EDUCATING the people buying the pups, and squeezing the breeders with poor practises out of the market. 

A very simple solution would be to outlaw dog shows.  That would take away the reason that many of these breeders have for deliberately breeding dogs in this harmful fashion.

Mark

Marklf

Chuffy

I don't know of anyone who does "turn a blind eye".  Some may have been unaware, but happily that is no longer the case! 

How is that they were "unaware"?  Was it because they did not research the breeding practices of the breeds they were interested in?  Did they not read the "Code of Ethics" established by their breed clubs?  Did they not look into the genetic problems associated with their breed?  Did they not look at the physical differences between their breed today vice how it was in the past?  Isn't all that just "turning a blind eye"?

You raise some good points, but al these should not be lumped together.

Many of your Average Joes may not be aware of Breed clubs or ethics... they just want a family pet, and unless they come somewhere like here, they won't even know the kind of research they should be doing.  These people can't be blemaed for what they do not know, IMO.  That can't be said to be "turning a blind eye".

For myself... yes I AM aware of those things.  And as I said in an earlier post.... my standards for a breeder are high.  I do NOT "turn a blind eye".  I cannot speak for others on this board unfortunately

Marklf

If I was breeding for the purpose of having pets the only concern that I would have would be for the health and temperament of the dogs.  As pets I could care less if they met the strict letter of the breed standard as long as they were healthy and had temperaments that were suitable for companion dogs. 

There are enough pet quality dogs in shelters already and I will not coondone breeding more of them, if that is the sole purpose.  Now, if you were to deliberately attempt to help breed out genetic defects in "your" breed, through rare, careful breeding... that may be a different story! 

Marklf

If I was breeding for a "working" dog then in addition to the requirements that I would have for pets I would also breed for the desired ability to perform the "job" they were bred for.  Again strict conformation to a "breed standard" would not be of any concern to me just their health, temperament and ability. 

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the standard.  No dog lives up to the standard 100%!  It is no more than a blueprint, an ideal to strive towards. 

The Bassett Hound is well known for his low-to-the-ground body.  Some breeders think that means "the lower the better!" and breed as such.  But there is nothing in the standard that MAKES them do that.... that is their interpretation of it. 

Marklf

But it seems that I would be "unethical" and irresponsible" for doing that while those that follow the "breed standard" even if it means deliberately breeding traits that predispose the dogs to serious problems are able to get that "box checked off" by you.

 So?  Just meeting ONE of my requirements doesn't mean much.  Have proven your dogs would be a good start, no guarantee of purchase though.

Marklf

A very simple solution would be to outlaw dog shows.  That would take away the reason that many of these breeders have for deliberately breeding dogs in this harmful fashion.

Show were originally for selecting the best specimens for breeding purposes, which is a GOOD thing, IMO... having your dogs viewed and evaluated by your peers rather than just by YOU.  It is the perception of what is a "good thing" which must change.