UK BBC "Pedigree Dogs Exposed"

Sera_J

Have you even been to a dog show?

Yes

Sera_J

Spoken with breeders

Yes

Sera_J

researched this,

Yes

Sera_J

or is this based solely on this one film?

Seeing how I have discussed this issue on here well before this film came out how would you possibly conclude that my views are based on this one film?

Sera_J

Mark you seem to be someone who argues on any hot topic thread...

No I post on threads that have I have an interest in but that is not "any hot topic thread".  Is there some forum rule that I am unaware of that I am breaking?

Sera_J

so, pardon me if I don't really take your position on this to heart.

No need to ask for my pardon you are free to listen to my views or ignore them as I am free to do with yours!  That is the joy of these forums.

Mark

Marklf

 

Chuffy

Every time a breeder breeds, they should be doing so for the betterment of that breed.  THAT should be uppermost in their thoughts.

 

Gee that sounds so lovely too bad its just a load of poppycock!  Take a look at the outcome of these efforts "for the betterment of the breed"!  Mutant dogs that do not even resemble the original breed! 

I agree with you that many people in that film were NOT breeding for the betterment of the breed.  So?  They are not the only breeders in the world.  

If you want the end of many dog breeds, the end of dog shows.... you can go on wanting.  Not gonna happen in our lifetimes. 

brookcove

I believe that dogs should be purpose bred.  I don't mind that decorative dogs may only be "trained" for show - but I wish kennel clubs made a habit of making soundness a prerequisite for  that "Ch" title.

Thanks for this.  Banning is not necessary.  Change IS.  This is the kind of change I am talking about. 

Marklf

 

jennie_c_d

I love dogs, and I love showing dogs.

Which confirms my statement that the dog show are there to fill the desires of the owner not the dogs.

I don't see your problem with this?  Where that ego leads that person to breed for type to the point where the dogs being bred are no longer sound, I agree that is harmful.  (This is what I meant about fashion!)  But to stop anyone who want to show from doing so... You're not a member of PETA are you??!!

Marklf

I have no problem with "good breeders" but we are not discussing them we are discussing "show breeders". 

Then you are on your own there.  There are "good breeders" and there are "bad breeders".  There are people who show dogs falling into both categories.  Please do not assume that a person who shows = cruel, egotistic, selfish scum - that is unfair and it clouds the issue.
 

Sera_J

Mark you seem to be someone who argues on any hot topic thread...

No I post on threads that have I have an interest in but that is not "any hot topic thread".  Is there some forum rule that I am unaware of that I am breaking?

Nope, but where there's smoke.... :)
 

Sera_J

so, pardon me if I don't really take your position on this to heart.

No need to ask for my pardon you are free to listen to my views or ignore them as I am free to do with yours!  That is the joy of these forums.

YES!  That is the joy of these forums.  And i hope that everyone can remember this line.. we can all feel free to listen or ignore various views we may not agree with.  Sometimes that is the simplest of solutions.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed, Part 1, around 05:20:

"It's probable that there were some dogs affected with this disease in the 1950s, 1960s and they were used extensively at stud.  Some popular stud dogs sired alot of puppies... that way the disease can spread very rapidly."

Herein lies the rub, methinks.  Breeding practises today are viewed SO differently than 50 years ago!  Gosh, many "good breeders" of the day would be considered puppy mills by todays standards.  They produced MANY litters in order to see the differences THEY wanted to see in the line or breed in their career. 

These days, a "good breeder" breeds only a few litters by comparison and hands the line over to a younger relative or similar when it is time for them to retire.  This is why only a FEW folks should do it... and they should do it RARELY and oh so CAREFULLY.... to make as much impact for the betterment of the breed with each pairing as physically possible.  (This is why it is ABHORRENT that some folks think its ok to stick an apparently healthy male and female together to produce pet quality puppies.)

I know of people who WILL NOT use the same pairing more than once and believe that a stud should ONLY sire X number of litters... To prevent this sort of thing happening over again, where a diease we don't know of, present in or carried by the stud, is unknowingly passed on to HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of puppies.
 

 Mark, the reason I own dogs (and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who had another real reason) is to please myself. The dogs certainly didn't choose to come here, and cannot choose to leave. I like to believe that they're happy, sleeping curled up together on the chair behind me, but maybe the AR people are right. Maybe they'd be happier running free. I can't see it, since one is a special needs shelter dog and the other is hairless, but hey, what do I know? I'm not a dog....

And no, I didn't watch the video. I can't. I have dialup. I don't have to watch the video, though. I've heard it all before. There are bad breeders everywhere. At dog shows, walking around pet stores, at the company down the road. People who breed to a standard (you notice I didn't say the UKC's standard, or the AKC's standard, or the CKC's standard) are simply attempting to preserve the dogs that they love, in most cases. Yes, there are some who are in it for the money. The breeders that *I* would purchase from lose money at it. I know, because I see the care their dogs get on a regular basis, and I see how often they breed. There's no way that anybody can do it right, and make a dollar.

Chuffy

I don't see your problem with this?  Where that ego leads that person to breed for type to the point where the dogs being bred are no longer sound, I agree that is harmful.  (This is what I meant about fashion!)

The word ego does not have, nor was it my intent to imply, a negative connotation!  My point is that the conformation type "beauty" shows are not nor were they ever intended for the benefit of the dogs but rather for the benefit of the owners.  All of us have egos and much of what we do in live is done to satisfy that ego.  There is nothing wrong with having a healthy ego but when people try to pretend that the purpose of these beauty pageants is to somehow help the dogs instead of feeding the owners ego they are being dishonest.

Mark

jennie_c_d

Mark, the reason I own dogs (and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who had another real reason) is to please myself.

Please see my above post about my use of the word ego.  Let me assure you that my reasons for owning dogs is also partially driven by my ego.  There is nothing wrong with that!

jennie_c_d

The dogs certainly didn't choose to come here, and cannot choose to leave.

In the case of my dogs you are 50% correct.  My rottie mix was dumped by her previous owner and she chose my house to live at.

jennie_c_d

I like to believe that they're happy, sleeping curled up together on the chair behind me, but maybe the AR people are right. Maybe they'd be happier running free.

Let me assure you that I am NOT an animal rights person!  Only people have rights but with those rights come responsibility.  IMHO if we are going to exercise our right to own dogs then we must also meet our responsibilities to those dogs.  Those responsibilities include, but are in no way limited to, advocating that for laws and regulations that will prevent people from deliberately and needlessly harming those dogs.  That is all I am doing now.

jennie_c_d

And no, I didn't watch the video. I can't. I have dialup.

Perhaps you could have a freind with high speed download them for you.

jennie_c_d

I don't have to watch the video, though. I've heard it all before. There are bad breeders everywhere. At dog shows, walking around pet stores, at the company down the road. People who breed to a standard (you notice I didn't say the UKC's standard, or the AKC's standard, or the CKC's standard) are simply attempting to preserve the dogs that they love, in most cases. Yes, there are some who are in it for the money. The breeders that *I* would purchase from lose money at it. I know, because I see the care their dogs get on a regular basis, and I see how often they breed. There's no way that anybody can do it right, and make a dollar.

No it appears that you really should see this film because it would open your eyes to just what harm this is doing to the dog breeds.  Money does not appear to be the motivation at all for those in this film in fact I think that the KC is headed up by the Queen of England so I doubt she is motivated by money.

Mark

OK, I just watched the whole thing (not just the GSD part).  I don't really disagree with most of it, but most of it only applies to bad or ignorant breeders.  Some of the inbreeding stuff seemed really extreme but maybe that is a UK problem?  Or maybe more common in other breeds? I don't know any GSD breeders, good OR bad, that have bred mother/son or father/daughter, or even grand- to grandchild.  Line breeding definitely exists but that's another matter and they didn't even mention it.

I've always thought the Cavalier was one of only three little dogs I could ever see myself tolerating and owning, but now I'm not so sure!  To me the most disturbing parts were the Pug that qualified for Crufts and the Cav that won the specialty or whatever they call it that sired 26 litters after being diagnosed!  The only thing more absurd than studding that dog are the owners of the bitches who bred to him!  Someone should squeeze THEIR heads for 24 hours straight.

Now someone needs to do a highlight on GOOD breeding.  The breeders I look to and communicate with ALWAYS health screen dogs (elbows, hips, eyes, heart, vW disease), health screen progeny that will never breed (after all, if healthy parents produce unhealthy progeny, obviously the program is not working), never breed before a certain age, never breed without the dogs meeting certain criteria, do not breed exclusively for show (in fact do not breed for show at all), and don't inbreed.  I guess I am lucky to fancy such a popular breed that can be proven as a healthy, sound working dog without even being AKC or Kennel Club registered, let alone having to show in those venues to be considered worthwhile.
 

I don't have to watch the video, though. I've heard it all before. There are bad breeders everywhere.

Actually, the video had a couple of points to make that sort of "connect the dots" in terms of the dangers of show breeding.

1. (again with the numbering, sorry) It's not just the "bad breeders."  The video showed top breeders denying health problems that were in the breed, justifying deformities, and making a stand on their right to bring animals into the world destined to suffer greatly.  We're talking breed club presidents, Crufts winners, and BIS winners of what would be the National Specialty over here.  It's not numbers that is troublesome, it is the people who are defending this kind of breeding.  They are the ones setting the trends.  One man, a breeder of Bassetts and the BOB judge at Crufts, looked at a picture of an early Basset with a more athletic build, long but not draggy ears, and lacking skin folds, and said, "If I bred something that looked like that, I'd make sure I never did it again!"  Note, looked like that was his focus.  Again, a breeder and judge of GSDs looked at pictures of working dogs (currently working), an early GSD, and a current winner who was also evaluated as being weak in the hind end by an orthopedic specialist - and pointed to the show winner as being the most likely to be able to do GSD work.  I'm sorry, but that's just plain madness.  They are deliberately decieving themselves.
2. There are some breeds that are rapidly approaching a genetic dead end but the breed clubs AND the kennel club is, again, in total denial.  By genetic dead end I mean the point of diminishing returns on breed health in regards to the available genetic material.  By focusing so strongly on physical type in preference to health and function, they've selected out genetic material in some breeds to the point that you could take a skin graft or an organ from any individual, and transfer it to any other individual, and not have much fear of rejection.  Seriously.  That's not just conjecture - scientists have been doing genetic analyses of the canine gene pool for a while now and have noted this trend with alarm.  There's discussion going on right now on BC lists, even the working ones, about the effects of inbreeding and whether BCs have geniunely avoided these dangers!
3. The thinking behind breeding to a physical ideal without reference to performance is one that is based in a outdated, ill-founded, and untenable philosophy - eugenics.  The world of animal conformation showing has never revisited this concept objectively - politics always intercedes before the real philosophical and scientific questions are addressed.  And when faced with science in this documentary, the high officials of the BKC came back with denials, platitudes, and in one case shuffled the blame (disingenuously) on to the breed club (saying they weren't aware of a particular practice when the fact of their reviews were public record).
4. This documentary didn't put the blame on the KC, or the breed club, or particular breeders, so where the blame actually may lie is beside the point.  The point of the documentary was that the system is flawed and produces extremes that result in pain and suffering.  If we had a human sport which encouraged such callous behavior as the KC officials, breed club officials, and breeders showed in this documentary, we'd shut it down in a heartbeat.  We all think Michael Vick is awful and cringe at the pictures of mangled fighting dogs, but where's the pity for CKCS's born to die in horrible pain, GSDs who can't walk normally, pugs whose stomachs lie in their chest cavities, and Pekes who have to sit on an ice pack for fear of death by overheating after a 100 foot walk from backstage to the winner's cup?
   

Becca that GSD judge must be blind or insane or both!  I can't STAND cow hocks on GSDs (well I can't stand many things, but that's one thing that really puts me off) and those weren't just slightly cow hocked GSDs, their hocks made 90 degree angles with each other! *barfs*  When he said they were correct for doing the work I nearly spat my drink!  It's so obvious why there are such rifts in the breed.  I'm thankful they at least gave the "police dog" 2 seconds of air time.  It is a little ironic how anti-inbreeding they were but then used the pic of Horand as the example of the prototypical GSD of old.  The generations after Horand show some substantial line breeding and inbreeding back to him and his relatives.  Not that I necessarily condone inbreeding, just sayin'...

Some of the inbreeding stuff seemed really extreme but maybe that is a UK problem?  Or maybe more common in other breeds?

I'm afraid not.  I know a few people who work on canine genetics projects and it's getting to be a very serious problem here also.  A friend I have who is studying breed genetic evolution (and therefore has to get a picture of this exact question first), said they had a computer get fried when it tried to compute the inbreeding quotient on one breed they sampled (she wouldn't disclose what it was for privacy purposes and the fact that the study isn't done yet).  

You don't have to breed mother/son etc to get high inbreeding quotients.  It can happen when you start selecting out lines which don't go back to certain "typey" dogs, to fix characteristics.  If you've got a six-gen pedigree and most of the males are the same name, then you've got a very inbred dog.  If you've got an eight-gen pedigree and most of the males are the same name, you've still got a big problem genetically. 

I know from studying show BC peds that this happens quite often - I get ill looking at these peds sometimes because I know there are genetic problems in these lines - and US breeders are taking THESE dogs as the models for the "new" AKC breed, rather than the healthy, genetically diverse working lines. 

Now someone needs to do a highlight on GOOD breeding.

The problem is that until the kennel clubs change their basic philosophy that ideal looks equal the ideal dog, it will not be the "champion of the purebred dog" that will celebrate good breeders who value function (even suitability to be a companion) and health over what is winning in the breed ring.

For instance, the ridge on the Ridgeback is a spinal deformity.  I didn't know that before.  One in ten is born with a hole in their spine or base of the brain.  The tail on the pug is also a deformity.  Didn't know that either.  Do you think breeders would agree to breed away from these dangerous traits?  One of the points of the documentary was that instead of breeding away from these traits, breeders are culling dogs that don't have them!

I am in love with a breed that is distinguished by a lethal mutation, the Chinese crested.  But, they don't require that every Crestie be hairless and even the hairless dogs can be shown shaved down.  I think that's reasonable.  The more hair a hairless dog is "allowed" to have, the better its health is - resulting in more normal dentition, skin, and ear/eye development.  And puffs are just normal dogs though high maintenance in terms of grooming.

Surely RR breeders could allow unridged dogs to be shown - these are beautiful and amazing hounds and to me, don't require that ridge to be distinguished.  I can pick one out from a frontal view and I'm not in any way a fancier.  I thought the "old time" pug was adorable and surely those nice little dogs would benefit from being more than a lap ornament!

brookcove

For instance, the ridge on the Ridgeback is a spinal deformity.  I didn't know that before.  One in ten is born with a hole in their spine or base of the brain.  The tail on the pug is also a deformity.  Didn't know that either.  Do you think breeders would agree to breed away from these dangerous traits?  One of the points of the documentary was that instead of breeding away from these traits, breeders are culling dogs that don't have them!

I didn't know these things either and was very shocked, almost glad to not be a fancier of one of those breeds.  Thank goodness white shepherds are basically their own breed and coated GSDs are now acceptable in the SV (and have been in UKC).  The latest coated dog from Kenya's breeder is being trained and a seeing eye dog.  I can't imagine culling a perfectly healthy dog.  A dog with something like double merle or an obviously painful deformation, yes, but not a healthy dog that has the wrong texture fur or the wrong color...

I want to study up on line breeding.  The Pedigree Database is a great asset for GSD fanciers.  I can trace my own dog's pedigree all the way back to the founding dogs in the late 1800s (with some holes here or there).  It also gives line breeding numbers but I don't know exactly how to read them (like 4 - 3 or whatever). 

Since I don't really understand the numbers, is there any significant inbreeding or line breeding here (just to satisfy my curiosity):

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/7/401054.html

Linebreeding - 5 generations

• 4 - 5............................................. in Afra vom Stoppenberger Land
  
• 4 - 4............................................. in V Harro aus der Lechrainstadt
  
• 5 - 5............................................. in V Boris vom Trogenbach
  
• 5,5 - 5........................................... in V Dax von der Kesmarker Tränke
  
• 5 - 5............................................. in SG Elly vom Windachquell

Chuffy

Pedigree Dogs Exposed, Part 1, around 05:20:

"It's probable that there were some dogs affected with this disease in the 1950s, 1960s and they were used extensively at stud.  Some popular stud dogs sired alot of puppies... that way the disease can spread very rapidly."

Herein lies the rub, methinks.  Breeding practises today are viewed SO differently than 50 years ago!  Gosh, many "good breeders" of the day would be considered puppy mills by todays standards.  They produced MANY litters in order to see the differences THEY wanted to see in the line or breed in their career. 

These days, a "good breeder" breeds only a few litters by comparison and hands the line over to a younger relative or similar when it is time for them to retire.  This is why only a FEW folks should do it... and they should do it RARELY and oh so CAREFULLY.... to make as much impact for the betterment of the breed with each pairing as physically possible.  (This is why it is ABHORRENT that some folks think its ok to stick an apparently healthy male and female together to produce pet quality puppies.)

I know of people who WILL NOT use the same pairing more than once and believe that a stud should ONLY sire X number of litters... To prevent this sort of thing happening over again, where a diease we don't know of, present in or carried by the stud, is unknowingly passed on to HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of puppies.
 

 Some would argue that the current breeding practices today are a big part of the issue. The big kennels of the past which strongly influenced dogs are pretty much gone and the "modern breeder" is someone who breeds rarely and has a few breeding dogs that live in their home. Going the way of the big kennels is specific lines of dogs that you can count on to consistently produce X traits and that you can know to watch out for Y and Z traits with. There is a real issue with knowledge in many of the modern breeders, or lack of. Due to having such a small population of breeding dogs, breeders may become less and less likely to stop breeding "their line" (which is a term which is much more loosely used these days) for fear of having nothing left to show for their years involved with it.

This is a really interesting article about breeds which may soon be nearing extinction (mine being one of them :( ): 

http://www.breedingbetterdogs.com/delimma.pdf

 As for the show - it is obviously AR, anti-breeder propaganda. It certainly does not apply to all purebred breeders or all breeds but intends to convince the public that breeding purebred dogs is very wrong and unethical. Interestingly, plenty of very outcrossed mixed breed dogs have genetic problems as well. The AR movement is VERY strong in the UK - hopefully it isn't a sign of what our future holds.