Sunday, 18 December 2011

Bred for Looks, Born to Suffer

Tomorrow, if you're walking down Clarges St in London's Mayfair and hear strange popping noises, it will be Kennel Club staff's heads exploding in response to the RSPCA's new  Bred for Looks, Born to Suffer campaign, launched today with the above ad in the Mail on Sunday.

I have to confess to feeling a little uncomfortable about some aspects of the campaign myself.

I'm fine with the ad above as I feel really strongly that we should return pugs to an earlier version where they had longer muzzles. In fact, we've just returned from filming with world brachycephalic expert Professor Gerhard Oechtering in Leipzig who showed us the damage that has been done, internally, by breeding for such a flat face (see below). It is so much more than most people imagine - and it is heart-breaking to see what we've done to this characterful little dog that bears its fate with such cheerful stoicism.

I'm OK, too, with what the RSPCA's new campaign says on the main campaign page, although I know others will be hyperventilating at the singling out of pedigree dogs as opposed to those dreadful designer crossbreeds.

But I did wince at this page... which starts:
The way that dogs are bred today, in order to win shows, is having a huge impact on their health and welfare. This is why we’ve launched our Born to Suffer campaign which seeks an end to the breeding of dogs based on looks.
 

But it's not just show dogs that may be suffering. Many pedigree dogs never appear in shows, but many are bred by breeders who want to produce show-winning animals, and who sell their surplus dogs as pets.

And the reason I winced is that, although it's true to say that it's the show-scene that often stamps the current 'look' on a breed, there are loads of breeders breeding purely for the pet marked who are producing dogs that are no better (in fact in some instances worse - pet-bred Shar-pei, for instance, are usually much more wrinkled than their show-bred cousins).  In other words, I think to single out show breeders in this instance is unfair. I know, I know, people will no doubt yelp that that is exactly what I do. But I wouldn't have done if I had been copywriting the RSPCA campaign.

Here, by the way, is a a 'grab' from the footage we shot of the inside of a pet-bred pug's mouth when we filmed in Leipzig. Pugs have the same number of teeth as a dog with a longer muzzle and this is nature's attempt at accommodating them.


Add 22/12: here's the Kennel Club's response to the RSPCA's new campaign - essentially an insistence that the breed standards are not to blame. 

145 comments:

  1. Just read Claire Calder is behind this new campaign, the same person who produced the rag tag report the RSPCA produced on pedigree dogs...that was a joke too

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jemima,

    For once I find myself disagreeing with you, and also surprising myself by somewhat agreeing with the RSPCA (which surprises me even more!).

    The page that you wince at causes me no distress whatsoever (or at least your extract), since I can see nothing wrong with the comment you quote.

    The dogs bred for the pet market are, if I may use the term, the rejects from the show scene. They are what are not considered suitable for the show scene, and by definition will not be the ideal.

    If you look back in historical records, I would guess that the most available photographs will be of dogs that have won at shows, which will be what were considered at the time to be the best examples of the breeds in question. At the same time there will similarly have been 'reject' dogs which may or may not have been little different to those you criticise today.

    With regard to the picture of the dog filmed in Leipzig. I would ask was this animal bred under FCI regulations (since I believe Germany subscribes to FCI rules)? The picture to me suggests a bad mouth when compared to my expectations based on the breed standard, since I would look for a slightly undershot mouth, not a deformed one which you picture does show. I would be surprised also if the example you show had the correct number of teeth!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hairless dogs needing coats during the winter in England is 'suffering'? That's an interestingly broad definition of the word they're using there. It's interesting to me (though not surprising) that they looked pretty hard for something health-compromised about hairless dogs and that was the worst 'disability' they could find. Seems kind of a silly thing for them to place up on the same level as Pugs who can't breathe and Shar Peis with ingrown eyelids, if they want to be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here is video footage of two hairless dogs 'suffering' in winter weather: http://youtu.be/Az711n4pdmM

    I'm sure the RSPCA would want to have a word with their owner for the blatant animal abuse displayed there; those poor dogs are obviously severely disabled.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't know if you've heard about the American Bully Jemima. Its a fairly new breed here in the US. But it's a prime example of pet dogs bred for looks that hurt. Many have big heads/ chests. Are sway back with easty westy feet and elbows. Cow hocked. The number 1 quality to many Bully breeders is "how extreme is your dog?"
    There are some who are taking the breed seriously and they are producing beautiful and healthy animals.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How on earth can you say hairless dogs are being abused just because they have no hair? If that is so, then nobody should have human children, because they are not covered with fur, right?

    Hairless dogs originated as a natural mutation in tropical climates. They are highly adaptable and not as fragile as you seem to believe. Responsible owners, however, are quite diligent about keeping them indoors in harsh weather; most put sweaters or other warm clothes on them when necessary. If this was not the norm, hairless dogs would hardly be as popular as they are in cold climates.

    These are very lovable and endearing dogs that are often the only choice for those of us with severe allergies who are unable to live with other pets.

    Please do try to educate yourselves about these breeds instead of just making assumptions and unfair accusations against those who love these dogs. There is so much else you could be doing to help animals instead of wasting time and money perpetuating baseless attacks on those who love their dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stellauna
    So are the missing and very fragile teeth associated with the naturally occurring hairless mutation (which humans select to breed for) an advantage in the tropics too? Perhaps not being able to eat properly helped them become dependent on humans to get soft food, which meant they could also get some cloths out of the deal to prevent sunburn from the tropical sun? Of course the reduced live birth rates associated the naturally occurring hairless mutation (which humans select to breed for) is also a real asset to the breed, the loss of toe nails also associated with naturally occurring hairless mutation (which human select to breed for) is another wonderful trait anywhere in the world! I am off now to read how to best care for the naturally occurring acne associated with the naturally occurring hairless gene (which humans select to breed for).

    Next we can talk about the naturally occurring HD and ED in the naturally occurring genetic mutation for dwarfism in dogs (which human select to breed for) and how this is advantageous to them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Look through her blog, Stellaluna... many of the show dogs are unnecessarily shaved or waxed to get the complete package of a true "hairless" dog. Not only that, but many of those individuals loose most of their teeth well before they are seniors. That's because the anatomy of the tooth shares the same compounds as hair follicles. Mess with the hair or the teeth gene, and the other is easily effected.

    You should educate yourself on canine genetics before claiming that the readers here are the ones who should educate ourselves on the welfare of dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Xolos and peruvians, wchich are NATURALLY OCCURING pariah dog breeds, wchich weren't really selected by looks until several years ago, are at least 3000 years old. A hairless mutation occured randomly and those dogs survived with little human help. If they were really that disabled we wouldn't have them now, you wouldn't meet peruvian hairless dogs as semi-feral dogs in Peru, wchich hunt for their food, even kill goats in groups. They really survive with little human help- most European dogs wouldn't, even the mixbreeds. They are more of a breed of a natural selection than an artificial one.
    Hairless dogs get tanned, not sunburned, they do not have problems eating (they even eat BARF without problems), they do not have stillborn puppies more often than any other dogs(the double hairless get resorbed as fetuses), missing toenails are something never happening (i do not know of a SINGLE hairless dog with missing toenails). Skin problems may happen as with any other dogs, they aren't a part of the breed. Usually you get skin problems with overgrooming your dog.
    Educate yourself first, know the breed, maybe get one (they're wonderful and very healthy too!) then talk about them. You are putting them in the "disabled" group unjustfully and because of lack of knowledge, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, for crying out loud... do you think that humans shouldn't reproduce as well, since we are also prone to imperfections?

    I have had three completely hairless dogs; one purebred Xolo, two mixes (both mixes were adopted from shelters). Sure, hairless dogs, including mine, are frequently missing teeth, but mine have had NO problems whatsoever eating, and they can chew things with the best of them! They regularly gnaw on rawhides and nylabones and dry food, just like any other dog. (I am missing plenty of teeth as well, does that make me defective or abused? And not just in your opinion...)

    Most domestic canines are dependent on humans for their food, soft, dry, whatever. They are also dependent on us for grooming, vet care, exercise, etc. -- that's what makes them domestic animals!

    I have to laugh every time I hear someone say something like "Pekingese could never survive in the wild!" Well, of course they can't -- they were bred to be companions, they aren't SUPPOSED to survive in the wild! Neither are WE! We are so far removed from our "wild" ancestors, we're lucky to find our way to the supermarket sometimes.

    We created and perpetuate these breeds, we are responsible for them. That's the way it's been since we made the mutual decision that they weren't wild animals.

    And do you seriously have a problem with reduced live birth rates? Doesn't that just help keep the population down? I would think you would find that a GOOD thing. Most often those that are not born live are not even born at all, they are reabsorbed before they even develop. How is that a negative?

    I haven't heard about the loss of toe nails in hairless dogs, but I've only been involved with them just over seven years, so perhaps I've missed that information. I would think that if it was a widespread problem, I'd have heard something by now -- I do read a lot about my breed and many others. I've also worked with dogs nearly 40 years now, as a groomer, with rescue groups, and most recently for over 17 years in a humane society shelter. I will certainly look into the nail thing before I draw any conclusions, because I do like to know what I'm talking about.

    And the acne -- there's plenty of information about this because people who own these dogs DO go to the trouble to care for these things. It's just like acne being typical to teenage humans -- some dogs have it, some dogs don't. My dogs haven't had much of a problem with it, but I know some who have, and their owners go out of their way to take care of them, because that is what responsible owners do for their pets. We do the same for our children.

    Of course hip and elbow dysplasia are not desirable conditions, which is why responsible breeders spend a lot of time and trouble to weed these problems out of their lines through testing. But I guess you aren't particularly interested in how responsible breeders care for their dogs, are you?

    The thing is, if you are going to paint everyone who loves certain breeds with the same broad brush, you are going to turn off a lot of people who might agree with and support your more reasonable concerns. If your goal is to prevent everyone from breeding by establishing heavy restrictions, you will most likely only eliminate the smaller breeders -- the hobby/show people -- who ARE the most responsible of the lot and who work to reduce or eliminate health problems. Then all that will be left for people who want purebred pets is to buy puppies from the big "professional" breeders (puppy mills). And that is certainly not fair to anyone, people or dogs...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think you've never owned any hairless dog right?
    Well I've owned hairless dogs for years now and my dogs have strong bites and don't have any eating problems at all! They chew bones, eat solid food and meat with no problems.

    I live in Mexico and my dogs NEVER got sunburned, they've NEVER lost nails either.

    This breed has existed in my country for over 3,500 years with no problems at all! Actually they survived in the wild for a long time, and you can still see some Xolos living in small villages with no problems.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anon, have you ever actually seen a hairless dog in person? 'Can't eat properly'? Missing toenails? Can't be out in the sun? Seriously? Are you even aware hairless dogs can tan (and eat dog food and even raw perfectly fine)? It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Skimming Wikipedia and parroting things without proper context is not the same as actually knowing something about a subject.

    An occasional zit on the skin of a dog is not 'suffering'. They are not lepers. Perhaps we should ban children too, since they also sometimes have acne due to their 'hairless ape' mutation if their skin is not kept clean. Dogs with the FOXI3 mutation have skin so similar to healthy humans' that they have been used as stand-ins in many dermatological tests in laboratories.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Another comment I can add is that the page states:-

    "According to scientific studies some of the UK's favourite breeds of dogs have been bred to such extremes that they can no longer breathe or walk normally."

    Well, THE most popular breed registered according to records is the Labrador Retriever. So is the RSPCA truly confident their statement is correct?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Daz the page says SOME of the UK's favourite breeds, not all and not the most popular. Just some. Pugs are a popular breed and many of them have breathing problems due to breeding for type. German Shepherd Dogs are another popular breed and many of them cannot walk normally, and again breeding for type has contributed to this. These are only two breeds, but more than one does equate to "some". So I would say their statement, whilst perhaps not going into details about which breeds it refers to, is factual.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Daz, there is no contradiction at all in the RSCPA's assertion and your observation.

    For example, let us assume that these are the five most popular breeds in the UK. (I'm making this list up, by the way - it's here just to make the point.)

    - Labrador
    - German Shepherd
    - Pug
    - Poodle
    - Bulldog

    Looking at that list, you could argue that "some of the UK's favourite breeds of dogs have been bred to such extremes that they can no longer breathe or walk normally." Both Bulldogs and Pugs have trouble breathing because of their flat faces, and many German Shepherds struggle to walk properly because of their rubbishy back ends. The fact that the Labrador tops that list doesn't make any difference, nor does having the Poodle in that list.

    Daz, reading your posts, you often fail to understand fully the points that people make. You miss qualifying words (might, should, some) and then base arguments on them.

    A bit less talking, and a bit more reading would pay you dividends.



    Daz, much of your debating seems to come from careless reading.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well according to the KC itself, "most popular= the top 20"; here's a few for 2010;

    Staying in at number 4 we have the GSD

    Moving down to number 7 we have the CKCS

    Steady at number 15 (but slightly up since 2006) is the Bulldog

    And alarmingly at number 9, moving from number 20 in 2006 and 13 in 2009.........the pug.

    So yes, I think that covers "a few" of the favourite breeds.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just because a mutation is old does not make it OK to breed for it. CEA is considered an ancient genetic defect and if you like you can also call it natural, but blind collies are still not on. I realize that the breeders and fanciers of hairless dogs know they are going to come under scrutiny soon, I do not blame you for feeling you have to defend your breed. But I am not sure that this is the best way to address or resolve the issues.

    My family had what was then called a Mexican hairless in the late 1950's. Yes it came from Mexicans from Mexico and yes it had bad teeth, no hair and skin problems, my mother knitted it sweaters LOL. I also know a couple of Xolos. It was one of these owners/breeders web sites I used to checked for the defects associated with the hairless gene, along with a few other breeder web sites to confirm (also read some breeder/judges comments that the breed standards needed to be changed to reflect the dentition situation). So that is where I got my information from, and the below link.

    Anyway, at the end of day it is not me you will need to convince.
    It is these guys, try page 14 for starters.
    http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlblob&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=RSPCABlob&blobwhere=1233061353142&ssbinary=true&Content-Type=application/pdf

    ReplyDelete
  18. To assume usually makes an ASS of U & ME.

    While you see fit to criticise me for 'careless reading' at least I try to find the time to do some reading.

    For completeness the KC list gives the top 20 as:-

    1. Retriever (Labrador)
    2. Spaniel (Cocker)
    3. Spaniel (English Springer)
    4. GSD (Alsation)
    5. Staffordshire Bull Terrier
    6. Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
    7. Retriever (Golden)
    8. West Highland White Terrier
    9. Boxer
    10. Border Terrier
    11. Rottweiler
    12. Shih Tzu
    13. Miniature Schnauzer
    14. Lhasa Apso
    15. Yorkshire Terrier
    16. Bulldog
    17. Dobermann
    18. Bull Terrier
    19. Weimeraner
    20. Pug

    Poodle appears nowhere, but I would possibly consider it a 'favourite' as you seem to have done, but there are breeds in this list that if asked on the street, and not having access to that list I would have thought no way were they a popular breed (Min Schnauzer being one).

    So, can I suggest that maybe the KC list is maybe not a good way of defining the 'favourite' breeds. But if we accept that this is maybe to only way of classifying favourites, let us look at the breeds contained within.

    If I were to use the terms you use, and analyse the list in a manner that I see fit (in an attempt to show that statistics can be manipulated to your own ends), I could come up with the following........

    'In looking at the list of popularly registered breeds, you MIGHT consider that SOME of the breeds fall into the category of badly bred as a result of presumably expert breeders breeding for looks rather than health and welfare of the animals, but your SHOULD also consider that far more of the breeds in the top 20 MIGHT be considered to have no inherent problems that affects the health and welfare of those breeds, and therefore you MIGHT also consider that SOME breeders do consider their breeds as you MIGHT argue all breeders SHOULD.'

    Incidentally, I did a quick tally of the breeds in the top 20 and (with a few queries) I got about 75% as having received little or no criticism such as that levied by the RSPCA (which in itself is an organisation that I have little respect for through nothing to do with their campaigns against pedigree dogs, but that is another story for another time).

    Incidentally, on the RSPCA website as of a few moements ago, the following is in big bold letters....... "Were you aware of that pedigree dogs are vulnerable to unnecessary disease, disability, pain or behavioural problems because of the way they are selectively bred?". Perhaps Mr Retromodernist ought to educate them in the need for the word SOME in that statement.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hairless dogs are sound healthwise. Suffering because they are bald lol what a laugh. I own 9 hairless dogs and all have full dentation bar one. Funny the one who has lost her incisors and pre molars is now 8 years old and is always finished her raw chicken wings first lol.
    Some hairless go through an acne stage rather like puberty in humans---it passes quickly enough and they do not suffer--
    Does anyone blogging here suffer from a few spots?? lol
    Any men blogging here suffer due to havin a shave??
    Anyone's hairy dogs suffer from wearing a coat in the winter??

    ReplyDelete
  20. It annoys me that 'Pedigree Dogs' as a whole are getting the reputation of ill health because some breeds have been selected for extreme looks. The pedigree is the basis for producing animals with predictable, and desirable traits.

    The Labrador tends to be #1 favorite breed in the English speaking world. Yes, show Labs are often overweight . . . but as a whole, the breed compares well with other breeds and X-breeds in health stats, and there's much good to say about temperament. Good breeders look for balance and moderation, discriminate against dogs who move poorly or show bad temperament . . . many still breed for dogs who can be titled both for conformation and for field trial results. The Lab is by no means the only dog for which these things are true . . . just the best known.

    As for the health problem breeds . . . you need to balance the positive with the negative. Pugs are probably #1 for popular + health problems. Pugs are popular, not for their looks, but because they are generally playful, good tempered, well suited to a small yard or apartment. If I wanted a pug, I'd shop for a pug breeder who bred for moderation of extreme features and lines that feature good health stats, not for a cross breed with unknown pedigree.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jennifer,

    On what basis do you say Labs are often overweight? Yes some may be heavy built, but it all depends on your interpretation of fit for 'purpose'

    You can see two pretty distinct 'types' of lab, as you point out, field trial and show. Define the purpose of a labrador as a gundog, and I would question, how do you define a gundog. If you suggest a working labrador (a true worker) as a field trial type, I would argue against your definition. A true labrador carries out his work in a steady fashion, without pace. A safe gundog I would argue would carry out his work steadily and methodically, and without undue pace. A true worker needs to work at a pace where his handler can control him and stop him in time not to run into the line of fire. A field trial type I see as being built for speed, being in apeearance to me to have a narrower chest cavity, and yes, being lighter in build. But is that correct if you look at the purpose of the working dog?

    I ask myself when considering a 'show' type in the ring, could this dog do a days work, and in doing so I consider whether the chest cavity is sufficient to allow a healthy pair of lungs, is the muscle tone sufficient to work those limbs for a day in the field, does the muzzle have sufficient breadth to carry a fully grown pheasant etc etc. All those points add up to a true labrador, and yes a field trial type may also match the same criteria. But, to work a lab does not have to be thin, indeed my opinion is that he should not be unduly so.

    As for your comment regarding cross breeds, I feel that you are being unduly unfair. Both pedigree/pure bred and cross breeds can be equally healthy, but as yu say in each you have to look at characteristics and chose one that you feel exhibits the best without being 'overdone'. Both pedigree and cross bred can exhibit these traits.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Darren/Daz

    tour list is from 2006.

    Here is 2007/2008

    http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/5675/2007-2008-Top-20.pdf

    And here is 2009/2010;

    http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/7748/Top-20.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  23. Daz,

    your list is from 2006.

    Here is the top 20 for 2007/2008;

    http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/5675/2007-2008-Top-20.pdf

    And here is 2009/2010;

    http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/7748/Top-20.pdf

    Please note the pug.

    It is now in the top 10.

    There are now nearly 200 assured pug breeders. Assured breeders who only need to xray for hemivertebra. No eye tests, heart tests, patella or hip scores (unlike in the USA).

    Most of the breeds problems are caused by their breed standard. The standard was tweaked in 2009. Puppies are still evidently being produced with poor conformation. You only need to check out a few of their websites. And these are under the wings of the KC.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anon from 20 December 2011 09:57
    (Can't some of you guys bother to think up aliases so you can be more readily told apart?) ;o)

    Sorry, but if you had a "Mexican Hairless" from 1950s, the chances are good you didn't have a Xoloitzcuintle, even if it came from Mexico. The Mexican Hairless from that time were quite mixed with other breeds and not necessarily the same thing as the true Xolo, which was quite isolated and truly rare at that time. But, can health problems exist in mixed breeds??? Horrors! You bet they can!

    And a lot of the Xolo websites are in so much disagreement about so many things, I'd be inclined to take a lot of what is said with a grain of salt unless I knew the website belonged to someone who was VERY experienced and knowledgeable about the breed. There is so much that isn't known about the Mexican Xolo that even those who have vast experience with the breed do not agree on -- and there is SO much misinformation out there, it's ridiculous. (For instance, some of the people who breed Xolos in the US claim their dogs are actually "healers.") If the experts on the breed can't agree, I don't think I'm going to expect dilettantes with obvious agendas to know better. So since I can't get your link to work at all, I'll have to pass on that.

    By the way -- to Anonymous 19 December 2011 20:14 -- one of the world's most knowledgeable and experienced Xolo breeders has concurred with everyone else I mentioned the "missing nails" thing to: missing toenails is not and has never been an issue in hairless dogs. And while I don't know where you got that information, I'm sure it will end up in the documentation against those who breed hairless dogs, because that's the way these things are done. Shoot first, ask questions later...

    I have had many years of experience in animal welfare and have a genuine concern for homeless, neglected and mistreated animals, and I'm well aware of how these "games" are played. I believe that while this campaign to "protect" purebred dogs may have been initiated in true good faith for the welfare of the dogs, it has been co-opted by those who simply want to deny anyone the right to breed any dog at all, for any reason. And that's just plain wrong, and WAY too extreme for my blood.

    I just hope people will start opening their eyes and paying close attention to the misinformation and exaggeration that is being perpetuated by the animal rights people who claim to have the best interest of the dogs, because it's just as extreme -- if not more so -- as the position of those who think it's okay to do whatever they damn well please with their dogs without regard to their overall welfare. Neither extreme will help the dogs, or the average pet owner, in the long run.

    As with everything, the truth lies somewhere in the middle...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Daz, what part of "(I'm making this list up, by the way - it's here just to make the point.)" did you fail to understand?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I never said is was a Xolo. It was a small dog with the genetic defect of hairlessness, and the associated poor dentition and skin problems.

    The link is (goggle it)
    Pedigree Dog Breeding in the UK, a Major Welfare Concern.
    It lists areas of concern in pedigree dogs breeding. Breeding for the gentic defect of hairlessness is listed as a welfare problem. Pg 14

    ReplyDelete
  27. StellaLuna says

    "dilettantes with obvious agendas" the very best description I have ever read on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  28. To answer your question Retromodernist......

    if you read my post I didn't, instead rather than assume I was suggesting you do some reading. Like I did. In seconds I had a list, Ok a 2006 list (I was aware it was 2006), but a list all the same, that came from somewhere other than my imagination. It was you who first suggested I did some reading was it not?

    As for Ms Price. I don't profess to know anything about pugs, except enough to agree that maybe some features are probably over exaggerated. But one question I would ask is how long has this been so? OK, the standard may have been tweaked in 2009, but how? I don't think the problem however is restricted to those bred under (UK) KC control. The picture featured of the deformed mouth is a German dog, which undoubtably would not be under (UK) KC control, but rather under the (afaik) stricter control of the FCI/VDH.

    As for health testing, again I am not au fait with the health problems found in the breed, but what happens in America seemingly is not be the same as required in the UK or elsewhere. There has been suggestion elsewhere that genetic problems in America could be somehow different elsewhere (as exhibited by the poster elsewhere that stated that in Sweden the Swiss KC has to approve tests because of this). My own thought on that are oh if it were so simple, if that were the case all you would need to do is find a foreign dog, use it, eliminate the genetic problem causing say PRA, and no cross breeding would be necessary. Sounds silly doesn't it, well that is the situation we would be in if the argument held any water.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Cheers Daz. So the bit you failed to understand was "it's here just to make the point." The order I list the breeds is neither here nor there, and to 'correct' the list misses the point. Again.

    Daz, you seem to repeatedly misunderstand what others say. I can count three examples on this thread alone. You also seem to post an awful lot. Perhaps the two are related?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wonder why the RSPCA charge more money for punters to rehome a Pedigree dog from them than a Mutt especially as Pedigrees are unhealthy mutants lol Hypocrisy at its best
    As for the hairless--whats to be done--let them go extinct because they carry the hairless gene?? or Oh wait for it why not cross it with a Poodle---ooops already been done Yip hairless doodles out there

    ReplyDelete
  31. "...in Sweden the Swiss KC has to approve tests because of this..."

    Right then.

    Why are we debating with the person who comes out with this?

    ReplyDelete
  32. And that dear friend is what caused the furore in the first place.

    Edit things in the correct manner and you put across the message that you have in your agenda.

    Read what I put in its entirety and you will see that I was simply backing up my statement by repeating what someone else has said.

    To use the words of another again....... you are not understanding the post!

    ReplyDelete
  33. And yes I do realise it should say Swedish, however, edit is not a button I have found on here yet after you click publish.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Really its all pretty simple....Pugs are great little dogs and I can see why people would want one BUT ...they dont want or expect its eyes to be pushed out if it bangs its head, have ulcers from constant lack of orbit protection, or to faint because it cant breathe...surely to God we can keep the breed without these issues.
    Now if I should want a Pug....lets say I dont know that these things are likely as it dosnt say on any KC site or in fact Pug breeders site...where do I get one ?
    Show breeder ? well actually they would prefer it didnt happen either, but if they breed them with eyes in the sockets and longer muzzles they wont win at shows...so not there then
    Pet breeder....well they likely got their breeding bitch from a Show breeder anyway and know less about Health......so not there then.
    Volume breeder....well their breeding stock prob came from Show stock and even if not no care will have been taken in either health or rearing..so not there either
    So if I want a Pug with all its character and good points but without its major issues...or a Lab that isnt 7 stone, or a bassett that has legs,or a Flatcoat that lives beyond 8 or a Bull terrier that dosnt have skin and kidney issues.
    WHERE CAN I GET ONE ?
    The answer is .....Show Breeder IF they would put breeding for type and a red rosette behind producing dogs that have all the attributes without the Health issues. OOps hang on...we cant not line-breed we will lose type...oh and we cant have less wrinkles...we wont win anything....oh and fat Labs win..so that wont do either
    I have been around show dogs for 20 years plus..and when my daughter asked me which breed should she consider as the family pet....I told her to get a Lurcher or a farm Jack Russell because I simply couldnt find a breed that I would risk her giving her heart too....now how sad is that

    ReplyDelete
  35. you really should have told her.. no LIVE dog at all.. I have Bull Terriers.. I see a great many BT's.. most without skin or kidney issues.. do you know that kidney failure is a top reason that ALL dogs die.. not just BT's.. and that many breeds can have skin issues.. so if your daughter wants a dog.. I suggest a quick trip to the local toy store for a stuffed one..no heartbreak there.. not much love either.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Jan,

    I thought the criticism was that dogs are being bred to standards and that was causing deformations and mutations.

    I have to question, have you ever read the Labrador breed standard?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Actually, Jan, I don't think that's sad at all. Why select a dog by breed?

    Both my dogs have been terrier types. Small, short coat. One quite leggy, the other much shorter. Very different personalities. The first was quiet fiery, the second very chilled. Both settled in very easily. No idea where either came from.

    I never intended to keep dogs. I came across Buster as a stray. He was sleeping by a private hire taxi office, in a pile of cans. He had mange and looked a bit worn down. I took him home and intended to take him to the pound. The next day I reported him to the police and the RSCPA. 16 years and three weeks later, he was put down to avoid what was clearly his last day of life being agony. He was a great dog, and I never regretted keeping him.

    I got Alwyn in a rescue this year. I looked on the internet until I saw a likely looking character. He's a bit unusual looking, and his front legs are benched. I suspect this is why he was in the rescue for so long. He's really muscular for a terrier though, yomps up the moors with me for hours in the rain and snow. Bombproof with other dogs and children. Totally chilled around sheep and horses. Very high energy, which suits me fine.

    I've never started with a book of breeds when looking for a dog. To be honest, they strike me as being a bit creepy. I want my dog to be a companion and a friend, and I don't really care what my friends look like. And this is where rescues are so cool, because they have loads of young dogs that have already developed a personality. And there are so many to choose from too!

    If you start within this breed paradigm, you shut yourself off from a much bigger world of dogs outside. This is a shame, because this is a great place to go hunting for a new pal.

    So don't be sad; be happy. You are free from this messed up world of closed registry dogs. I'm sure you'll find a great dog.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ah but You do care what your friend looked like as you did say----------------------------------------I got Alwyn in a rescue this year. I looked on the internet until I saw a likely looking character. He's a bit unusual looking,
    Most public do go by looks alone

    ReplyDelete
  39. When I said unusual looking, it wasn't a criticism. It was what I liked about him. Who wants a cookie cutter dog? Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Daz said:

    'In looking at the list of popularly registered breeds, you MIGHT consider that SOME of the breeds fall into the category of badly bred as a result of presumably expert breeders breeding for looks rather than health and welfare of the animals, but your SHOULD also consider that far more of the breeds in the top 20 MIGHT be considered to have no inherent problems that affects the health and welfare of those breeds, and therefore you MIGHT also consider that SOME breeders do consider their breeds as you MIGHT argue all breeders SHOULD.'

    Every breed in your list is subject to defects related to conformation and genetics. The number of combined disorders found in the 20 breeds you mention ranges from a low of 11 to a high of a whopping 77. Sixteen of your breeds are subject to over 25 disorders; nine of them are subject to over 40.

    Sources (I’ve provided links to the abstracts but you will have to pay to acquire the entire articles with tables and supplementary materials):

    L. Asher, G. Diesel, J.F. Summers, P.D. McGreevy and L.M. Collins, Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Part 1: Disorders related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal, 182 (2009), pp. 402–411.



    Summers, J.F., Diesel, G., Asher, L., McGreevy, P.D., Collins, L.M. Inherited defects in pedigree dogs II: non-conformational disorders. The Veterinary Journal, 183 (2010), pp. 39-45.



    To be fair, there are some caveats: not all the disorders are severe and there is a lack of prevalence data for many of them. However, saying that any of the breeds you list are free from inherent health problems is inaccurate, as is saying that only badly bred dogs suffer from them. With disorders related to conformation, I suspect the prevalence is relatively high as, for show people, it is conformation that defines the dog and therefore, this is what is aggressively selected for.

    Note to Jennifer and Anonymous 23:42:

    According to the above studies, Labrador retrievers have the dubious honour of being #5 on the list for total number of disorders.

    ReplyDelete
  41. When I said unusual looking, it wasn't a criticism. It was what I liked about him. Who wants a cookie cutter dog? Yawn

    LOL Exactly You picked him for his looks firstly as you did not know anything else about him so as I said before thats what most of the public go by firstly imo So how do you educate the public if they like the look of the dog!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Sarah,

    Since Labradors are a prime interest to me, can you give me the list of defects recorded save me paying for them?

    Cheeky I know, but it is Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Why select a dog by breed?

    why indeed.. perhaps you might like to know if that puppy you are buying will weigh 20 pounds .. or 120 pounds.. if they will shed like crazy or have a short non shedding coat.or a curly one. if they will have prick ears.. or long floppy ones.. it the nose will be charmingly turned like a Bull Terrier ( ok i am prejudiced) or long and pointy like a collie.
    perhaps you might like to know if it will cozy up on your lap or chase the first sheep it sees and never be seen again( Leash please)
    There are many reason to buy a pedigreed dog.. one of which is that you can meet the breeder.. most timers see the mother .. and know what you are getting.. you can ask for health tests.. and by doing all of these things be an educated buyer..or you can get a mutt and caveat emptor.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Daz:
    Here is a very long list. Its from 2004 I think, though more have probably been added since then.
    Reference Breed Predispositions to
    Disease in Dogs and Cats
    Alex Gough
    MA VetMB CertSAM MRCVS& Alison Thomas
    BVSc CertSAM MRCVS

    LABRADOR RETRIEVER
    Cardiovascular conditions
    Tricuspid dysplasia

    Patent ductus arteriosus

    Pericardial effusion

    Pulmonic stenosis

    Bypass tract macro re-entrant tachycardia in
    Labrador Retrievers

    Pyotraumatic folliculitis

    Eosinophilic dermatitis and oedema

    Pododermatitis

    Blastomycosis

    Cryptococcosis

    Atopy

    Contact hypersensitivity

    Food hypersensitivity

    Pemphigus foliaceous

    Cyclic follicular dysplasia

    Primary seborrhoea

    Ichthyosis

    Labrador Retriever 99
    Congenital hypotrichosis


    Primary lymphoedema

    Nasal depigmentation

    Nasal hyperkeratosis

    Mucocutaneous hypopigmentation

    Acral lick dermatitis

    Zinc-responsive dermatosis

    Waterline disease of black Labrador
    Retrievers

    Scrotal vascular naevus

    Greying

    Skin tumours

    Hyperadrenocorticism: adrenocortical
    tumour (AT)


    Diabetes mellitus

    Primary hypoparathyroidism

    Insulinoma

    Gastrointestinal conditions
    Congenital idiopathic megaoesophagus

    Secondary megaoesophagus

    Lymphocytic-plasmacytic colitis

    Perianal fistula

    Chronic hepatitis

    Congenital portosystemic shunt

    Haematological conditions
    Haemophilia B

    Infectious conditions
    Cryptococcosis


    Blastomycosis

    Infectious skin disease
    • See under Dermatological conditions
    Musculoskeletal conditions
    Carpal ligament weakening

    Elbow dysplasia

    • Osteochondritis dissecans and fragmented
    coronoid processes are inherited independently
    as polygenic traits in this breed
    Hip dysplasia

    Ocular-skeletal dysplasia

    Labrador Retriever myopathy

    Myasthenia gravis

    Shoulder osteochondrosis

    Hock osteochondrosis

    Temporomandibular dysplasia

    Cranial cruciate ligament rupture

    Transitional vertebral segments

    Neoplastic conditions
    Mast cell tumours

    Canine cutaneous histiocytoma

    Lipoma

    Nasal cavity tumours

    Insulinoma

    Adrenocortical tumour resulting in

    Lymphosarcoma (malignant lymphoma)

    Limbal melanoma

    Oral fibrosarcoma

    Thymoma

    Neurological conditions
    Cerebellar degeneration

    True epilepsy

    Narcolepsy-cataplexy

    Acquired myasthenia gravis

    Spongiform degeneration

    Distal polyneuropathy

    Ocular conditions
    Entropion (usually lower lids)

    Ectropion (mild, usually disappears with
    maturity)

    Medial canthal pocket syndrome

    Limbal melanoma

    Uveal cysts

    Canine anterior uveal melanoma

    Cataract

    • Other types: anterior subcapsular occurring at
    about 5 years and progressing slowly (mode
    of inheritance unknown); peripheral cortical
    cataract occurring at 3 years and progressing
    slowly (mode of inheritance unknown)
    Primary glaucoma

    T
    Multifocal retinal dysplasia

    Retinal dysplasia with skeletal abnormalities

    Generalised progressive retinal atrophy
    (GPRA)
    • Autosomal recessive inheritance
    • Progressive rod-cone degeneration (PRCD)
    • Age of clinical onset and rate of progression
    vary; may be associated with cataract
    formation
    • Schedule 1 BVA/KC/ISDS Eye Scheme
    Central progressive retinal atrophy (CPRA)
    or retinal pigment epithelial dystrophy
    (RPED)

    • This breed is usually DEA 1.1 or DEA 1.2
    positive
    Gestation
    • Mean gestation reported as 60.9 days

    Renal and urinary conditions
    Ectopic ureters
    • Congenital anomaly; higher incidence reported
    in this breed
    • Usually presents <1 year of age
    • More commonly diagnosed in females
    Silica urolithiasis

    Reproductive conditions
    Vaginal hyperplasia

    Azoospermia with spermatogenic arrest

    Laryngeal paralysis
    • Idiopathic

    ReplyDelete
  45. p.s. please discard the earlier version of this comment. I didn't read Sarah's comment carefully.

    Sarah

    Labs show a huge count for the number of hereditary disorders recorded for the breed (eg in work by McGreevy and associates at the University of Sydney) because there are huge numbers of Labs and the Lab gene pool is diverse. Where you find statistics on FREQUENCY of disorders, Labs do pretty well. Look at the OFA databases, for example. Labs are usually in the bottom half for frequency, and commonly in the bottom third . . . labradoodles and mixed breed dogs do worse than Labs for hip dysplasia.


    Daz, I said SHOW Labs are often overweight. Talk with Lab breeders who run the same dog in both show and field... they generally take several kilos off when the dog goes into field competition. Or look at the websites of well know show Lab breeders (particularly in the US). I like a well sprung rib cage and good bone . . . but I don't like to see flab jiggle when a dog moves around the ring, and I do like to see a waist.

    ReplyDelete
  46. p.s. If you want to see University of Sydney lists of diseases found in different dog breeds without paying for journal articles, go to:
    http://sydney.edu.au/vetscience/lida/dogs/search/breed

    This simply lists diseases that have been recorded in various breeds. It is NOT useful as an index of breed health. It does not correspond at all well with longevity data (scanty as it is). The people who did the write up say it records prevalence, but NO prevalence data are presented . . . just lists of diseases that veterinarians have recorded in different breeds.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The point that my prior post was to illustrate was that the accusations made (if I may use this term) is that breeders are breeding to the breed standard (s), and as a result are breeding 'mutant' puppies with eggagerated features as a result.

    For that accusation to be true there would HAVE to be by definition a mention of weight in the breed standard, in order for there to be a target for breeders to aim for. There is no weight mentioned in any Labrador breed standard that I have seen (over nigh on forty years).

    I accept that there will be some specimens that appear overweight, but you can say the same in humans, and as is suggested above, weight is something that can be changed, it is not hereditary, and it is not something that a breeder has any control over once the animal has left his care. Weight is a problem introduced by owners, quite often owners who are (could be deemed as)being cruel by being kind. Too much food/too little exercise gives weight, not any influence by genes (although the fact I am the same shape as my father makes me wonder sometimes!)

    As for the list of problems listed, don't they use fancy names! (Said in jest by the way), but how does having a pink nose (nasal depigmentation) cause suffering. And breeders can selectively breed to avoid this. Around 7 or 8 years ago as a breed I saw lots of pink noses, the case is not the same today.

    Whilst I do not deny that there are problems out there in the world of dogs, I do feel that for every situation where there is a problem casued by in-breeding, there are also situations where the reverse is happening.

    Changing breed standards will NOT solve this (breeders will simply aim for their interpretation of the revised standard), education is the key to changing things for the better.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Oh wow. That pug picture. Gabe, who is the stud of my Cockatzu's, well I recently discovered he has double teeth in his mouth, but he also has a short muzzle. I would have never imagined the extra teeth could have been caused by the muzzle. So its once again, good that I'm breeding that muzzle out. His daughter came out perfect, though does have double fangs on the top, but none on the bottom and no excess teeth anywhere else. But I feel bad for Gabe, it looks painful and uncomfortable, but now they are so "in there" that I think having a vet remove them would just put him in more pain (he has ALL double teeth), and possibly even trigger infection, plus how would he eat with big, gaping, bleeding holes? At least he's not as bad as that pug, but still. *Sigh* Its disappointing, but I still love the silly boy.

    @Jennifer

    This is actually quite true, but there are also most likely millions upon billions (billions is exaggeration) of labs in the USA (in fact, they've been number one for the AKC's most popular breed for years, it seems http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4293 http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm ). So even though that doggy Buddy walking down the street has no problems, it doesn't mean his brother Digger has no problems and is a healthy boy. I know a woman who has a lab with extreme hip dysplasia, but her two other labs are young and fine, the one lab in particular is 10 or around there. Labs are also morphing, as are Goldens. Breeders are really liking the box heads and large mouths now and days, which to me is ghastly and not standard. Its almost like they're trying to create the new bully breed, and it wouldn't surprise me if they really got that bad. The last time I watched the dog shows, a Golden with a terrible head (the box crap) actually won best in show. I was shocked. Sure, his body and coat were nice, but I couldn't get over the head. I can't believe he even won for his breed.

    So, Daz, they already are changing... Where have you been? I don't think its a good change either. Can't wait to see what new health problems pop up, so they can just humiliate themselves more.

    ReplyDelete
  49. When overweight hefty lumps win at shows and people are told you will never win with that its not heavy enough...what you get is overweight heftly lumps. The standard...which I have read (admittedly recently) simply says strongly built...well compared to a whippet working Labs are strongly built....dosnt mean they have to be ultra short ,hefty lumps...and the standard does say agile. I think blaming pet people is a big cop out....if the breed is prone to be fat then its all too easy to make them so without any real mistakes in feeding and exercise.
    So if the standard says strongly built and the judges reward VERY strongly built ..with more substance than agile then that quickly becomes the norm. Then the dog that was considered normal 10 years ago looks out of place and lacking something when compared to all those "correct" substantial lumps in the ring, it then takes a judge of incredible fortitude to place the one "that dosnt conform to the other twenty"
    Many many breeders in their own breed dont like the way their breed has changed BUT its either go with the flow and breed what wins....breed what you think is right and never win...or give up
    So whilst I admire pedigree dogs in all their shapes and characters, show breeders are and have ruined breeds.
    Lets just imagine those wonderful breeders...(and that is truly meant as a huge compliment to the dedication and skill that goes into breeding), breed their litters without any thought to the type that wins in the show ring....would they truly breed all those wrinkles, excess coat, short legs, hefty, sticky-out eyes, frog legs,.....or would they breed an altogether less exaggerated type of the breed they fell in love with ?
    The breed most owners fell in love with and wish to share their lives with

    ReplyDelete
  50. The RSPCA have created a blog so that the general public can comment on campaigns.

    Here is the link;

    http://www.giveanimalsavoice.org.uk/blog/born-to-suffer/were-you-aware-pedigree-dogs-are-vulnerable-unnece/

    Here is a comment in response to this campaign........

    QUOTE..."I cannot speak as a dog breeder although would like to think of myself as a loving dog owner.

    I am absolutely appauled by the generalised nature and sweeping comments the RSPCA feels necessary to make which unfortunatley tars us all with the same brush.

    Whilst I have no doubt bad breeding occurs there are a lot of breeders out there who do an amazing job.

    I am the loving owner of two dogs - a Hungarian Viszla who is 6 years old, still bounds around like a puppy and we never have to take him to the vets other than for boosters, and a 16 month old Pug who is in exceptionally good health.

    When we decided on getting a pug we know the risk factors involved as far as skin irritations, eye infections, breathing difficulties go because we are responsible and we did a lot of research into breeders especially Kennel Club accredited breeders and actually visited several of them before we decided on the breeder we wanted to approach to give our puppy a home.

    Weeks after we brought Ernie home we noticed he did cough and splutter with his breathing escpecially when running about with our other dog and did not hesitate in taking him to see the vet who recommended getting his nostrils widened which is a common procedure. We didn't hesitate a few weeks later he was booked in for the day and it was a simple procedure and he was home that evening. His breathing is 100% better.

    When he was 6 months old we noticed a bit of a limp and so again we took him to the vets who advised us that it could be that he was suffering from hip dysplasia but they wouldn't be able to tell for sure until he turned 1 year old as his joints were still soft and his hips could knit together in time. About 7 months later we noticed a vast improvement and the little guy doesn't limp anymore and is the picture of health.

    So you see RSPCA, I wanted a pug because yes they look cute and have a lovely temperant and make wonderful loyal pets but I certainly didn't choose a pug because of their looks and my pug's health, the same as my Viszla's has always been my top priority and the health of my dogs as paramount importance.

    Maybe you should consider working with Organisations like the Kennel Club and deal with bad breeding which as I have previously said I am sure goes on but don't tar breeders who are doing a good job or dog owners who love and care for their pets with the same brush and assume we are all so fickle and don't put the health and welfare of an animal first!"

    Any comments ?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Jennifer,

    I do understand that generally the larger the number of individuals, the larger the number of defects. Thank you for pointing that out to everyone, though, as I omitted to include this information in my caveats. However, one thing to remember is that ‘purebred’ dogs are not natural populations. Both the boxer and the GSD, which have roughly half the number of individuals as Labrador retrievers, have significantly higher numbers of defects. Miniature poodles, golden retrievers and springer spaniels, with even lower numbers of individuals, also have a higher number of defects (I miscounted in my earlier comment – Labs come in at #6 in the study I cited).

    Because of their popularity, Labs as a breed certainly have more individuals than other breeds. However, given that like all breeds, Labs have a limited gene pool with no new genetic material being infused, it seems to me that really matters is their inbreeding effective population, which Carboli et al calculated to be 114. Is this a large enough Ne to maintain a healthy, viable population, especially given that the breeding practices of kennel clubs guarantee further loss of genetic diversity? I have my doubts, but am not a professional geneticist or conservation biologist and don’t know the answer; I would love to hear the thoughts of a professional on this question.

    This is why, though I agree Labs currently seem to be a relatively healthy breed, I think there is still concern for their future and would not be complacent about low prevalence of most of their defects. I am sure responsible breeders agree with me here, so I am preaching to the converted.

    I agree they are lovely dogs with nice temperaments.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Daz,

    As others have provided the list you requested, I won’t repeat it. I will say that it annoys me that so much of the research being done into pedigreed dogs is not freely available to those who most need it – breeders. Much of it is surprisingly readable, even if like me, you don’t understand PhD level maths. I don’t hesitate to condemn wilful ignorance and I think those playing God with living creatures are obligated to educate themselves, but also truly sympathise with those who want the information but can’t get it easily, either because they don’t know how to find it or because the research is expensive to acquire.

    One of my main criticisms of kennel clubs is that they do not help their members in the acquisition of up-to-date research. To get it, you need access to university databases that are not available to the public. If I were a member of a kennel club and wanted to be a responsible breeder, I would be lobbying said club to get together with a university to provide, for a fee, access to the databases for kennel club members. Universities are always strapped for cash – for a price, something might be worked out. Just a thought.

    On that note, and for lack of a better place to do it, I wish peace and joy to all, whatever side of the debates on canine politics you stand. After all, ultimately we all have one thing in common: we love our dogs. Through your comments this year you have provided me with much entertainment and food for thought. Thank you especially to those I have engaged in debate with and really especially, Jemima, for providing a space for the free exchange of argument and information.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Sarah said "Jemima, for providing a space for the free exchange of argument and information." but its only on her terms and under her knife to edit as she feels fit..............so just how free is that? but that will never be admited will it

    ReplyDelete
  54. "I am absolutely appauled by the generalised nature and sweeping comments the RSPCA feels necessary to make which unfortunatley tars us all with the same brush."

    And the same could be said of other quarters!

    ".......especially given that the breeding practices of kennel clubs ........."

    Kennel Clubs themselves don't have 'breeding practices', breeders have breeding practices. I do not know that the KC dictates practice to any breeder, save for rules under approved breeder schemes, which basically aim to prevent poor practice, not encourage it.

    As for access to statistics, most of the statistics we need ARE available, FOR FREE, via breed clubs. But, there is a big flaw in the statistics, in that not every dog is tested.

    But if you were to FORCE owners to have dogs tested, the cost of ownership would increase dramatically. Would this have a detrimental effect on dog ownership and welfare?

    Seasons Greetings folks.

    ReplyDelete
  55. armchair reading for a cozy winter night:
    http://www.pet-law.com/future-of-dogs


    Merry Christmas and Happy Holidayss

    ReplyDelete
  56. Merry Christmas to you as well, Bestuvall, but I am confused about what your article had to do with the topic of this blog?

    PDE is not an animal rights movie, nor have I seen Jemima ever endorse the type of legislation described in that article. Whats more she has talked positively about hunting with dogs and the value of a pedigree dog and a responsible breeder here.

    I do believe, however, that the "dog fancy" is giving AR wingnuts a metric buttload of ammunition when they refuse to see/acknowledge the results of some of their breeding practices and how it affects the dogs in a negative way. If the "fancy" would stand up and change the way they breed dogs from within to allow for less extreme conformation and open up gene pools (without becoming unglued at the idea of outcrosses) the AR wingnuts wouldn't be able to say that the "fancy" is hurting dogs in any way.

    Despite the constant barrage of comments that say "oh I am sure this will never get published" and "I'm sure she edits the comments" I see a lot of criticism lobbed here at Jemima *on her own, private website/blog* allowing for discussion. Seriously people, she invites you to come here and argue with her! I have seen her admit openly here that she was wrong about something. That's a lot more civilized and open (not to mention, adult)than the hate group FB sites that ban her and anyone who agrees with her from posting or even reading.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I am just delighted to learn a new unit of measure, the metric buttload.

    Ho Ho Ho.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Bestuvall blethered: "why indeed.. perhaps you might like to know if that puppy you are buying will weigh 20 pounds .. or 120 pounds.. if they will shed like crazy or have a short non shedding coat.or a curly one. if they will have prick ears.. or long floppy ones.. it the nose will be charmingly turned like a Bull Terrier ( ok i am prejudiced) or long and pointy like a collie.
    perhaps you might like to know if it will cozy up on your lap or chase the first sheep it sees and never be seen again( Leash please)
    There are many reason to buy a pedigreed dog.. one of which is that you can meet the breeder.. most timers see the mother .. and know what you are getting.. you can ask for health tests.. and by doing all of these things be an educated buyer..or you can get a mutt and caveat emptor."

    Hi Bestuvall

    A few thoughts on your stream of altered conciousness.

    - if you don't know the approximate adult weight of the puppy you hold, you shouldn't be thinking about buying it. Nor should it be up for sale. It should either be with its mother, or still with the rescue centre. So what's that about, eh? Shame on you.
    - If you are that bothered about a dog's ears, or its snout, then I think you really need to have a hard think about what's important to you in life.
    - The cookie-cutter breeder, shoving the puppies out of the door at eight weeks, will know much less about what these dogs will grow up to be like, than the worker at the rescue will know about the 1 year old dog that she's looked after for a month.
    - I am much more likely to trust the opinion of a rescue centre worker than a dog breeder. Some of you are great, but many of you are, at best, utterly crackers.
    - If I go down the rescue and get a year-old dog, I'll know more than enough to make a decision. Is he friendly? Is he smart? Is he small? Has he got a nice short coat? Good. You'll do. Finding out the rest, and learning how to enjoy life together, is part of the fun.
    - I don't really give a fig about all your health tests. You only need to do them because of your myopic breeding practices. I'll take my chances with a mutt, ta.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Sara
    If you want to test the validity of McGreevy's lists of heritable diseases (the LIDA database), try looking up rare breeds known for serious health defects. Try, eg., the Cumber spaniel (very high incidence of HD, immune mediated hemolytic anemia, disc disease, cardiomyopathy and hemangiosarcoma, breed fanciers regard them as short-lived and are working hard to eliminate defects). Six listed hereditary defects for the Cumber spaniel . . . contrast to 54 (my count) listed defects for the Lab. Or the Neo Mastiff . . . 10 listed defects. Yes, there have probably been incidences of ectropian and entropian in Labs . . . but they're pretty bloody rare . . . while in some breeds en/ec tropian are regular problems.

    Nor do I think the database picks up what is probably the Lab's most serious fault . . . very, very strong food drive. I often note that if you want to start a school for beggars, Labbies would make good teachers . . . they are SOOO appreciative of dog biscuits and table scraps. It has been shown, unambiguously, eg, http://www.avma.org/avmacollections/obesity_dogs/javma_220_9_1315.pdf -- show significant gain in longevity with 25% reduction in food over more normal Lab diets. The 'underfed' dogs lived, on average, 13 yrs while the dogs on normal diet lived, on average, 11.2 years. Btw, if you go back to the 'longevity' discussions on this blog, those are respectable lifespans for a medium-large dog breed.
    The more rounded, as opposed to lean and muscular, look preferred by many show judges helps create public image of the Lab as a rotund dog. . . and thus justifies people's tendency to kill their Labs with kindness.

    ReplyDelete
  60. whoa.. wait a minute.. I thought this blog was all about health testing and the health of all dogs..you mean you only need to do health testing pedigreed dogs..wow how knew.?? get a mutt take you chances.. buy a pedigreed dog and better that every test known to man and God
    "You'll do" is just great in movies like Babe.. not so great when you "adopt" a year old dog that later has problems.. but oh well after all "he is just a mutt' what can you expect is the mantra.. whilst if you but from a breeder the dog has to be pretty much PREFECT in all ways for eons of time.. after all breeders are.. "crackers" an all dogs they breed are sick, deformed and unsound
    Long floppy ears can lead to ear infections.. a coat that will need constant grooming take a person who likes to groom.. a puppy that weighs 20 pounds can grow into an enormous dog.. you really cannot tell at 10 weeks.. and if you "adopt" then how can the dog still be with the mother/
    Event he "cookie cutter" breeder.. whatever that is will know what the puppies will look like if they are pedigreed dogs.. they will probably know the temperament.and size and health issues as well much better than a "worker' who spends just a few days with a dog before it goes to its new home..and is observed in a kennel ( shelter) setting rather than a home..as for shelter workers being more "trustworthy" than long time breeders.. hey.. as they say.." you pays your money.. you takes you chances.." glad you are happy with you shelter dog

    ReplyDelete
  61. PDE is not an animal rights movie, nor have I seen Jemima ever endorse the type of legislation described in that article. says Beth F
    Really? she spoke at the HSUS conference this past year. They are an animal rights group..dedicated to stopping all dog breeding ( unless they can make a buck on it)They are the ones who write almost 99% of the legislation in the USA.. much like the RSPCA in the UK.. however Americans are much more stalwart and less inclined to be pushed around than UK citizens.. our freedoms and rights and OUR PROPERTY ( our dogs) are very important to us and we will fight for our rights to the very end.
    That 'metric buttload" of AR crap ( very good.. almost as good a dilettantes with an agenda)will be shrinking in the coming years as we see the animals rights groups "exposed' for what they really are here in the USA
    And really who cares if you out cross?/ I don't.. then retromodernist can buy one of your dogs..for some odd reason everyone here thinks that breeders see out crosses as the devil.. I don't.. want to cross your Chihuahua with a Great Dane.. no problem.. .. Poodle with a Boxer.. fine.. who really gives a .. well "metric buttload"?

    I am hoping in the New Year that many of you stop harassing pure bred dog owners and strike off on your own to breed the dogs you would like to see in or out of the ring. Hold your own shows and trials if that is what you want to do.. have your own guidelines and standards , if you want standards. Run your own welfare scheme.. have your own offices and officers.. your own breeding programs.Your own health testing schemes.. of course all financed by those that belong. It is very easy to sit back and "armchair breed" but not so easy to step up to the plate and say.. Hey I will do it my way.. anyone else want to come along.. I am sure the person who does that form the many that post here will find all sorts of followers.. and then you can stop the KC or maybe even run them out of business with your new and improved plan instead of trying to improve upon something that most of you feel is a lost cause anyway. Leave the rest of us ALONE.. perhaps we will just go away.. perhaps not but you will have you own working system to enjoy and to impress the people who you will supply with dogs. Beat them at their own game as it were.. however .. that will take much more work than just typing on a blog...and complaining about others. Do as I do.. not as I say will become your mantra for a better life for dogs. Good Luck

    ReplyDelete
  62. bestuvall said...

    "It is very easy to sit back and "armchair breed" but not so easy to step up to the plate and say.. Hey I will do it my way.. anyone else want to come along.. I am sure the person who does that form the many that post here will find all sorts of followers.. and then you can stop the KC or maybe even run them out of business with your new and improved plan instead of trying to improve upon something that most of you feel is a lost cause anyway."

    I am not only a breeder, but I AM doing it MY WAY. And I can tell you, that doing it *my way* has resulted in an endless stream of harassment and abuse. In fact, it's been so bad at times that I've worried for the safety of my dogs. I make sure that there is ALWAYS someone at home, and that I have plenty of ammo for my rifle. Think that's extreme? These people don't stop with me. They harass the people who've had the bad judgement to sell a dog to me, as well.

    I have a litter planned for next year, but I have serious doubts about it, because things have died down and a new litter from the likes of me will start the whole bad business back up again.

    Who are the people who've made my life miserable? Are they ARAs? No. Are they rescue people? No. Are they pet owners? Are they pet breeders or working dog breeders? No.

    The people who feel the need to turn me into a super-villain are show breeders, *every last one.*

    What goes around comes around. SUCK IT UP.

    "Leave the rest of us ALONE.. perhaps we will just go away.. perhaps not but you will have you own working system to enjoy and to impress the people who you will supply with dogs. Beat them at their own game as it were.. "

    Boohoohoo, poooooor little baby. Grow up. If the so-called dog fancy wasn't mired in the mindset of a group of high school mean girls, you'd be able to answer criticisms with something other than argument from authority and appeal to tradition.

    "however .. that will take much more work than just typing on a blog...and complaining about others."

    That's right kids, why don't y'all join me? You can watch the statcounter for your blog go crazy every time someone has linked to you as an 'irresponsible' breeder. When someone links to my blog I don't even go and look any more. You too can step away from the joy of watching puppies in your whelping box, to abusive e-mails in your inbox. You can have the thrill of joining mailing lists just to defend yourself. You can hear how breeders you've bought dogs from have been harassed and ostracized. You can be libeled in a breed club magazine. Sounds like a whole load of fun, doesn't it?

    Perhaps I am a mean sprited, petty bitch, but you have *no idea* how amusing it is to watch 'the fancy' squirm.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Bestuval blustered:""You'll do" is just great in movies like Babe.. not so great when you "adopt" a year old dog that later has problems.. but oh well after all "he is just a mutt' what can you expect is the mantra.."

    It's also just great in real life too. Far better than your bizarre world of caesarian sections, rape racks, health tests, coat colour fetishes and other such nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Retromodernist Do you actually know if your rescue mutt was not indeed delivered by C section or the Dam raped as you put it ??
    As has been said You did indeed pick firstly by what suited your eye nothing else, just like most Joe Public picks Pedigree Breeds

    ReplyDelete
  65. retro: Who should breed dogs? Should people breed cross bred dogs for the shelter industry so that you can go there and s find one that suits you? If people stop breeding dogs there will certainly be no more shelters dogs.. indeed there will be no dogs at all except "accidental breedings". Your use of the term "rape rack" tells the world ( at least the dog world) that you are indeed ignorant of what breeding dogs is all about, Your terminology that health testing is "bizarre" should convince the rest of the world as well. Retro you are, modern you are not.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Bestuvall you're missing a point here: If you get a dog from a rescue there is a high probability that the dog will have been neutered before re-homing, as most rescues (in the UK at least) have that policy. That way any heritable diseases the dog carries will not be passed on. If on the other hand you buy a puppy from a KC breeder there are (with a few exceptions)still no compulsory requirement that any health tests be done on their parents prior to breeding. So these KC registered puppies may be carrying genetic diseases (just like the rescue dog), and prior to that disease becoming apparent, they may well go on to produce offspring of their own (unlike the rescue dog), who are also at risk of developing the same genetic ailments, and so on. Now I know that you can argue that there are breeders out there who do health tests, but really they are in the minority.

    You also said "leave the rest of us ALONE". This is the attitude that a lot of breeders on here have. Can you not see that this is exactly the kind of talk that animal rights groups want from you? So they can then say "look, they want to be left alone, to carry on breeding puppies that are born to die horrible, painful deaths from genetic diseases". You're playing straight into their hands.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Rogher Wilde you forget the vast majority of Pedigree Dogs are NOT Kennel Club Registered puppies its been estimated that around 56% have not KC connection, and I sus[pect no health tests ethier, and of dogs that are KC registered only 2% or less are ever taken into a show ring, ok it will be argued that the remainder of a show breeders puppies are sold off as pets but as one of those show breeders I find that hard to belive as I only breed a litter when I want something to show, and on average I keep 2 from an average litter of 5 puppies. Believe as an active personinthe ring there are 10 times more people who breed and register my breed than show them. So look back under 1% of any breed may be shown in a ring yet the RSPCA think that are the reason breeds have problems!! As for your comment Roger about lackof health tests any prospective owner (who can be bothered!!) can look up just what health tests and the results the parents of any litter have had done on the Kennel Clubs websites (no mutts or designer breeds or non registered pedigrees can make that claim can they?) and the prospective buyer finds they havnt been tested (or the results are not good) just walk away and find a breeder whos dogs have the desired results!

    ReplyDelete
  68. Carry on breeding dogs that die horrible painful deaths? You are kidding right? Here is what you should do if you do not like what "breeders" do.. START YOUR OWN PROGRAM of breeding dogs that you like. Beat thenm ( us) at our own game. If you and others have the answers to breeding dogs that will have no genetic defects I suggest you begin TODAY and not a minute later. It seems that what is wanted is control over what people are doing rather than to create a system of your own that you think works.. What I meant by leave us alone is this... IF you can do better.. and it seems that most of you think you can..DO IT NOW.. if your system IS better the rest of the will beat a path to your "doggy door" and the rest of us will be forced to stop breeding dogs that you say are horrible and die in pain. If your dogs are healthier.. happier.. and free from geneic disease.. everyone will want one. Right?
    As for all "shelter dogs" being castrated before sale.. sure.. that way there there will be no more.. or at least many many fewer dogs for people to buy if you castrate all shleter dogs and stop breeders too.. THAT is the real goal of the animal rights crowd..castrate everything.. breed nothing on purpose
    and Roger.. just because a dog has KC registration does not mean it WILL reproduce..and obviously not having papers does on many occasions create a situation where dogs DO reproduce.
    So it is ok for dogs that have no health testing to reproduce and for the castrated get to be sold at the shelters? You do know that makes for only one generation of dogs if that happens..but not ok for breeders who do health test ( and there are many more than you think)to sell their dogs because they will die horrible painful deaths.. No, that is the picture this blogger and the animal rights groups paint..and the end game is this. Fewer and fewer dogs until dog breeding is no longer lawfully possible.
    Bestuvall

    ReplyDelete
  69. I do lurve the injunction to breed the dogs I want and leave the fanciers alone.

    Because, oddly, when I breed the dogs I want, I hear from the fanciers, hissing through teeth, that they are not really purebred, indeed, I "made up" this breed or someone else did and I'm a sucker and now complicit in ripping off others. Or that they must be "improved" by being sashayed around in gormless circles on a string, to be culled and inspected by a portly lady in a sparkly dress who has never, not once, fallen into sheep shit or dragged her patrician ass out of bed to go hunt for someone's lost child at o' crack sparrow fart.

    Indeed, I've been explicitly lectured by a fancy bureaucrat who couldn't have gotten into my safety school if the admissions officers had a mean bar bet going that we stoopid dirt farmers are out of our tiny minds to suggest that, if the now-fancier-owned registry refuses to see reason about honoring the decades-old agreement of NO CONFORMATION SHOWS, that at least they could refrain from bestowing "champion" status on dogs with shitty hips.

    (Took two years of thinly-attended pageants to get the first known dysplastic and dysplasia-producing "Grand champion." Just about the same amount of time it took to launch a proper nonprofit registry and eat the commercial registry's lunch.)

    See, the fanciers won't leave us to our turnip trucks, so we've little choice but to casually mention "Um, your dog is suffocating" or "Eating your own young is not a natural behavior" or "Planned caeasarian is animal abuse" or "Anyone who would intentionally breed two dogs when they know that some of the pups will be born without *eyes* has something essential broken in there."

    For too many decades, systematic animal abuse has been presented as not only normal, but as defining what is correct, because "We do it for love."

    No.

    Will not shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  70. oh yes, I remember you bestuvall,,,the King/Queen of the strawman!

    you said...

    "Really? she spoke at the HSUS conference this past year. They are an animal rights group..dedicated to stopping all dog breeding ( unless they can make a buck on it)"

    Well, as there is entire blog post with comments about that incident, including a description of why she attended and how she feels about the organization and its POV I will assume you haven't read it. You can read that yourself. Just so you know, she does not endorse the "anti-dog" legislation that HSUS endorses anywhere on this blog.


    "...our freedoms and rights and OUR PROPERTY ( our dogs) are very important to us and we will fight for our rights to the very end."

    And again, that has nothing to do with the subject of this bog or this particular blog post.

    You might want to look up the definition of 'strawman' before you reply again. It will make you a much better debater.

    "And really who cares if you out cross?/ I don't.. then retromodernist can buy one of your dogs..for some odd reason everyone here thinks that breeders see out crosses as the devil."

    That's because some do. Check out the hubub surrounding the LUA Dals and the comments made by members of the DCA opposed to them.

    "I don't.. want to cross your Chihuahua with a Great Dane.. no problem.. .. Poodle with a Boxer.. fine.."

    strawman

    "I am hoping in the New Year that many of you stop harassing pure bred dog owners and strike off on your own to breed the dogs you would like to see in or out of the ring."

    Harassing, eh? That's hilarious. I wonder if you believe there's a war on Christmas by atheists too? But I digress...

    Thank you for your wishes, bestuvall. And in return, I hope many of your peers get their collective heads out of their collective butts and embrace science and common sense. They can then breed dogs who can breathe well, walk normally, have healthy skin, don't have high rates of cancer due to miniscule gene pools and don't die early in life because they were bred by humans who embraced breed standards that encourage deformity.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Bestuvall -....that's my stance too and one that I've posted here on several occasions - frankly if folk don't like what' we're producing then there's nothing to stop them breeding the type of dogs they DO like themselves - if we are all falling so short of the mark then surely Jemima et al should put their money where their mouth is and show us how to do it properly .

    When our detractors are breeding dogs themselves with no health, , construction or other problems with the kind of temperament, look, size, coat and weight that they want and are able to retain those characteristics down many many generations generations WITHOUT line breeding - well then I'll listen - until then it's just all so much hot air !!!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Heather why do you care so much what other breeders think about your dogs ? - why are you so worked up about the fact that your dogs are not on any kind of recognised registry ? - make up your own one if you disapprove of the one the rest of us belong to !! - we really could'nt give a flying ferret if you don't like what we are producing - others obviously don't care for what you're breeding either but we don't go on...and on...and on about it foaming at the mouth with even more convulated insults - for heavens sake get a grip girl !! .

    Look you breed dogs the way you want and we'll do the same - if your way is so good then the public will be beating a path to your door and we simply won't have a market for our dogs - simple ?

    ReplyDelete
  73. to Bijou and bestuvall who have both suggested that if "we" didn't like the dogs they breed that we should go out and breed our own and invent our own registry etc etc.

    Well, for one thing, for many years the kennel clubs have spent time and money promoting themselves as "the responsible choice." Seriously, spend time on any "how to choose the best breed for your family site and the advice given is seek out a person who shows their dogs as they are the only responsible choice. Pedigree breeders look down their noses and refer to people who breed non-KC dogs and crossbreeds as puppy mills and backyard breeders. JQP has been taught that the KC way is the only way and that anyone who thinks otherwise is somehow morally inferior.

    For another, you are upset because some of us stand up and say there is a problem, but you all have been lobbing tomatoes at the likes of Heather and Jess for years. When you start acknowledging that having a KC registration is not the hallmark of responsibility and the only sign of a good breeder, we might be on equal footing.

    Bijou, I believe you breed Belgians and I think I saw your website and that you do a good job. I have no idea what bestuvall breeds. I think that most people who comment here have no issue with pedigree dogs, but we do have an issue with those who create dogs that have serious health issues and justify it by pointing out how happy the dogs are. I doubt anyone would point to what you breed Bijou and say there is a problem.

    My dog was paralyzed from mid-back down for a time, and after about 48 hours of being frightened and stressed out at the loss of control of his body, he woke up and was determined to drag himself through life with a smile. That morning he tried to drag himself instead of me carrying him, offered to wrestle with his playmate and attacked a chew bone with gusto. I was amazed and gratified that he was himself again, despite this major life hurdle. I wouldn't, however, use that as proof that dogs don't need their back legs to be happy.

    Dogs are by nature happy, resilient and forgiving, which is why we love them. So, if your collapsed face dog who snorts his way through life is happy, its not definitive proof that his disabilities are not a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Bijou,

    Do you think English shepherds are not a breed?

    I knew what an English shepherd was long before I ever heard the words "border collie."

    ReplyDelete
  75. The internet is a wondrous thing.. so wondrous that even you Beth can start your own registry.. you can advertise.. promote and spend your own money as "Beth and Heathers Dog registry, The Responsible Choice". and then show why it is so.
    Heather , your comments about "portly ladies in sparkly dresses" is a comment that should be a big surprise to many of those judges who are doctors, veterinarians, scientists, military members and have done more to help dogs in general than most of us here. Those "patrician asses' have donated time, money and expertise that I would bet have even helped YOUR dogs at some time in their life. Before you talk about falling into "sheep shit' being some badge of honor maybe you should check out a few bios.

    As for the HSUS. I think you find that many even here agreed that being a speaker an animal rights "conference' was not in the best interest of any dog. Attending a conference and actually speaking in support of the conference are two entirely different things. No matter what you write at a later date.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Beth.. if you think you can create a better dog.. do it..

    ReplyDelete
  77. Bestuvall, just in case you missed my post on the conference, among the other speakers at the conference were:

    Professor Sir Patrick Bateson (chair of the Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding); epidemiologist Brenda Bonnett (who works very closely with the Swedish Kennel Club); Gail Smith (who founded PennHIP), vet/labrador breeder Fran Smith (whose many pertinent qualifications include being President of the Orthopaedic Foundation for Animals) and vet Patty Haines (who has served multiple terms on the AKC Board of Directors).

    Does speaking at the conference make them AR, too?

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  78. bestuvall said...

    "Beth.. if you think you can create a better dog.. do it.."

    Don't be a moron.

    I could start my own registry, and have indeed talked about doing so with other sighthound landrace enthusiasts, mostly with the goal of allowing such dogs to compete in performance events.

    I do breed my own dogs, my way. See my comment here, which got caught in the spam filter.

    I could hold my own conformation events, if I wanted to. There are other breeders who do, typically breeders who are developing a 'new breed,' which I have no interest in doing.

    I could use my blog to talk about my dogs and breeding philosophies, thus 'promoting' my dogs, which I already do.

    Where has all of this gotten me? Well, click that link to my previous comment. Do you think things would change just because I've got my own registry and hold a get together once a year where the dogs trot about in a circle and colored pieces of ribbon are passed out?

    The problem that Beth elucidates, is that 'show' breeders are held up as the end all, be all, the True Responsible Breeders, regardless of the fact that they represent only a tiny portion of dog breeders. This why we have laws like the one in Los Angeles, where the only people allowed to keep intact dogs are breeders who 'do something' with their dogs that involves winning things, and have dogs that are registered with 'approved' registries. The nearest city to me passed a law recently that makes cross-breeding illegal. All dogs bred must be registered with an 'approved' registry. It even states how much you can charge for your puppy, because we all know that 'responsible' breeders never make any money off their breedings, and they sure as hell don't cross breeds or breed for the pet market, either.

    In the US we see the results of the deification of the 'show' breeder all the time. Almost every piece of mandatory spay/neuter legislation has an exemption for the 'show' breeder of purebred dogs, like the failed CA AB 1634. This is, of course, to keep all those 'irresponsible' breeders, like me, from breeding their dogs.

    Leave you alone? If I want to keep breeding, I CAN'T LEAVE THE GARBAGE THAT SO MANY 'SHOW' BREEDERS SPEW ALONE. I cannot let the 'show' breeding mindset continue to be the status quo. I cannot let the absolute denial of science slide, because if there is going to be proposed legislation regarding HOW to breed dogs, (and you betcha, there will be,) at the VERY LEAST, it can be based on science, instead of the mythology that 'show' breeding is the 'responsible' way to breed. Will the show breeders of the world be able to stand up and refute regulations based on science, will they be able to explain why regulating the minutiae of dog breeding is a bad idea? Based on the comments on this blog, and my hate-mail, I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  79. bestuvall said...

    "The internet is a wondrous thing.. so wondrous that even you Beth can start your own registry.. you can advertise.. promote and spend your own money as "Beth and Heathers Dog registry, The Responsible Choice". and then show why it is so."

    So, why can't show breeders and the closed registry Pureblood Brigade just leave US Evil Crossbreeders alone? Why can't they just show everybody how closed registries and extreme conformation are the best things EVAH for dogs? Why can't they just put forth a defense against the claims against them?

    Where is the science behind the closed registry system? Where are the studies showing that this type of breeding isn't ultimately harmful?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Bestuvall, you miss the point of my post. When I wrote about dogs dying horrible painful deaths, you may have noticed the quotation marks ("") at the beginning and the end of the sentence. Put there to show that these are the words being uttered by animal rights groups about dog breeders and their methods. Because that is what they ARE saying. The RSPCA campaign (bad as it is) is one such example. Your comments DO play into the AR groups’ hands and make it appear to anyone reading your post that you don't care what anyone else thinks, you want to be left alone to carry on as you always have. Carry on with a system that rewards looks over health and functionality, that is open to abuse from unscrupulous breeders, still allows puppy farmers to register, still allows dogs to be bred even when a heritable disease has been identified, carry on regardless of public concern over the health of the dogs you breed. The list goes on.

    Actually I don’t have much time for the AR mob, sometimes I think they do more harm than good. But animal welfare is something we should all be concerned about. And yes, that does include breeding. I would love to live in a world where health testing wasn’t necessary but, sadly we don’t. There are too many breeds affected by too many conditions for us to just shut up and leave the breeders and KC alone. Not when sensible solutions are put forward only to be ignored by breeders, due to outdated beliefs about “purity” and “bloodlines”. Sitting back and letting breeders do their thing is what got us here in the first place. Why on earth should we leave you alone? You yourself might be breeding the best and healthiest dogs on the planet, in which case good for you. But the system under which your dogs are registered is seriously flawed and allows unhealthy dogs to breed. Indeed it often rewards unhealthy dogs because they “look great in the ring”. Go ahead, tell me I’m wrong. If your dogs are so healthy then why are you not pushing for changes which will make all breeders take the same care as you do? Or do you not health test your dogs? (That was a question by the way, not an accusation.)

    ReplyDelete
  81. Jess says:
    I am not only a breeder, but I AM doing it MY WAY. And I can tell you, that doing it *my way* has resulted in an endless stream of harassment and abuse. In fact, it's been so bad at times that I've worried for the safety of my dogs. I make sure that there is ALWAYS someone at home, and that I have plenty of ammo for my rifle. Think that's extreme? These people don't stop with me. They harass the people who've had the bad judgement to sell a dog to me, as well.

    join the club.. pure bred dog breeder can NEVER get it right as far as most of you are concerned and talk about harassment.Breeders like Bob Smith and others are not only harassed.. their dogs are taken.. their homes broken into etc.wan to take a beating.. say you got your dog from a "breeder"... ..I have visited your site.. nice dogs.. or so they seem. do you really care if they are registered?
    As for being a moron.. well I guess if you say so..it must be true..
    by the way.. the LA law sucks.. but you can thank the HSUS for backing that one..not dog breeders.. and it has nothing to do with showing but everything to do with control of people.if you cannot see that.. then who is the moron?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Roger I want to be left alone to carry on my HOBBY.. as for allowing dogs to be bred" you don;t know much about dogs.they will pretty much do it on their won.. witness street dogs in many countries... as I have said before.. you cannot have dogs that are purpose bred by hobby breeders in small numbers supply all of the people who want dogs.. so therefore you MUST have some people just breeding dogs.. WHO CARES? you are indeed wrong. I cannot change what other breeders do.. I can only do what I do.. legislation will never take away unscrupulous breeders.. in fact it will INCREASE them. Talk about dogs being bred with no health testings and certainly heritable disease..who do you think will "allow unhealthy dogs to be bred".. people who care about pure bred dogs.. or underground puppy sellers who will be the main source for dogs in the future if the animal rights groups have their way? Who funds the research into dogs and their health? HSUS? ASPCA? RSPCA.. come on Roger..get a grip.. the AR's are not your friend if you love animals..
    I don't push for legislation to change breeders to do it "my way" because I know there are many many ways to breed good dogs pure bred, pedigreed or otherwise. My way is only one of them. There are many roads that lead to the same destination..Grasshopper..

    ReplyDelete
  83. I’ve just read the KC’s response to the RSPCA campaign (http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4098/23/5/3). It was pretty much what I expected. Extracts below:

    Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: “Whilst the Kennel Club shares the RSPCA’s belief that too many people are buying dogs without undertaking research and demanding certain breeding standards are met, we feel that their new advertising campaign is completely misdirected and fails to address the real issues affecting dogs.”

    The key words here: “too many people are buying dogs without undertaking research and demanding certain breeding standards are met.” This shifts the blame from the breeders to the dog buying public. (Actually I didn’t see that claim being made on the RSPCA campaign site, though I won’t argue because they probably do think that.) But it’s obvious what the KC thinks: It’s all the publics’ fault that pedigree dogs are in such a state because we don’t demand certain breeding standards are met and we don’t do our research. Sorry but I don’t buy into that school of thought.

    The letter continues:

    “By focusing on the Kennel Club’s breed standards, which only apply to those purebred dogs which compete at dog shows, which amounts to a small percentage of all purebred dogs, they have ignored the far more critical area of how dogs are bred.”

    Actually I agree with this statement. While it’s true that breed standards need to be looked at, BREEDING standards seem to have been largely been overlooked by the RSPCA’s campaign.

    But a little later:

    “With the exception of Kennel Club Assured Breeders, who sign up to standards that ensure that they put their dogs’ health and welfare first, the rest of the dog breeding market is effectively unregulated”

    So that would include the vast majority of KC breeders then? Unregulated, free to do whatever they want, breed whatever dogs they want no matter what health problems they have, and still get registration. Isn’t this a double standard? Especially when you consider that “The Kennel Club is dedicated to canine wellbeing and registers over 250,000 pedigree dogs every year” (KC website page: An introduction to dog breeding http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/473 ). How many of them are born under the ABS? 10%? Less than that, even? So what about the rest of them? By Ms Kisko’s own admission the rest of them are “effectively unregulated”. Is this the dedication to canine wellbeing the KC are talking about?

    At the end of the letter is a link to the KC’s own e-petition (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/8557) which reads:
    “We, the undersigned, call on the Government to introduce minimum standards such as those adopted as part of the Kennel Club’s Assured Breeder Scheme for the breeding of all dogs in the UK, in order to help bring an end to puppy farming.”

    Would it bring an end to puppy farming? Who knows? What it would mean is that anyone wanting to breed any dog in the UK would have to meet the minimum standards, including those KC breeders who are not members of the ABS. It would seem that those who want to be “left alone” won’t be for much longer, as even the KC itself sees the need for change.

    ReplyDelete
  84. and to what end? And how to enforce this? and who will pay for enforcement? and exactly what 'standards" will there be for each and every breeding that takes place. What will happen to dogs that are born without the 'minimum standards"? Will they be dragged off and killed ( after all they may have health problems because the parent were not tested.. heck you might not even know who the parents are)while the owners are thrown in jail?
    What of puppies born from mismatings? Or will all dogs not "up to snuff' have to be castrated? What of the council dweller who has a litter in their bedroom.. will that be grounds for killing the puppies and arresting the owner? After all that would hardly meet "minimum standards" It would surely cut down on the amount of dogs available in the UK but would even more quickly fill up your already overflowing jails.
    Everything does not have to be "regulated" even though people currently ( including some in my own country) seem to think that somehow if something is "regulated' it will magically be perfect..
    I have good friends in the KC but they are way off base here. More regulation will only result in one thing.. more underground breeding of unhealthy ( both in physical health and temperament)dogs, less visits to the vet and more disease. oh and for example.. hows that DDA working for ya?

    ReplyDelete
  85. I’m not going to shut up either.

    Bestuvall, Bijou and all those breeders who want critics (many of whom seem to be breeders themselves, funnily enough) to ‘leave us alone to get on with our hobby’ have missed the point. It’s not that we simply don’t like the way your dogs look or behave; if that were the case, you’d be somewhat justified in your demand, though I would argue that we all need to be open to criticism to avoid the intellectual inbreeding depression displayed by those only interested in hearing reinforcement of what they already believe. Our criticism is of poor breeding practices and conformation standards that experts state create real welfare issues, not the fact that dogs look different. It is of a system that refuses to address its inherent flaws and accept the possibility that a paradigm shift is needed.

    The problem has been created because breeders have in fact been left alone for too long to get on with what they see as a fun hobby. Many breeders are indeed responsible but until you start outing and dealing with those who are not, instead of closing ranks, saying ‘it’s not my breed’ and perpetuating a destructive system, you will indeed be tarred by the same brush, rightly or wrongly, and you provide ammunition for the extremists.

    So no, I'm not going to go away, because I love all dogs and want to see them preserved in all their diversity. Stop kicking and screaming. Show that you will deal with genuine problems willingly rather than by being shamed or forced into action. Demonstrate some understanding that a system that is not open to outside criticism is by definition unhealthy.

    ReplyDelete
  86. To Bestuvall:

    You said, "I cannot change what other breeders do.. I can only do what I do.. legislation will never take away unscrupulous breeders.. in fact it will INCREASE them." Where is your proof of this?

    Last time I checked there are many regulated breeding programs where backyard breeding operations have either decreased or are non existent in comparison. Check out the falconers association which regulates breeding or raptor birds. Or look at the regulated breeding of service monkeys and dogs. What about the regulated breeding of other exotic animals such as silver foxes, ferrets, chinchilla? Yet none of these animals are facing an overpopulation crisis and most of those animals are healthy and bred by reputable breeders.

    There will always be irresponsible breeders, breeders who would rather do nothing, or avoid the issue which is what you seem to be doing.

    If legislation is so ineffective then I presume you would find it ok to dismantle legislation that prevents animal abuse, exploitation, and neglect. Based on this portion of your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Margaret Carter28 December 2011 18:21

    The Kennel Club states “too many people are buying dogs without undertaking research and demanding certain breeding standards are met.”

    This is called blaming the victim, and the Kennel Club should be ashamed of themselves.

    When you buy your first dog how do you know that you need to check for problems that no one in the dog breeding world will tell you about?

    How do you know that the breeder is not being honest when they say you must just be unlucky to have a sick puppy, because none of their dogs are affected.

    How do you know when you go onto the KC website and there is no indication of any health issues on the breed pages that health insurance is essential for that breed you have chosen.

    How do you know when the breed website says that there is "no recognised health problems" that is breeder blindness and denial, not the truth about the health compromised breed of dog you are thinking of buying?

    "demanding certain breeding standards are met"
    That statement by the Kennel Club is somewhat puzzling? Surely they cannot be referring to the ABS breeding standards?
    How can anyone know if those breeding standards are met?

    There is an 85% backlog of Assured Breeders yet to be inspected, and 56% of breeds have no required tests under the Scheme, which still makes it a puppy farmers' delight.
    Annual membership entitles Assured Breeders to use the online 'Find a Puppy Service' free of charge for as many litters as they like, which explains why breeds like pugs have so many ABS breeders.

    When the KC can guarantee that every member of the ABS has, at the very least, ensured that their breeding dogs have passed a vet check before they are mated, then the Scheme and its breeding standards may be worth promoting.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Beth, I had no idea of the LA laws. Is that right - a LAW telling me I cannot keep an adult non-neutered dog in my household? Where can I learn more about this law and when was it passed? What happens to people who disobey it?

    ReplyDelete
  89. To Jennifer:

    If most dog breeders are doing a good job then why are the large majority of the more popular breeds and even the ones who aren't popular having so many poor genetic defects in terms of physical health and in some cases, mental health?

    Chihuahuas, Boston Terriers, Poodles, Boxers, Cavalier spaniels, GSD, APBTS, Bull Terriers, Dalmatians, English Bulldogs, Sharpies, Neapolitan Mastiffs, Pekingese, Shitzu's, Pugs, Bassett Hounds, Griffon Bruxellois, Dachshund, .

    There are around 150 breeds registered with the AKC. I don't know how many are registered with the UKC, I tried to google it but could not find the reports. Sure it's only 12% of the registered dog breeds I've listed, but these breeds have many noticeable problems that the breeders of said dogs refuse to fix all because of the "breed standard."

    There's nothing wrong with a breed standard that promotes health. But the breeds standards for most of the above listed do not.

    Also, why are you against breed mixing as mentioned with, "If I wanted a pug, I'd shop for a pug breeder who bred for moderation of extreme features and lines that feature good health stats, not for a cross breed with unknown pedigree." A lot of the pugs I've seen that look like pugs but with more nose and less fat are often pug crosses. Guess this falls into that "breed standard."

    ReplyDelete
  90. Bodil Carlsson said...

    "Beth, I had no idea of the LA laws. Is that right - a LAW telling me I cannot keep an adult non-neutered dog in my household? Where can I learn more about this law and when was it passed? What happens to people who disobey it?"

    http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/cms1_045463.asp

    More on mandatory spay/neuter laws:

    http://saveourdogs.net/

    ReplyDelete
  91. bestuvall said...
    
"join the club.. pure bred dog breeder can NEVER get it right as far as most of you are concerned and talk about harassment.Breeders like Bob Smith and others are not only harassed.. their dogs are taken.. their homes broken into etc.wan to take a beating.. say you got your dog from a "breeder"... ..I have visited your site.. nice dogs.. or so they seem. do you really care if they are registered?"

    The vast majority of my dogs are crossbreeds or backcrosses, not purebreds. That is my focus. And you haven't been paying attention: the show breeder culture of We Are the Epitome of Dog Breeding allows for a culture of harassment of anyone who does not fit the norm, and this is accepted and encouraged. I have NEVER seen a group of pet or commercial breeders get together to make false reports to animal control to get a mans dogs away from him, simply because he has committed the crime of not being part of the 'in group.' I have never seen pet or commercial breeders gang up on a person and drive them away from a mailing list or message board because they don't show. I have never seen pet or commercial breeders contact organizations or clubs to try ruin an individual's reputation because they disagree with how his dogs are kept. Who do you think it was that published my e-mail address and stolen text from my blog in a breed club magazine, just to ruin my reputation? It wasn't the ARs. The problem with show breeders is that they cannot see that they are their own worst enemies.
    
"As for being a moron.. well I guess if you say so..it must be true..
by the way.. the LA law sucks.. but you can thank the HSUS for backing that one..not dog breeders.. and it has nothing to do with showing but everything to do with control of people.if you cannot see that.. then who is the moron?"

    Think you're clever, don't you? I watched AB 1634 carefully; my sister lives in California and breeds dachshunds. The 'we've got to shut down all these backyard breeders and puppy mills!' rhetoric was thick on the ground. It shows up every time one of these breeding laws comes up. You wonder why so few pet breeders and commercial breeders speak out against these laws? Could it be because the show breeders are out there with their narrow definitions of what constitutes responsible breeding, banging their drums, and other breeders have no desire to stand up there and be called irresponsible by definition? Show breeders have a long history of throwing other breeders under the bus. They do it on this very blog, repeatedly.

    How do you think El Paso arrived at the conclusion that cross-breeding should be prohibited, Jan? Do you think the city council came up with that on their own, or do you think a 'responsible breeding' little birdie might have whispered it in their ear?

    ReplyDelete
  92. You are indeed a moron if you cannot see how HSUS and other anti-breeding organizations use 'responsible breeder' rhetoric to back their laws. Responsible breeders show their dogs, let's make it illegal to keep intact dogs unless you show. Responsible breeders don't breed very often, let's limit the number of puppies you can produce or litters you can have. Responsible breeders don't keep lots of dogs, let's limit the number of dogs you can keep. Responsible breeders don't crossbreed, let's make that illegal, too. Bijou is right when she says most puppies are not produced by show breeders. The anti-breeding contingent counts on this. By making it illegal for backyard breeders like me to breed, you cut out a huge number of breeders, making the remaining few, those 'responsible' show breeders, easy pickings.

    And oh, yes, they'll be easy to defeat. Just ask them, how do you ensure diversity at the MHC when you are breeding within a closed registry? How do you justify breeding brachycephalic dogs, just look at this research that shows how damaging that is? How do you justify breeding dogs with a 40% cancer rate? How do you justify breeding dogs prone to this or that just because of the way their shaped? Will the 'responsible' breeders be able to answer those questions? Or will they resort to whining leaaaaave meeeee alooooone?

    I know that you know exactly what I'm talking about, Jan, because you left the anti-PDE FB group when they went after that pet breeder. That's a perfect example of 'responsible breeders' gone amuck. Why shouldn't we have laws against pet breeding, or cross-breeding, after all, these are the responsible breeders, and they say it's wrong, right?

    When I have been attacked, even on this blog, I have had an answer for each point, and I think they're good, plausible answers. The regular readers of my comments here can be the judge of that. Curious, isn't it, how I, a disreputable, evil, cross-breeding backyard breeder, can answer criticisms in a coherent manner, but the so-called responsible breeders, the ones who are sooooooo very knowledgeable, the Epitome of Dog Breeding, the show breeders, simply cry leaaaaave meeee aloooone?

    Strange world.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I watched AB 1634 carefully; my sister lives in California and breeds dachshunds. The 'we've got to shut down all these backyard breeders and puppy mills!' rhetoric was thick on the ground. It shows up every time one of these breeding laws comes up.

    says Jess
    you are wrong about that Jess if you think pure bred breeders said that... I spent days in Sacramento listening and giving testimony on AB 1634 the mandatory castration bill in California pushed HARD by the AR's. Breeders did not talk about puppy mills and BYB's .. AR's like the HSUS ( yes the same one that this blogger supported by speaking at their conference) were the driving force behind this bill and their mantra was full of "puppy mills" and BYB's BS. This was an HSUS written and backed bill through their lackey Judie Mancuso. They were everywhere trashing not only commercial breeders ( I have no problem with them.. but I would bet most people here do)but ANY breeders.. Mancuso ( HSUS backed) stood up and actually told me I should be glad every dog would be castrated because I could PAY for "exemptions" and then I could charge triple for my dogs. You, Jess, on the other hand would be SOL ( that is S**t out of luck for you Brits and others) because there were NO exemptions for cross bred dogs.. or even purpose bred SAR dogs ( search and rescue) or even Guide Dogs or service dogs but we still spoke up for you.
    EVERY breeder I know opposed this bill.. every single one .. and who spoke the most in opposition at the capitol? Pure bred dog breeders. Even though there were very narrow exemptions for them ( us) If WE did not speak up this bill would have sailed through and that would have been death to dog breeding in CA.. and the HSUS was counting on this passing in CA so they could take it nationwide.
    When I say leave us alone Jess... I mean you too. When I say "responsible breeders" I mean you too Jess. HSUS is an organization that uses the term "responsible "to manage people like Jemima and use them to cut out breeders like you. They have no clue what "responsible breeders" do because they do not believe in ANY dog breeding at all but they do have a pretty good clue about what the public will swallow and if it is "bad breeders", "greeders" ( as in puppy mills) or hoarders ( the latest "crisis") or people keeping intact dogs they will push it and they do. I have no desire to see you or any other person stop breeding dogs... but then I am in the minority here as well as on the FB page you mention. I see many good answers from breeders here on this list in response to accusations about their chosen breeds and their breeding programs no matter what they are.
    I don't know about El Paso.. but if I were to wager I would put my money on HSUS. They back ( and write) almost every bill that has to do with elimination of pet dog breeding.. why not this one too?
    I will say that those here who are so adamant about "laws" being passed to "control " breeders have no idea what a Pandoras box they are opening.. I do wish some could have been at the AB 1634 hearings.. it would have curled your toes and set your hair on fire. No matter what you think I support your breeding program.. or just your right to breed dogs.
    by the way.. here is the Wiki on AB 1634..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_1634

    interesting to note that the "carrier" of the bill Lloyd Levine was soundly defeated in the next election and has not been heard of since. may that also be the fate of any other politician that attempts to take our rights from us.

    ReplyDelete
  94. here is an excerpt from the Los Angles law that says ALL dog will be castrated before the age of six months:
    "The owner or custodian of the dog is a member of a department approved purebred dog breed clubs, which maintains and enforces a code of ethics for dog breeding that includes restrictions from breeding dogs with genetic defects and life threatening health problems that commonly threaten the breed."
    If you do not belong to a club.. or breed dogs that DO NOT meet this criteria, you must castrate that dog ( either sex).. now do any of you see the chink in that armor or do you still think more laws are the way to go?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Gosh this blog sometimes resembles a Monty Python sketch on the Spanish Inquisition ' CONFESS - CONFESS !! - well you know what... here's my confession :

    I breed a single specific breed

    I use line breeding to retain that breed's individual characteristics

    I do everything in my power to breed healthy well adjusted unexaggerated examples of my breed

    I will not however throw the baby out with the bath water and cross breed to a different breed

    I am not responsible for the breed standards of other breeds

    I am not responsible for the breeding practices of other breeders

    I am PROUD of the dogs I breed and enjoy having them assessed against others of their breed in the show ring




    You may well disagree but you know what - I'm the one doing the breeding and therefore my viewpoint is the one ultimately counts when it comes to MY dogs.


    You may well have a different viewpoint but then there's absoloutely nothing to stop YOU breeding dogs as you see fit as well - do what you like - cross breed until the cows come home - create 'alternative' versions of the breeds you dissapprove of so much - don't show your dogs or have them registered - guess what - I REALLY DON'T CARE !!

    Oh and another thing I will not be bullied to change - either you work with me and listen to what I have to say as a breeder without constantly resorting to childish name calling or point scoring or we continue as two separate factions with all the forward momentum of a snail .

    Still - you know -I honestly think it's the battle you lot enjoy rather than entering into any meaningful kind of dialogue with breeders perhaps because that would mean acknowledging that maybe - just maybe - we may have a point !!

    ReplyDelete
  96. "I breed a single specific breed

    I use line breeding to retain that breed's individual characteristics

    I do everything in my power to breed healthy well adjusted unexaggerated examples of my breed

    I will not however throw the baby out with the bath water and cross breed to a different breed"

    Confession 4 kinda, sorta, actually totally contradicts point 3. If you breed within a closed registry, you are not doing everything you can for your dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  97. ..actually I said " I do everything in my power to breed healthy well adjusted unexaggerated examples of my BREED"


    .....not of my cross breed ......

    ReplyDelete
  98. Bijou thank you for that, now we know your position I’d like to pick up on some of the things you said (as opposed to just picking on them)and let you know mine.
    “I breed a single specific breed”
    Personally I don’t mind if you breed one, two or ten different breeds as long as you put the dogs’ health first.

    “I use line breeding to retain that breed's individual characteristics”

    Please clarify what you mean here. Do you mean that you have an unbroken family line (or lines) in your kennel, or did you mean you practice inbreeding?

    “I do everything in my power to breed healthy well adjusted unexaggerated examples of my breed”

    I’ve not seen your dogs but others on here who have tend to agree that indeed you do. Good for you and long may it continue that way.

    “I will not however throw the baby out with the bath water and cross breed to a different breed”

    From what you’ve said it doesn’t sound like there’s any need to outcross your breed just yet. Again, long may it continue to be so. Sadly that’s not the case for all breeds. For some it may be the only way to save them. Can you at least accept this as a basic truth- that SOME breeds DO need to be outcrossed? And if so would you hope that those within the breeds would listen to your point of view without attacking you?

    “I am not responsible for the breed standards of other breeds”

    But you have the right to speak out against those standards that do have a detrimental effect on the health of the breed, even if it’s a different breed. We may prefer a particular breed or breeds, but we care about ALL dogs, don’t we? You CAN contact the KC (or AKC or whatever) and explain why you think a particular breed standard needs adjustments.

    “I am not responsible for the breeding practices of other breeders”

    No you are not, but you have the right to speak out against breeding practices that you find objectionable. Does it not get under your skin that, breeders who DO breed for exaggerated features (which causes suffering) get glorified like they’re doing something great, when in reality they are not? Give praise where it is due, offer constructive criticism where it is not.

    “I am PROUD of the dogs I breed and enjoy having them assessed against others of their breed in the show ring”

    I’m not a fan of shows. I do like agility and working trials etc, but not shows like Crufts. We have seen a great number of dogs with health problems winning at such shows, often judges give awards to dogs which do not measure up to the breed standard etc. The reasons to not like shows are many. But ultimately, even though I’m not a show fan, I will defend your right to show your dogs. As long as they’re healthy of course.

    Cont.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Cont.

    “You may well disagree but you know what - I'm the one doing the breeding and therefore my viewpoint is the one ultimately counts when it comes to MY dogs.”

    I’m sure others feel that way too. Let us pretend for a moment that your next door neighbour decided to become a breeder. He decides to breed the same one as you. Unlike you He doesn’t do health testing, keeps his dogs in sub-standard kennels, hardly ever walks them, puppies aren’t well socialised. He breeds for exaggerated types. He knows his dogs have health problems, but breeds them regardless. He doesn’t care how long you’ve been breeding as he simply doesn’t want your advice. He even practices close inbreeding. To top it all off, his dogs get the same registration certificates as your dogs do, with all the kudos that registration brings. Wouldn’t that make you angry? Would you be concerned about the welfare of his dogs? Most likely you would be. But he’s the one breeding them, so it’s HIS opinion that counts and to hell with anyone who disagrees.


    “You may well have a different viewpoint but then there's absoloutely nothing to stop YOU breeding dogs as you see fit as well - do what you like - cross breed until the cows come home - create 'alternative' versions of the breeds you dissapprove of so much - don't show your dogs or have them registered - guess what - I REALLY DON'T CARE !!”

    Key words for me here are:” there's absoloutely nothing to stop YOU breeding dogs as you see fit as well”. And nothing to stop your neighbour from breeding puppies riddled with health problems either. The industry is “largely unregulated” after all. Perhaps you SHOULD care.

    “Oh and another thing I will not be bullied to change - either you work with me and listen to what I have to say as a breeder without constantly resorting to childish name calling or point scoring or we continue as two separate factions with all the forward momentum of a snail .”

    The vast majority of bullying and name calling on here is committed by breeders rather than by their detractors, but hey ho – I do agree that it shouldn’t happen. So to be clear, if any of my comments have caused others here to feel threatened then I am sorry, it wasn’t my intention. But at the same time I will not be bullied into not caring about the welfare of dogs – whether they’re my own or someone else’s.

    “Still - you know -I honestly think it's the battle you lot enjoy rather than entering into any meaningful kind of dialogue with breeders perhaps because that would mean acknowledging that maybe - just maybe - we may have a point !!”

    Both sides have valid points to make, how are we supposed to get those points across to each other without dialogue? That’s the great thing about this blog – both sides can put across their points of view. They can then debate about its virtues and short comings. Compare this to the anti –PDE Facebook group who do not allow any detractors from speaking their mind at all.

    Whatever side of the debate you’re on, Best Wishes for 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  100. To Bijou:

    What breed of dog do you produce?

    If this is the case, can we see photos of your dogs?

    "I will not however throw the baby out with the bath water and cross breed to a different breed." So would this also count for crosses that look very close or exactly like the original? Take for example Fiona the Dalmatian who's a Dalmatian Pointer mix but looks just like a Dalmatian. Would this be fine or would the Eugenics principals get in your way?

    "I REALLY DON'T CARE !!" The fact that you keep coming back to this blog, Keep posting, and keep fighting your position shows that you really do care.

    "Still - you know -I honestly think it's the battle you lot enjoy rather than entering into any meaningful kind of dialogue with breeders perhaps because that would mean acknowledging that maybe - just maybe - we may have a point !!"

    What about acknowledging the point that your principals of not mixing breeds even if the dogs come out looking like the breed standard doesn't seem to be in your field? Let's mention how high you are on your pedestal in the Eugenics principal.

    ReplyDelete
  101. "Key words for me here are:” there's absoloutely nothing to stop YOU breeding dogs as you see fit as well”. And nothing to stop your neighbour from breeding puppies riddled with health problems either. The industry is “largely unregulated” after all. Perhaps you SHOULD care."

    Indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  102. "What about acknowledging the point that your principals of not mixing breeds even if the dogs come out looking like the breed standard doesn't seem to be in your field? Let's mention how high you are on your pedestal in the Eugenics principal."


    nope lets not ......lets find out what YOU have done to improve the health of any breed ( or indeed cross breed )...my breeding standards are freely available for all to see ..... .but lets see what YOURS are ..... what health testing have you done ? what's the COI of your dogs ? what have you done personally to help fund research ...what seminars , what imports , what record keeping, what data collection ? ..

    I do hope you're wearing a crash helmet when you eventually fall off that ( very) high horse !!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Jess : you mentioned that you thought pure bred dog breeders were behind the writing of the horrendous El Paso Texas laws.. I did a small search:

    . "ALDF's legislative director Stephan Otto assisted in drafting and editing crucial parts of this ordinance and is doing so for other cities around the country."

    as most of you know Animal Legal Defense Foundation is a deep seated animal rights group with ties to HSUS, PETA and more For those of you who do not know what Jess is writing about.. THIS is what happens when you call for "regulation" read it and weep for Jess and for ALL dog breeders because even though "pure breds"CAN be bred under this draconian set of laws there are inspections of your private home and lists of regulations you must fulfill before and after you breed a litter.. the obvious thing this tries to do is STOP ALL DOG BREEDING cross breds first ..all dogs next... be very very careful what you wish for:
    http://www.animallawcoalition.com/companion-animal-breeding/article/1457

    ReplyDelete
  104. I am incredulous that the Kennel Club in its rebuttal is promoting its Assured Breeders Scheme as some kind of prevention of poor breeding practices. This is insane when it is known that puppy farmers have used the scheme as a backdoor way to get KC approval for their puppies, because they know the KC usually do not bother to inspect the premises, nor ensure that the puppies are socialised. Also, as many breeds, even those like the pug which are clearly unhealthy, have no mandatory health-checks, all the puppy farmers need to do is breed those breeds with no required health-checks and voila, they can APPEAR to be breeding healthy dogs and to the highest standards possible.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Bijou said:

    “I will not however throw the baby out with the bath water and cross breed to a different breed”

    Define "the baby".

    ReplyDelete
  106. Bestuvall said:

    "Roger..get a grip.. the AR's are not your friend if you love animals.."

    I seem to remember saying that I have little time for the AR mob, and that sometimes I think they do more harm than good. So where did you get the idea that I think they're my friends?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Fran - I am a member of the ABS and I can tell you that I was most certainly inspected - Bill Lambert came out himself to look at my set up and inspect all my paperwork etc - still don't let a little thing like the truth stand in the way of this blog's continuous Kc bashing !!

    'Define the baby' is simple - it's those unique and specific breed traits that make my breed different from any others -

    ReplyDelete
  108. Bijou, the ABS has improved but at the moment only 15 per cent of ABS breeders have been inspected - and Fran is right in saying that for many breeds there are no recommended/required health tests. While there are some great ABS breeders, there are others who most definitely are not.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  109. "Define the baby" anon here.

    Bijou said: 'Define the baby' is simple - it's those unique and specific breed traits that make my breed different from any others

    Please provide empirical evidence that the proposed outcrossings would affect these traits negatively when performed in a reasonable way (for counterexamples, see e.g. the Dalmation - or, for that matter, nearly every single modern breed in the mid-19th Century). If you cannot provide such evidence, your statement that doing so would be "throwing the baby out" is mere conjecture.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Anonymous 3 January 2012 16:42 said...

    "Please provide empirical evidence that the proposed outcrossings would affect these traits negatively when performed in a reasonable way (for counterexamples, see e.g. the Dalmation - or, for that matter, nearly every single modern breed in the mid-19th Century). If you cannot provide such evidence, your statement that doing so would be "throwing the baby out" is mere conjecture."

    You're not going to get any evidence. The vast majority of breeders I've talked to have no understanding of basic genetics and biology, and the biological definition of 'breed': frequency of alleles. That 'breeds' are 'breeds' simply due to concentration or absence of specific genes seems to be completely beyond them. They sincerely believe that there is some nebulous 'something' that makes their breed their breed. Magical thinking.

    I was actually told recently that a single crossbreeding will 'destroy' the original breed, that once you do a cross the dogs will always be crosses no matter how many times you backcross, and that crossbreeds are 'new breeds.' All biologically incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  111. To Bijou:

    "I do hope you're wearing a crash helmet when you eventually fall off that ( very) high horse !!"

    I thought our opinions on how dogs should be bred were of little to no concern of yours. :)

    I would also like to add that you've completely avoided my questions...

    I am not a breeder. But I support breeders and suggest them to potential purchasers who does what's right for the dog's health. If that means crossing out to other dogs then so be it. And if that dog happens to look just like the original or close to it, what's the harm in that?

    Seeing how you've yet to show your consideration for the betterment of the dog, you're certainly one of those breeders I would not suggest...

    Hope your horse doesn't tire of keeping you steady, Bijou.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Bijou said: 'Define the baby' is simple - it's those unique and specific breed traits that make my breed different from any others

    Bijou,

    You forgot an extremely important adjective: it's those unique and specific PHYSICAL breed traits that make my breed different from any others

    You have openly stated elsewhere on this blog (remember ‘M is for…?) that you deliberately breed away from what little the breed standard says about the traits that make up the breed’s temperament, those which make it suited to one of its functions, that of a guard dog, also stated in the breed standard. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that, you are saying everything about what you believe defines a dog: appearance only. I wouldn’t worry about it too much – I don’t think you’ll be penalized in the ring for this.

    When you say you won’t ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’, what you don’t seem to understand is that the bathwater is composed of all the genes you ‘throw out’ by adhering to a closed registry system and, in addition, line-breeding in an aggressive selection for ‘type’. I would worry about that, because you are inevitably throwing out ‘the baby’ too with this approach.

    ReplyDelete
  113. LOL ...oh my goodness the pomposity on here is just breathtaking and frankly laughable !! -
    .....


    it's a red herring to bring up the Lua Dalmatian as an example of cross breeding that other breeders should use - this was done to solve a specific problem ( as was the bob tailed Boxer out cross ) - the resulting pups were the bred back into a single breeds restricted gene pool for many many generations until they eventually resembled their intended breed ..neither of these out crosses were done to increase genetic diversity which is what you lot keep suggesting - to achieve sustainable genetic diversity you would need to outcross every 3-4 generations with an inevitable and catastrophic loss of breed type ...now THATS throwing the baby out with the bath water

    Sarah ... when I breed I do make good temperaments an important consideration - and yes over the years this has meant my dogs are less reactive and more family friendly than the breed was many years ago - that's because I want my pups to fit in well to their new role of companions first and foremost - however they are still active ,watchful, bright, and everything else that the breed should be so no I'm not JUST retaining the physical appearance of my breed but most of it's unique character traits as well.

    - " Seeing how you've yet to show your consideration for the betterment of the dog, you're certainly one of those breeders I would not suggest..."

    ..you know what ..somehow ...just somehow ..I'll have to live without your recommendation - meanwhile I'll carry on breeding my dogs the way I think best ...you of course are free to do whatever you like with the dogs YOU breed -

    ReplyDelete
  114. Bijou, yes, you're right that a single outcross is not going to be enough to improve genetic diversity in a breed that is struggling; more will need to be done (and ultimately I think will need to be considered to ensure the survival of many breeds).

    It doesn't take "many, mamy" generations of backcrossing to regain type. The LUA Dals were reg'd with the AKC at 4 generations (although politics then prevented them from being bred from); and the same goes for Bruce Cattanach's Corgi/Boxer x - reg'd with the KC at 4 generations. In fact, as I showed with the German Pointer outcross post a couple of months ago, it can be even quicker than that to regain full type, especially if you use a similar breed.

    I've always been intriguedd, btw, by Johan and Edith Gallant's Schnauzer/Africanis x. The first generation were so like Schnauzers that they fooled an AKC judge.

    ("SOS Dog: The Purebred Dog Hobby Re-Examined" - avail through Amazon and a fascinating read)

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  115. Same baby/bathwater anon again...

    Bijou said: "to achieve sustainable genetic diversity you would need to outcross every 3-4 generations with an inevitable and catastrophic loss of breed type."

    I notice you still have not provided any empirical evidence that this "catastrophic loss of breed type" is something that would necessary follow. Need I remind you that the practice you describe was exactly how most current dog breeds came to be? Most dog breeds did not just fall from the sky around 1870: They had ancestors based on which breed type and temperament were defined in standards. These ancestors, who possessed these desired traits, were the result of breeding that placed a lot less emphasis on "purity of blood". You are not naming the breed you have yourself, but chances are this scenario applies to yours, too.

    So, again, what actual evidence can you provide to show that your baby/bathwater analogy is not mere conjecture?

    ReplyDelete
  116. @Jemima:

    Of course the first generation of an outcross will be fairly consistent in type. It's called the first Mendelian law ;-).

    ReplyDelete
  117. ..and what happens after that 4th generation Jemima ? - inevitably another outcross would need to happen if diversity is the goal ..and don't forget this would be using dogs that ALREADY carry genes for a different breed so the possiblility of introducing new genetic problems into the original breed would be very real ...and just how sustainable would individual breeds be if only one generation in 4 actually resemble the breed they are supposed to be both temperamentally and physically ?

    In the past when breeds were being developed any pups that did not fit the ideal were culled
    quite rightly this is abhorrent to breeders today - ...so what would happen to all those cross bred pups ? - my waiting list is full of folk like myself who love the unique traits of the BSD . .. why would they settle for BSD X GSD or any other likely combination !!...

    also by cross breeding, pups would inherit traits that were not typical for their breed - so subsequent matings would need to be planned to put these faults right within the 3/4 generations available - in the past this was achieved by very close line breeding
    - take a look here at how the Cesky Terrier evolved as an example

    http://www.ceskyterrier.co.uk/section214985.html

    again this is not acceptable to breeders today ( and presumably not to you either ! )

    ReplyDelete
  118. It doesn't take "many, mamy" generations of backcrossing to regain type. The LUA Dals were reg'd with the AKC at 4 generations (although politics then prevented them from being bred from)
    says the bloger

    really I did not know that politics kept dogs from breeding.. too bad it does not work with real politicians

    ReplyDelete
  119. bijou,

    The good news is most conformation breeders haven't been selecting for intelligence, proper breed temperament or working ability for years anyway! So you don't have to worry about losing any of those things in the event of an outcross. Outward appearance, which of course is the main concern, is very quick to come back to type, as is evidenced by the results of Cattanach's corgi/boxer breedings.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Romany - you're completely missing the point -Bruce's outcross was done not to increase the Boxer gene pool but to establish the bob tail gene in his breed - all subsequent pups were then bred back into the same restricted Boxer gene pool that all other Boxer breeders use - ( you know the use of the same restricted gene pool that you lot call eugenics ! ) they were NOT further outcrossed at the 4th generation as would have been required if increased genetic diversity was the goal - ...the same breeding strategy was used for the Pointer / Dalmatian cross - the resulting pups were bred strictly back into their single restricted breed gene pool -and for very good reason ... show me an example of a breed that has been out crossed to another breed every 4th generation for many years yet STILL retains it's breed type !


    "The good news is most conformation breeders haven't been selecting for intelligence, proper breed temperament or working ability for years anyway! "

    - for heavens sake ... can you not debate things without resorting to this kind of simplistic RUBBISH !!

    ReplyDelete
  121. Bijou wrote:

    "show me an example of a breed that has been out crossed to another breed every 4th generation for many years yet STILL retains it's breed type !"

    Pretty much every single breed before ~1870.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Breeds are not only identified by there looks and conformation but most dogs have breed specific charactaristics which sets them apart from other dogs. If we keep on outcrossing we will lose the dogs inherited personalities and we may end up with bigger problems. That is my opinion on this matter. It is not all about looks but other qualities as well. That is why I prefer a dog with a predictable personality which suits my lifestyle and personality.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Records weren't kept . . . but I'd not be surprised if something like an outcross every four generations was going on in the days when the introduction of the lesser Saint John's dog was giving way to various gun dog breeds.

    In a way this proves your point. Type was dynamic. But it sure ended out with some fine breeds.

    ReplyDelete
  124. "Pretty much every single breed before ~1870."

    were they breeds though or generic types ? - for example my own breed was formed towards the end of the 19th century from the various generic shepherding types being used in Belgium, a gathering of over 100 of these dogs was held and from these were selected just a few dogs to become the founder of the BSD breed - in fact most of the individual breeds we now have were created at around this time from generic toy, terrier, hound or gundog types - outcrossing was almost universally stopped one these defined breeds were established and all subsequent breeding done within that breeds restricted gene pool - now it seems to me we can either have the hundreds of individual specific breeds we currently enjoy or go back to having generic breed types but we cannot do both - and oops there goes that baby in the bath water once again !

    ReplyDelete
  125. "show me an example of a breed that has been out crossed to another breed every 4th generation for many years yet STILL retains it's breed type !"

    Playing with parameters here me thinks . . . forcing the assertion that diversity can only be maintained if and only if new genes are added every fourth generation. This is a bogus assertion invented by one trying to steer the idea that that is what is required.

    What would be required would be dependent on the founding population of the breed and disease incidense, and as well the breeders and how fast they were culling diversity out through the use of matador studs and too tight selection criteria.

    Crosses in every four generations in every line would not be required to help maintain diversity in breeds. Throughout full breed populations the allowance for breeders to make their own decisions and cross in as they see fit, WOULD help stop the loss of diversity in closed registry breeds as it would remove the barriers in place that make this so incredibly difficult currently.

    Those that want to restrict breeders and the decisions they make seem to be the fanciers themselves. Bijou, you, nor any other breeder, would HAVE to use lines from crossed in dogs if you did not want to.

    Why continue to embrace a system that has imposed restrictions on breeders decisions like in no other time? What is the comfort? It certainly can't be in breed health.

    As for breeds that retain type in open registries . . . the Tibetan Spaniel until 1984, when the AKC took over, had a b-register, allowing unregistered dogs a back door in.

    Labrador Retrievers have unregistered dogs that entered their breed until 1962 - http://www.labradornet.com/typecast.html - "It is well known that even in the 1980s Golden retrievers were used to improve the coats of yellow Labradors, and we also know that the Kennel Club hasn't been informed about these interbreedings."

    I don't know how long b registry type situations were maintained in other breeds - but certainly the majority of breeds have not been closed in since 1870.

    The Jack Russel Terriers in the USA and he UK still have a system in place for bringing in unregistered dogs.

    Kary

    ReplyDelete
  126. @Bijou:

    I see you concede that the current "purebred for its own sake" cargo cult is a rather recent development that has not existed for 99% of the time during which humans have been breeding dogs for a purpose. Thus, the term "baby" may be more justified than you thought; we are certainly not talking about a time-honoured, venerable practice here.

    When considering animal breeding practices in general, you will notice that such continuous outcrosses are still commonplace in horses (very few horse breeds have a closed stud book and thus get outcrossed routinely, yet they are all breeds that have both a consistent type and a consistent temperament), cows (e.g., Holsteins are a breed of a constant type and temperament that is continuously outcrossed) - farm animals in general, given the somewhat more realistic approach of their breeders; also, pet rodents, rabbits, birds and even quite a few cat breeds. Dog breeding as it is currently practiced is not, and never has been the rule in animal breeding: It is a relatively recent experiment that has, frankly, failed rather miserably.

    Basically, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever and no genetic theory supporting the notion that dog breeds could not be maintained the same way it is done in almost every other species of domestic animal. It certainly is not true that type and temperament vary wildly in animal breeds where outcrossing is commonplace, and DNA is DNA in dogs, too. If you disagree, you can do what I keep asking you to do and provide empirical, independent evidence to the contrary instead of assertions based on conjecture. Beats adoring the ashes of hypothetical babies any time.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Bijou blurted:

    " to achieve sustainable genetic diversity you would need to outcross every 3-4 generations with an inevitable and catastrophic loss of breed type"

    WHERE are you getting this nonsensical four generation number from? WHO has said it would be necessary to crossbreed every four generations?

    No one, that's who. You are making this shit up to back up your unsupportable 'breed type will never be regained' position.

    ReplyDelete
  128. "As for breeds that retain type in open registries . . . the Tibetan Spaniel until 1984, when the AKC took over, had a b-register, allowing unregistered dogs a back door in."

    ...this is not cross breeding but assortative breeding - something the Kc does allow for - - breeders are being beaten over the head not because they won't do assortative mating ( they do - I've done it myself !! ) but because they won't use a DIFFERENT breed to increase diversity.

    " If you disagree, you can do what I keep asking you to do and provide empirical, independent evidence to the contrary instead of assertions based on conjecture"


    ..and you can do what I keep asking you to ...and breed dogs yourself - go on - if it's possible to maintain a breed by cross breeding every fourth generation then go ahead and do it ! ....

    ReplyDelete
  129. Bijou, I don’t know about you but for me it is OK if breed type includes some variation. Look at breeds like working border collies or Anatolian shepherds. Despite the range of appearance in these breeds, every dog is easily identifiable as a member of its breed.

    Show breeders need to pull away from antiquated thinking that leads you to believe it is a good thing to produce a litter of pups, or a line of dogs, where all the dogs look like clones of each other. Variation is healthy! Why do you fear it?

    Also, I stand by what I said about temperament and working ability...most show dogs have nothing to lose in those areas. And remember, an intelligent outcrossing program will involve crossing to a breed with a similar function, and similar instincts, and will involve breeding only to individual dogs who are smart and well-tempered--not slow-witted or vicious! So what would be the concerns exactly?

    In my opinion fear of outcrossing is based on ignorance of science and ignorance of where dog breeds came from in the first place!

    ReplyDelete
  130. I have a pug and there is NOTHING wrong with her! This ad champagne makes me out to be the bad guy accusing me of animal cruelty! I am out raged by this ad champagne.

    The RSPCA are over run by Staffie and cross breads in their shelters, hence their ad compange to target pedigree owners and breeds. Perhaps they should be campaigning the importance of neutering and the life long commitment of owning a dog. Cross breeds and staffies can be bought for very little money or even for free. So certain people living on certain estates in the UK don’t give it much thought when getting one. Rspca should educate those plebs who get these dogs then give them up, or let them fall pregnant.

    I saved up for a year to get my pug; I researched the breed and the breeder fully.

    Ever wondered why there are less pedigree dogs in shelters, because pedigree owners are less likely to give up their dog! They give more thought into purchasing it!


    This is my opinion and is written in anger. Of course I am generalising but I am simply putting my point across you would do too if you had been accused like this!!

    ReplyDelete
  131. This campaign by the RSPCA is totally misplaced and misleading to the general public who frequently aren't au fait with the issues involved.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Boo Boo, I appreciate your passion and love for your dog, but Pugs do in fact suffer from a few serious health problems that are a result of their physical conformation. You chose to buy a breed with an excessively short nose because you thought they were cute, right? But that short nose compressed tissue thats meant to fit in a long nose up and because of it your dog cannot breathe normally. If your dog has escaped from breathing problems, consider yourself lucky, read more in depth here on this blog and watch the original PDE movie.

    Bijou: I am not sure where you get your "for genetic diversity you must cross-breed every 4th generation" spiel either. I have not seen that stated here or anywhere. Its very, very unlikely that allowing the out-crossing of a different breed when needed to eliminate a genetic flaw or add in a dose of some desired characteristic would have any discernible effect on breed type in the long run. The breeds may not be carbon copies of one another but could still be easily recognized as a breed by both looks and behavior. See: working Border Collies, working terriers, Anatolian shepherds...the dogs in these groups don't fit any kind of specific mold but can all be identified as that breed easily. It holds true for horses and cattle too.

    ReplyDelete
  133. @ Boo Boo Kitty

    You're taking the add to personally. It's attacking irresponsible breeding practices that lead to suffering, if you have a healthy pug then hip hip hooray. But I doubt that your pug is completely healthy. Especially if it's a purebred. Or maybe you're too much of a novice to notice any signs that should be of concern.

    From the best of my knowledge, the humane society there in the UK (I'm not from there) do spout the importance of owning any dog and the importance of fixing your dog. Seems as though you're trying to focus the attention on something that's a common place concern so that you will feel better about your pedigree pug. A breed that's almost always a wreck and should honestly be changed or extinct.

    Where I live, pedigree dogs make up most of the pound population. Where are your stats to show that it's not the same for the UK?

    As for researching, again - hip hip hooray for you. But most people don't do that do they? Because if they did they most certainly wouldn't purchase breeds that suffer the most.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Bijou said, about the b-registers being open in many breeds until well after the mid 20th Century ----- "...this is not cross breeding but assortative breeding - something the Kc does allow for - - breeders are being beaten over the head not because they won't do assortative mating ( they do - I've done it myself !! ) but because they won't use a DIFFERENT breed to increase diversity."

    Bijou. You are wrong. Breeders were using different breeds and bringing them into the gene pool, deliberately. They had systems in place to do so. That IS crossbreeding.

    Kary

    ReplyDelete
  135. Bijou said "breeders are being beaten over the head not because they won't do assortative mating ( they do - I've done it myself !! ) but because they won't use a DIFFERENT breed to increase diversity."

    No, they are not. Breeders are being asked to change BACK and to accept the system as it existed for thousands of years as breeds were being created and even well after they were refined and recognizable breeds. They are being asked to stop dictating to OTHER breeders that their choices have to be from a specific closed stud book. Those that don't like the idea have the choice to reject bringing into their own program any line they want for whatever reason they want.

    Kary

    ReplyDelete
  136. whose dictating ? - if you want to cross breed then go ahead - just don't ask the rest of us to do so !!

    ReplyDelete
  137. Those that made the decision to insist on closed stud books in the first place . . . dictated. Those that don't want to allow others to move the registries and the clubs in the direction of changing back to a proven breeding method, and point fingers and condemn and threaten breeders who dare to crossbreed and work outside the current misguided system, are attempting to dictate.

    That wouldn't be such a problematic thing if, in their attempts to harangue, they hadn't brought the AR wolves to every breeders door.

    But as I don't need to continue in a circular debate, I'll just quote what has already been written above by Jess (ya know, in case you missed it), --- "Show breeders have a long history of throwing other breeders under the bus. They do it on this very blog, repeatedly.

    How do you think El Paso arrived at the conclusion that cross-breeding should be prohibited, Jan? Do you think the city council came up with that on their own, or do you think a 'responsible breeding' little birdie might have whispered it in their ear?"

    and Heather ----

    "See, the fanciers won't leave us to our turnip trucks, so we've little choice but to casually mention "Um, your dog is suffocating" or "Eating your own young is not a natural behavior" or "Planned caeasarian is animal abuse" or "Anyone who would intentionally breed two dogs when they know that some of the pups will be born without *eyes* has something essential broken in there."

    For too many decades, systematic animal abuse has been presented as not only normal, but as defining what is correct, because "We do it for love."

    and

    "No.

    Will not shut up."

    Heather posted that, but I'll second it.

    Kary

    ReplyDelete
  138. Bijou spewed:

    "..and you can do what I keep asking you to ...and breed dogs yourself - go on - if it's possible to maintain a breed by cross breeding every fourth generation then go ahead and do it ! ...."

    You know why I won't shut and just go breed my crosses? One, I also breed purebreds and work within the registry system. These are, surprisingly, not mutually exclusive. Two, I don't want breeders who spout such biologically ignorant nonsense as YOU DO, as so many other 'responsible' breeders do, TO REPRESENT ME.

    The AKC and the breed clubs need to wake up, and *grow up,* and start making an effort to address welfare problems caused by closed registries and conformation, or someone else is to tell them how to conduct their business:

    From Can the Bulldog Be Saved?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/magazine/can-the-bulldog-be-saved.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1

    “While the British Kennel Club, in addition to changing its breed standards, has banned the registration of puppies from closely related parents, the A.K.C. has refused to follow suit. Wayne Pacelle, the Humane Society C.E.O., told me that if the A.K.C. and breed clubs won’t act, it’s inevitable that animal welfare groups will push for legal standards addressing inbreeding and the physical soundness and genetic health of dogs. “Breeding certainly has a place in the world of dogs, but this mania about achieving what’s considered a ‘perfect’ or desirable outward appearance rather than focusing on the physical soundness of the animal is one of the biggest dog-welfare problems in this country,” he said. “And the emotional and financial cost of these sick dogs to their owners is enormous.”

    Unless these problems are addressed on a national level by AKC and breed clubs, with good health surveys so we have a better idea of disease incidence, and DNA testing to know the true state of homozygosity/heterozygosity, WE WILL ALL BE GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET.

    I WILL NOT HAVE WAYNE FREAKING PACELLE TELLING ME HOW TO BREED MY BLOODY DOGS. It is a sad state of affairs when an obscure crossbreeder knows more about genetics than long time breeders and ‘breed experts.’

    Letting Wayne Pacelle and his anti-breeding ilk into MY whelping box is NOT inevitable, not if we are HONEST AND PULL OUR HEADS OUT OF OUR ASSES.

    If you and all these other 'responsible' breeders keep spouting nonsensical rhetoric, that is exactly where we will end up: with laws prescribing the minutiae of dog breeding. Because obviously, if the 'responsible' breeder, the cream of the crop, can't get basic genetics and biology right, they need someone to tell them what to do, don't they?

    I WILL NOT LET YOU PEOPLE DRAG ME DOWN WITH YOU. So no, I will not go away and leaaaaave you alone, I will not just breed my own dogs and shut up, BECAUSE I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT NOT ALL DOG BREEDERS ARE LIKE YOU.

    I fail to see WHY this is so hard to understand, because you 'responsible' breeders do the same thing all the time. You point out all the diferences between you and those horrible, unethical backyard breeders. Don't want to be mistaken for a BYB! Gawd no!

    Well, I don't want to be mistaken for a moron.

    ReplyDelete
  139. what on earth is all this stuff ? - for goodness sake, if you cannot have a debate without behaving like a toddler then I'll finish my input now - that way you won't need to listen to any kind of alternative viewpoint and you can simply all carry on talkiing amongst yourselves ..... and getting precisely no-where.

    ..and a Happy New Year to you all !!

    ReplyDelete
  140. Oh bijou.

    We are happy to listen to your alternative viewpoint, however we will continue to disagree about it. Unlike you, I won't flounce off in a huff when you disagree with me.

    ReplyDelete
  141. "How do you think El Paso arrived at the conclusion that cross-breeding should be prohibited, Jan? Do you think the city council came up with that on their own, or do you think a 'responsible breeding' little birdie might have whispered it in their ear?"

    did you not read my response..?? breeders did not do the El Paso crap..the ALDF did that.. keep up with the program

    "ALDF's legislative director Stephan Otto assisted in drafting and editing crucial parts of this ordinance and is doing so for other cities around the country.."
    the ALDF is an animal rights group.. nothing to do with breeders AT ALL.

    ALDF is supported by the HSUS.. connect the dots.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  142. I WILL NOT LET YOU PEOPLE DRAG ME DOWN WITH YOU. So no, I will not go away and leaaaaave you alone, I will not just breed my own dogs and shut up, BECAUSE I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT NOT ALL DOG BREEDERS ARE LIKE YOU.

    I fail to see WHY this is so hard to understand, because you 'responsible' breeders do the same thing all the time. You point out all the diferences between you and those horrible, unethical backyard breeders. Don't want to be mistaken for a BYB! Gawd no!

    Well, I don't want to be mistaken for a moron.

    What she said.

    ReplyDelete
  143. bestuvall said...

    "did you not read my response..?? breeders did not do the El Paso crap..the ALDF did that.. keep up with the program"

    Jan, the fact that you cannot, or will not, see that the anti-breeding contingent is using the 'responsible' breeders own 'guidelines' for 'responsible' breeding against them, is truly sad.

    It is very nice to point to the ARs but the fancy is just as much to blame for the problems their tribalism are causing.

    And yes, there were 'responsible' breeders testifying that "responsible breeders breed registered purebreds, and don't make any money, so they couldn't possibly be the cause of all these mixed dogs in shelters." Which is true on it's face, but the fact that you cannot see the unintended consequences of that statement regarding the El Paso ordinance shows your willful blindness on the subject. This was in the local newspapers and on the news. Whether you like it or not, there are still plenty of breeders who are happy to throw other breeders under the bus as long as THEY are left alone. A simple look at the comments on any article regarding breeding legislation here in the US will show you comments from breeders stating that they 'need laws against those horrible bybs and puppymills, but this isn't a good one because it will affect 'responsible' breeders,' followed by a list of all those things that responsible breeders do, things that the anti-breeding contingent is using against all breeders.

    You see the same thing at work here on this very blog: every time I mention that I have crossbreeds, someone will come along and attack me for it, instantly assuming that I am unethical because I don't fit the guidelines for 'responsible' breeder.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Jess:
    I agree with you .. we have a lot of people ( breeders) running scared because of crap that HSUS and ALDF and others ( ahem) put out in the public eye.. so the response is to say "no not me.. I do things right' never realizing that there is no "right' to an AR until there is no breeding at all, cross, pure or otherwise. I am sorry you feel "thrown under the bus" by people complaining about your breeding.
    so I respect your program and support it. That is why I often say.. I really don't care what you breed and stay out of my way.
    "Responsible" is a ploy used by AR's to divide dog breeders used very effectively right here on this blog.
    Look at the RSPCA or HSUS website.. they will be glad to tell you all of the things "responsible breeders" do. Until they move the middle to another area.. I suggest everyone read Alinskys Rules For Radicals. You will see very clearly ( I hope) what HSUS, RSPCA, ALDF and many other AR groups are doing to eliminate breeders of any sort.
    the very idea that breeders should not "make money" is ridiculous.. but the AR's have pushed that anyone who dares to make a dollar ( or a pound) on breeding a litter is somehow an evil person who is cruel and abusive to animals..but they have no problem taking donor money to lobby and pass anti pet laws.
    so Jess we are not so far apart.. I hate the Ar stance.. and know that it means no more pet breeding but sadly we still have those who think that if they show the AR's that they are "responsible' they will not be affected.. HEY YOU PEOPLE get your heads out of your "donkeys" and WAKE UP

    ReplyDelete
  145. Goodness everyone, all of you really haft to know the breeds history and what the particular reason what it was bred for, here is a sight where you can really learn about the pug,

    http://www.pugvillage.com/pug-health.

    Don't hate this breed, dont hate any breed, don't even think a particular breed needs to end. To be honest, you should want to help them be healthy, and promote these breeds to be healthy. Pugs, Bulldogs, French Bulldogs, Japanese Chins, Pekeingese, English Toy Spaniels are all my favorite breeds, I think their is many ways to help the breeds, I don't think we should get rid of them. I love pedigree's with a passion, In my beliefs, we have the KC, CKC, AKC and ect, to continue these amazing breeds, to continue to have such breeds, not only my favorite breeds but the same that goes for all the other breeds, I love dogs, they are the biggest part of my life. Most pedigree dogs we use to help rescue people, and to be guide/service dogs. I think the point of this blog is to help every single breed, not distroy them. Keep the pedigree and improve their health.

    ReplyDelete