Pages

▼

Wednesday, 2 October 2013

Syringomyelia in pugs

Peppi, the Pug with syringomyelia
Four years ago, Heather from Shropshire called the Kennel Club looking for a Pug puppy. They recommended a breeder in the West Midlands who had puppies on the ground.

Heather called and reserved a fawn pup. A little while later, the breeder called to say the pup had been PTS because of hydrocephalus and offered Heather a black male as an alternative.  Heather agreed and, a little while later, handed over £970 and took the pup home.

When Peppi was 12 months old, he had a fit. Six months later, another one. A check didn't reveal much and Heather was told to wait-see. Some dogs have a fit or two but never go on to develop full-blown epilepsy. And, indeed, that's what happened in Peppi's case.  But by March this year, Heather knew her beloved Pug was in trouble. "He wasn't eating or drinking and I could tell he was in pain."

Peppi was referred to Pearl Vets in Shrewsbury where he had an MRI. The diagnosis? Syringomyelia.

Although the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel is the poster pup for syringomyelia, it has been reported in several small breeds, including Pugs (of all the breeds that cannot afford yet another health problem to add to its litany of issues).

Heather did the right thing - she called the breeder, Michelle Jones of Precious Pugs.  Ms Jones was clearly a little alarmed, revealing that she had kept two others from the litter to breed from. Heather expressed concern about this - after which the conversation got a little frosty. Heather claims it ended with Ms Jones threatened to sue Heather if she started bad-mouthing her breeding.

Heather is very upset about her little dog's suffering. Peppi has been on steroids now since March and although it has helped his condition, he has blown up like a balloon. She called everyone, including the Kennel Club, to complain. And finally she contacted me.

Now note that I am not blaming Ms Jones for the fact that one of the Pugs she has bred has syringomeylia. As I said, it's present in a lot of small breeds and it's perfectly possible that Peppi is the first dog of her breeding that has been diagnosed with SM.

And of course I think anyone that buys a Pug is pretty much nuts. If it isn't syringomyelia, it will be brachycephalic airway syndrome, or hemivertebrae or pigmentary keratitis or luxating patellas or....

But I do object to breeders threatening to sue pet owners for going public with their dogs' health problems - and unfortunately, it happens too often. For the record, it's a meaningless threat. Truth is a very good defence in any defamation/libel case.

So here, for the record, is Peppi's pedigree in the hope that it might join up some dots.

Lots of champions in here - and a lot of inbreeding. The Kennel Club's Mate Select reveals that Peppi (Kenine Ebony King) has a co-efficient of inbreeding of 21% - against the breed average of 6%. Peppi's parents are half-siblings and there are many repeat names throughout this five-generation pedigree.

Click to enlarge




at

114 comments:

  1. Anonymous2 October 2013 at 19:25

    Does she show or is she a churn em out for the pet market?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2 October 2013 at 23:27

      Doesn't really matter , It's the same lines and same influential dogs behind them, Show breeders can not constantly blame pet breeders and puppy farms for all their troubles.
      Puppyfarm/petbred dogs are not a magically separate Breed ( take a look at some puppyfarm pedigrees ) & entering a show for £5 an entry does not make you a better person.
      There is a huge puppymill in the US showing and winning just to prove that point.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3 October 2013 at 08:39

      'Kenine' isn't a kennel name; it's one of the default affixes the KC use that changes each year for puppies they register when the breeder doesn't bother to submit a name with the registration application. This in itself speaks volumes about what the sort of breeder Ms M Jones is likely to be. The vast majority of breeders who care about the dogs they produce care enough to give them a name that starts with that breeder's registered kennel name. I have never heard of a breeder who shows who did not have their own kennel name, so Jones is likely either a puppy farmer or a casual breeder who takes little interest in what she produces. That's not to say that some dogs registered with affixes such as 'Kenine' aren't healthy and don't have diverse and interesting pedigrees, or that all dogs from breeders who use a kennel name aren't inbred and have risky disease-causing bloodlines in their pedigrees (the dog and the genetics it represents don't choose who owns or breeds them). But a breeder who uses a kennel name I would hope would be more likely to offer support and hopefully a refund to assist with vet bills instead of threatening to sue a buyer.

      Delete
    3. Fran3 October 2013 at 15:44

      Why was she recommended to the owner by the KC then?

      And no surprise that the KC don't want to know when a dog is sick.

      Delete
    4. Fran3 October 2013 at 15:50

      Re: Kenine: Really? There are hundreds of Whippets registered every year without an affix. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/inbreed/Default.aspx?breed=1030

      Delete
    5. Jemima Harrison3 October 2013 at 16:07

      Fran, the litter was advertised on the KC Puppy Finder. Owner isn't on the internet so she called the KC to find out about litters available close to her.

      Jemima

      Delete
    6. Anonymous3 October 2013 at 16:10

      Yes it does matter, if you look its heavily in bred, all it takes is one of the puppys sold as pets and then the owner has their own breeding bitch . You cannot blane the owner of the champion dog in this pedigree as you jave no idea they have anything to do with. The only daft thing they may have done is not endorse the puppies.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous3 October 2013 at 16:47

      There is a huge puppymill in the US showing and winning just to prove that point

      I really dont know of many who go to thw effort of showing their puppy farmed dogs in the uk, maybe the odd one who has to many and not very well taken care of but not a single big puppy farm. Of course people here just can't help jump on the show breeders just because they can.


      .

      Delete
    8. Fran3 October 2013 at 17:03

      OK, so we all know that puppy farmed dogs are the worst of the worst. No one is denying that. But if the show breeders aren't keeping track of ill-health in their lines, avoiding dogs with known health problems including that popular champion, testing for everything they possibly can, breeding dogs with low COIs and doing their best to maintain genetic diversity in their breed, and only using dogs with great temperaments, etc., then how does that make them better than the pet breeders?

      Delete
    9. Anonymous3 October 2013 at 17:42

      Anonymous3 October 2013 16:47.

      Well I know quite a few show kennels who would be called puppy farms but for the fact they show. Some of them even end up being prosecuted for cruelty but because they show & judge are defended . if a pet breeder did half the things some "respected " breeders do they would be lynched


      When I was a Child I wanted to show dogs and looked up to the " top breeders" sadly my illusions where soon shattered when I actually met some of them in person.

      As for the Puppy mill I mentioned they admit they are a puppymill , they sell at auction and to pet shops and the only reason they show is to give a big ***** ***to the show breeders who get on their back.
      & what do you know now they have won a bit you are seeing quite a few of their dogs being bought by show breeders.
      So yes in my eyes the only difference is the price of a show entry.

      Good breeders are those who actually try to breed a better dog ( as in better health , better temper, a better family member ) for the future & I don't really care if they show or not



      Delete
    10. Anonymous3 October 2013 at 17:55

      There is no evidence here the owner of the champion has any knowledge of this whatsoever though, is there?

      Delete
  2. Georgina2 October 2013 at 22:01

    Well, there's a surprise. But many dog breeders need to be very careful when dismissing a health issue in a puppy that they have bred and sold for money. There was a case last year of an Irish Setter that developed health issues that the breeder refused to accept so the owner sued them and won, (if you can call watching and eventually losing a much loved young dog to an avoidable inherited disease, winning). The case was in Holland, it will be the start of many, because, as I have said previously, when the lawyers realise that this is going to be a growing market, they will want the exposure and the fees. They will act on a no win no fee basis because it will be relatively uncomplicated to prove the cases. Somehow KCs could be implicated, the illnesses in breeds like Pugs are well documented yet they continue to accept money for the registration of these puppies. KCs could be considered to be complicit in continuing these damaged bloodlines, just for money.. KCs are going to need to be very careful and add caveats left right and centre to cover themselves if they wish to protect themselves. I take what JH says, it may well be this breeders first ever puppy bred with this condition and for her it is equally as tragic for them both, i.e. the breeder/the new owner. However, if that is not the case, and she has threatened to sue a new owner to protect her reputation and what could be deemed to be "hiding a painful, inherited condition" from other breeders and new owners then she is digging one big, dangerous pit for herself and worse inflicting a lot of suffering on her dogs. I feel deeply sorry for Heather and Peppi neither of whom deserve to be treated thus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3 October 2013 at 08:45

      The KC is just a registry. It records who a dog's parents are. I don't see how it can be sued for recording pups that turn out to have health problems. Any puppy can turn out to have health problems just as any person can. These are living creatures, not DVD players, and the breeder's liability has to end somewhere. However, I would at least expect the breeder to be supportive and to take some sort of action to reduce the likelihood of further syringomyelia pups being produced and sold, especially when there is an MRI scan that can be done to detect it.

      Delete
    2. Georgina3 October 2013 at 12:22

      Anon 08:45 I don't know if you are in the UK. But, for example, the UK KC sets itself up as more than a registry. It was set up for the welfare and protection of pedigree/pure bred dogs. In so doing there is an element of responsibility on their part. They actively promote good dog husbandry, they promote their prestige, they promote and encourage people to follow their policies, they openly want to be seen and heard on dog issues. They accept monies from dog breeders which is supposed togo in part towards research and development, in my book indicates that they have a responsibility to ensure that whatever happens in the pedigree dog world is beyond reproach. Both for the protection of the dogs and secondly the people who become involved either as purchasers or breeder/sellers. It is quite simple. The way dogs are being treated these days is as a commercial product, it is disgusting. It needs to stop but people who are trading in dogs under the "hobbyist" title and believe they are exempt from action are delusional.
      Anon 08:39, whether a dog is bred and registered using the "KC registry name" or their own prefix is irrelevant. What is important is that that puppy was bred by a genuine, intelligent, dog loving person, not some money grabbing "commodity dealer" who doesn't give a toss about the dog provided the money keeps rolling in. There have been long standing breeders with "famous" prefixes who have been proven to be very cruel and undesirable people.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous3 October 2013 at 14:05

      I think you are blinded by your desire to hate the kc Georgina, the fact is the breeder of this pug is some billyio who bought a pug a few years back when they realised the general publics obsession with schmoosy faced breeds and thought they would make a/few quid. the fact that it isn't even a personal affix speaks volumes at the type of breeder she is.
      Who are these cruel people of famous affixs?

      I am afraid the future of pug and frenchies are not good atm as if you notice they are incredibly popular, every dog in a advert I see is a pug or a frenchie and whilst they are popular you will get badddd people not giving a shit about coi as long as its as cheap as possible a mate to make maximum profit. Then there is the people who have one as a pet and think it would be nice to let her be a mum just once,, do you think they will care about doing the appropriate testing too???

      Delete
    4. Georgina3 October 2013 at 16:56

      You are quite, quite wrong, on the contrary, I think when the KCs wake up they have the wherewithal to direct what will be the best outcome for dogs per se. Those of us who have been involved with dogs for many years will remember that there was a terrier breeder and a hound breeder both of whom had far too many dogs that had horrible existences. The terrier breeder was unfortunate in so far that she got too old before she realised she was dogged down, the other ladies however, knew that the dogs were suffering. The Irish Setter in Holland was bred by a very famous, long standing kennel who became so arrogant they thought they were untouchable, in effect their word was law, or so they believed. That Irish Setter didn't suffer and die horribly for nothing, his legacy for the dog world is that a precedent has been set and if one wanted to pursue a breeder, the gate is now wide open. No, that is the whole point, the bybs do not, will not, care not what happens to their dogs, money is their driving ambition. However, they will register their pups with KCs because they can hike the price as KC reg pedigree puppies. Jo Public will assume that if KCs have accepted the pups for registration then the breeder is a good breeder. It is the perceived belief with the general public that the KCs are a legal, official authority, we know differently. Focusing on KCs is side stepping the issue in reality. They can and do have the choice to react, it is their decision, not mine. The fact is Heather bought a KC reg puppy, after contacting them because she wanted to go to the best authority for the best advice. Sadly this has not been the case with Peppi and he could well be the first puppy bred by the breeder with this condition. I do wonder what the first little puppy actually died from, perhaps it was the same condition that manifested itself at a very young age? However, her reaction suggests otherwise, a total refund should be offered, but more importantly total moral help and support should have been her first reaction. The pedigree would indicate that she has bred from a very small group of dogs, thus the potential to have damaged her bloodline is bottomless. If I were breeding dogs today I would frankly be scared, accidents do happen, nature can play some horrible hands, it happened to me, so I know both from breeding a ghastly litter and also buying in two bitches. The anguish you picked up on wasn't my anger towards the KC it is towards people who continue to inflict such a painful and expensive health condition on innocent people, but more importantly the dogs, oh the poor dogs.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous3 October 2013 at 17:53

      I do not believe a total refund should be offered for something she had no previous knowledge of, if you can proof a breeder knowingly sells a defective puppy fair enough but for something thst has never shown up in a breed before don't be so daft.

      Delete
    6. Georgina3 October 2013 at 21:18

      I'll ignore your rudeness and respond thus: if the breeder is breeding for the love of dogs, anyone with a modicum of decency realises that they have burdened a family with a lifetime of expensive vet bills should be honoured bound to help with those costs. The money is secondary for why they enjoy breeding puppies, they are not running a business they are selling happy healthy puppies to new loving homes. In the litter I referred to there were two hip displaysias and two entropian. I gave all of the owners their money back and supported them all the way, I paid for the two entropian ops. The HDs were managed sensibly and the boys lived a normal life expectancy, as did the two bitches. I agree if it is a one off it is unfortunate but I will reiterate that the breeder has a moral obligation to the puppy to help with his comfort and wellbeing regardless of how many times it has occurred. In Peppi's case the breeder threatened litigation rather than help, it seems. If the breeder continues to breed "sick" puppies then they should stop if they cannot afford to support the new owner from their ill gotten gains. My last sentence in my previous response says it all. Be a little more compassionate towards the dogs and their new owners and less defensive of the bad breeders. What is daft, if not wicked, is for people who don't love dogs to be involved in dogs just for money.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous2 October 2013 at 22:06

    21% is awful inbreeding, But in Syringomyelia a low COI does not mean safer when the breed is saturated with it.
    We need many more people to MRI & contribute to the studies being done ( There are a few looking at various aspects ) especially in the less known to be affected breeds.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jen3 October 2013 at 04:13

    Poor pup :(

    "But I do object to breeders threatening to sue pet owners for going public with their dogs' health problems - and unfortunately, it happens too often. For the record, it's a meaningless threat. Truth is a very good defence in any defamation/libel case."

    This. There is A LOT of this that I see in the Doberman community, and I'm really only privy to a little corner of it on Doberman Talk (though there is a web site entitled "Beware of DobermanTalk", which is where many of those "Stop libeling me!" people seem to congregate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jennifer8 October 2013 at 13:31

      It is possible that, with a good lawyer, the breeder might win a libel case. If syringomelia has not been proven in the lines it is slander to go around publicly faulting the breeder for bad breeding in this case. I don't think congenital hydrocephalis in the first pup is easily linked to late onset syringomelia in Peppi's case; nor is it clearly associated with high COI.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous3 October 2013 at 14:37

    Why is the dog being given steroids???!!! Here is a link to the treatment protocol for syringomyelia. Steroids is an inexcusable, knee-jerk prescription for this disorder. http://www.veterinary-neurologist.co.uk/syringomyelia/docs/treatalgo.pdf -- Rod Russell, Orlando, Florida USA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jemima Harrison3 October 2013 at 14:58

      Thanks Rod. I have also expressed concern to the owner re this and they are now seeking a neurology referral.

      Jemima

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3 October 2013 at 18:41

      vets on line.. I am not a vet but I play one on TV

      Delete
    3. Jemima Harrison4 October 2013 at 09:12

      Oh OK, Anon. We'll just keep our mouths shut and let the little dog stay on the wrong meds.

      Jemima

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5 October 2013 at 06:43

      if only for the first part.. as for the second you are not a vet nor should you be giving veterinarian advice to anyone

      Delete
  6. Fran3 October 2013 at 15:42

    The previous puppy being PTS for hydrocephalus would have rung alarm bells in me...

    I know this sounds callous, but syringomyelia is possibly the best thing that can happen to this breed; it might stop people from buying them. There is nothing 'cute' about your dog screaming in pain, like there is with wheezing, or falling asleep standing-up because the dog can't breathe when it lies down...

    Sickening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4 October 2013 at 04:22

      "I know this sounds callous"
      There is nothing "sounding" about it in your statement. I would not say that it's callous but a vendetta. Or perhaps a bit of both.

      Delete
    2. Fran4 October 2013 at 14:57

      So, you think it's perfectly acceptable to breed dogs that run an exceedingly high risk of suffering from BOAS, laryngeal collapse, hemivertebrae, cherry eye, luxating patellas, skinfold dermatitis, severe dental problems because their mouths are too small for their 42 teeth, hip dysplasia, pug encephalitis, and now SM?

      Pug lovers cannot see the sick dog before their eyes, the dog has to be screaming with pain before they will wake-up to the intentional cruetly being inflicted upon these dogs.

      Delete
    3. Georgina4 October 2013 at 15:19

      Spot on Fran

      Delete
    4. Anonymous4 October 2013 at 17:41

      Fran speaks the truth.

      Tough to take for some people. Denial is a dangerous place.

      There is so much evidence to simply propose that the KC deregister the breed on health grounds.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous28 October 2013 at 05:18

      “So, you think it's perfectly acceptable to breed dogs that run an exceedingly high risk of suffering from BOAS, laryngeal collapse, hemivertebrae, cherry eye, luxating patellas, skinfold dermatitis, severe dental problems because their mouths are too small for their 42 teeth, hip dysplasia, pug encephalitis, and now SM?”
      No, I do not think it’s acceptable to breed dogs in such a horrific state. I’m not blinded to the problem, as what anon 17:41 ambushed “Tough to take for some people. Denial is a dangerous place.” But I don’t think unregistering them will solve anything either. People will keep breeding them in that poor state.
      I don’t have to list all the improvements that need to be made to the pug and other breeds like them. It’s been blogged many times on this site. You know that, I know that. But if anything that is more lethal to the human race is political divergence. We all have our disagreements, which is one thing, but unwillingly not being able to work together is rather toxic, for both sides. Don’t you dare think that I’m giving the majority of pug breeders slack, they are just as to blame for why the pug’s health is not improving.
      For breeders like me who are trying to breed pugs in a better quality for better health, It does not make it any easier to have people like you (hoping and advocating in ending the breed all together) and the breeders who are not willing to help improve the breed’s health. Whether your speaking the truth. Proof, or no proof. End of story.

      Delete
    6. Fran30 October 2013 at 13:43

      Anon 28 October 05:18:

      Whilst I commend you for wanting to breed a healthier Pug, I think the breed is too unhealthy for this to be ethical. Let me explain why:

      I'm making up these figures, but let's say an ISDS-bred Border Collie - where health-testing is mandatory - has a 1 in 100 chance of contracting a serious disease, and a 1 in 10,000 chance of having a respiratory restriction that would affect its ability to work herding sheep. This means that despite the best intentions of the breeders, a small percentage of dogs will suffer. However, we know that because genetics is a bit of a lottery, we can't eliminate risk; we can only keep it to acceptable levels.

      As a comparison, let's say a Pug bred by a regular breeder has a 1 in 5 chance of contracting a disorder, and a 1 in 3 chance of having breathing issues.

      A Pug bred by someone who is serious about wanting to breed healthier Pugs, can breed a litter where the odds are reduced to a 1 in 10 chance of typical breed illnesses, and a 1 in 6 chance of respiration issues. Whilst this is definitely an improvement, there are still far too many dogs that will suffer.

      Now you may claim that in 3 generations, you can reduce this risk even further. However, I don't think it's ethical to breed any litter, where there is a high risk of the dogs having problems, even whilst you are trying to improve the breed. Many of the dogs bred in the meantime will not lead happy, unrestricted lives, free of affliction.

      The Pug is a sick breed and I think that, like the CKCS, not even an outcross can save it, because too many dogs will have difficulties, whilst they attempt to get the breed back to health.

      I do agree with you about political divergence, and I don't know what the answer is, although the work done by the Center for Nonviolent Communication is a step in the right direction. https://www.cnvc.org/

      Delete
  7. Anonymous3 October 2013 at 16:14

    At the bottom is a previous comment, to which I agree. The reason I agree is we have other breeds with COI's that can also be in the teens to as much as the low 20's at times, but they don't have SM, as so far it appears to be a lower risk for that breed. I see this a lot in other breeds to try to bring out desired features but of course there is risk to this backfiring, but there is also unhealthy mixed breeds too who have very low COI if any. Anytime we always try to make breeding be a cookie cutter method with Mother Nature there will be some backlash at times. One method always just cant be failproof 100% of the time. I do know of cases in the Cavalier where the COI being low still wasn't their saving grace just as SM can occur in a high COI. Actually one ISU big time geneticist lauded throughout the world Dr Lash says that when the general population has a high incidence of disease & you have a family that is tested clear of the disease then this is the time you should consider a higher COI to make for more homozygous desired genes free of the disease that keeping a low COI just spreads the undesired genes throughout the general population. So it's interesting to me we have govt' people who are not breeders or genetict's spreading advice as to how best to overcome disease. When the risk is fairly prevalent in the breed - this is why even MRIing the prospective parents & all of the grands for the future litter is the best we can do presently, but is still not a 100% guarantee for the pups as some have still seen a affected pup come forward from those results. Why depends but could be a # of reasons for this, most diseases are complex. The gestation & development from the mitochondria of the Dam is crucial. It's a difficult battle. There has been talk of mixing in other breeds for a bit, but selection has to be with dogs fully tested as some mixes without this could be just as disastrous. Some breeds are just less tested currently but we cant assume this means they are safe - some Cockers have SM for example. I have noticed here in the states that some Cockers almost look that the back of their skulls are shirred off. It's important if we do a mix it a CERTAINTY of improvement. I do hope they can find other sources than just steroids as well, this is the older method.

    We have to do our best for our breed, as to the Cavalier I can say we have made some small inroads it is possible to breed clear of SM Cavaliers who can enjoy a normal life but it's still riddled with potholes & it's a expensive task to keep checking each dog on MRI - I hope I can live to see a marker test one day it's a lovely breed so well worth fighting for! Jill

    "21% is awful inbreeding, But in Syringomyelia a low COI does not mean safer when the breed is saturated with it.
    We need many more people to MRI & contribute to the studies being done ( There are a few looking at various aspects ) especially in the less known to be affected breeds"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fran3 October 2013 at 16:33

    So I take it the breeder is still going to breed from Peppi's siblings then...

    If we're being lenient then, yes, maybe she couldn't help breeding a dog with SM if she didn't know it was in her lines (although testing the sire and dam would certainly have helped, seeing as Pugs do suffer from it), but she knows now. No excuses.

    If she's selling the puppies for nearly £1,000 each, then she can definitely afford to test.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous3 October 2013 at 18:51

    "Now note that I am not blaming Ms Jones for the fact that one of the Pugs she has bred has syringomeylia. As I said, it's present in a lot of small breeds and it's perfectly possible that Peppi is the first dog of her breeding that has been diagnosed with SM."

    but that is exactly what you are doing as well as going on hearsay about the so called "threat' and no one misses your "perfectly possible" comment as a snide remark pointing to dishonesty in the breeder..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SkyArk4 October 2013 at 05:54

      Yeah, obviously she has to ignore all possibility of ever offending a person by any accusation, regardless of how stupidly apparent it is of the truth of failure in breeding practices. Its like she doesn't know about calling people out as wrong. We should never call people out. Even Hitler. What if he was just mind controlled by aliens? Is it right for people to talk negatively about him if that is a possibility and that he committed suicide from the shame? Seriously, some people.....

      Delete
  10. Jennifer3 October 2013 at 23:15

    Sorry, I'm not up to date on MateSelect. How many generations in that COI?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jemima Harrison4 October 2013 at 09:19

      "The pedigree data used to calculate this result extended back as far as 17 generations with the first 9 generations being fully complete."

      J

      Delete
  11. Anonymous4 October 2013 at 00:56

    This might just be one case where the law can help - in some countries at least. Pets are property in most countries, and in Aust at least there is a consumer law that says that property must be "fit for purpose". Not only that, but it's highly illegal to misrepresent - in this case the puppy was misrepresented as healthy and sound when it clearly is not. It would be really interesting to run a test case...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Georgina4 October 2013 at 10:22

      The Irish Setter in Holland is such a case, the case was won because the breeder denied the condition was in their bloodline, it was proven otherwise. This wouldn't come under "misrepresentation" because in essence the dog was what it said on the "package". However time proved that his bloodline was damaged i.e. "hidden misrepresentation" , if he had been a one off that would have been tragic for the breeder and a great disappointment that years of "careful" breeding had culminated thus. It will be the attitude of the breeder that will govern "guilty" or otherwise and that is when breeders will start to change their policies. The good breeders will sail through because they love their dogs and are genuinely concerned about their puppies, the bad breeders can take all that is coming there way. Trading standards will have to be reviewed regarding the sale of all animals because they are all vulnerable to abuse by despicable people. Whatever road Heather goes down and whether Peppi's breeder does the honourable, moral thing to help the puppy she sold for money and reviews her breeding programme, in the meantime Peppi's life is a tragedy. Whether the puppy was sold via a KC network is irrelevant in truth, it comes down to the breeder and their honesty. That breeder is not going to be holding Peppi in his last moments, nor is she going to witness his suffering before that day and that is why I get so angry for the new owners and couldn't careless about what happens to the breeder. Neither Sam nor Peppi nor 1000s of other dogs should be treated with such disrespect by the people who bred them.

      Delete
    2. Mary4 October 2013 at 14:37

      Anon 00:56: According to Jemima's article the puppy was 12 months old when it first showed any signs of ill-health, and vet checks even then couldn't find anything wrong. In those circumstances I don't think the breeder can be accused of misrepresenting the health status of the puppy.

      Delete
    3. Jemima Harrison4 October 2013 at 14:40

      Agreed. On the information available, I don't think you can blame the breeder for the health of this pup.

      Jemima

      Delete
    4. Georgina4 October 2013 at 15:17

      Maybe aye, maybe no, but like Fran I would question the death of the "booked" puppy that had to be pts. The location is in the same area as Peppi's and whether it has been called hydrocephalus/syringomelia it does indicate that there is a propensity for weakness. My doubts about the breeder's integrity is to shout "Sue you" rather than shout "Help you" if that is indeed what occurred.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous4 October 2013 at 01:14

    Issue #1 Forget arguing the distinction between whether or not you have a kennel name. we know of plenty of people who have eschewed a kennel name because they don't want to show because they hate what judges are doing to the breed/s.

    Issue #2: Forget arguing the distinction between "puppy mills" and "churning them out for the pet market" or "backyard breeder" or all that other rot that suggests that any group is better than another by definition.

    THE ONLY ISSUE IS BREEDING STANDARDS. There are only two kinds of breeder: a High standard breeder and a SUBstandard breeder. And a SUBstandard breeder doesn't produce pups that are not fit for purpose. End of story. Doesn't matter whether the person is a registered kennel name, breeds in the kitchen, yard or a farm shed; for profit, for loss; for pets, for show; for pet shops, classifieds or sold from the royal news - if a person is not breeding dogs that are genuinely fit for purpose, then they are a SUBSTANDARD BREEDER. Now, why don't we define a High standard breeder and petition governments to make these standards minimum standards? Develop a test for what defines a dog that is fit for purpose? We'll start with: at 6 months of age must be able to run at full pace for 300M without visible respiratory distress. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4 October 2013 at 17:42

      No. Any breeder can produce a puppy that later turns out to have a health issue, even with all the health testing and pedigree research in the world. The difference is that a decent breeder who cares about what they produce will be supportive to that dog and its owner, rather than threatening to sue them. Breeders need to be able to disclose health issues without fear of ostracisation/intimidation and other people slagging off their breeding practices. It's not that the health condition is there, but how the breeder deals with it. Just think, if all health conditions were reported, scientists investigating the genetics that cause them would have a fantastic dataset to work with, and we would be much closer much faster to working out a way to avoid producing such conditions entirely without throwing away diversity.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous4 October 2013 at 05:21

    Jemima Perhaps you would like to correct one point

    You say

    "called the Kennel Club looking for a Pug puppy. They recommended a breeder in the West Midlands "

    Actually not true. Had Heather called the Kennel Club they would have reccomended a Kennel Club Assured Breeder - Miss Jones is not listed on the KC site as an Assured Breeder.

    There is no guarantee that a puppy bought from a Assured Breeder is going to be free of Syringomyelia, or any other diosease for mthat matter, but she would have got a better response and the Kennel Club may have been able to offer some assistance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jemima Harrison4 October 2013 at 09:10

      Anon, it actually is true.

      Heather is not on the internet. She did indeed call the KC asking for the names of pug breeders close to her. They gave her this one.

      It was over four years ago - perhaps things have changed since then?

      Jemima

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4 October 2013 at 21:42

      Asking for a name of a breeder close by is NOT reccomending! If I asked you for the name of my hearet hamburger bar and you gave it to me thats hardly the same as it being awarded 5 Michelin stars!!!!

      You talk on this site about the responsability of the breeders but what about the responsability of the puppy buyer? There is no reason for anyone to buy a puppy with a high COI now that the Kennel Club has that info available of the internet. Accepted that COI's were not available 4 years ago, but nevertheless just buying a puppy because it was nearby does show a lack of care. Very sorry for the owner, and the dog of course, but have some sympathy for the breeder; 4 years ago how could they have even known that their dog may even carry Syringomyelia?

      Delete
    3. Jemima Harrison4 October 2013 at 22:06

      Bollocks. Sorry, but bollocks. Heather was looking for a pug puppy. Rather than go to the local small ads or look on Gumtree or Epupz, she thought she'd go direct to the Kennel Club. Like so many others, she made the mistake of thinking that the Kennel Club stands for quality, for some kind of minimum standards. Now you and I know this is not true.

      But do you think the KC said to her: "Look, we have registered these pups... they come with a Kennel Club pedigree. But, you know, they might be shite - riddled with disease and fleas because we just take the money; there are no checks. They could have been raised in squalor, in a puppy farm. They may be horrifically inbred.. hell, the parents might not even be real pugs as we rely on breeders to be honest."

      You think they told Heather that?

      As for your hamburger analogy... Imagine you went into a hamburger joint and saw a nice little sign recognising the place as being registered with the Hamburger Club - indeed, you saw it advertised as such in your local paper. It comes complete with a nice little signature signed by the Secretary of the Hamburger Club. And then you got food-poisoning.. and it turned out that the burger was horse, not beef. You reckon you'd have cause for complaint?

      You bet your bippy you would.

      Jemima

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5 October 2013 at 06:58

      a hamburger can be made with any sort of meat .. even with ham.. so your analogy does not fit.. as for food poisoning it could have been the lettuce, the tomato or the mayo.. so if you are expecting beef.. or not to get food poisoning ASK.. do not assume
      horse burger.. AKA hamburgers .. a meat patty.. you chose it..
      "A hamburger is a sandwich consisting of one or more cooked patties of ground meat usually placed inside a sliced hamburger bun. Wikipedia"
      your bippy would lose

      Delete
    5. Georgina5 October 2013 at 14:35

      You know anon 06:58 likening a dog to a hamburger is nonsense. Heather did her best to buy what she thought was going to be the best puppy possible. You cite buying from a local breeder as not necessarily being one of the main reasons for buying that particular puppy. I beg to differ. Buying locally means one can easily keep in touch with the breeder and likewise, if they are good breeders. Whatever the distance between purchaser and seller is irrelevant in trying to buy the best puppy to suit one's family. The biggest criteria is how that puppy has been reared and that the breeder is open and honest. The KCs for people not in the know are the first port of call, they expect professional, supportive, honest opinions. They think the KCs are the main authority in dogs and consequently that there are standards set down by which a breeder has to adhere to be able to be part of that organisation. Being part of that organisation, for them, means that the KC has accepted registration of that puppy from that breeder therefore the standard of care and honesty has been met by that breeder. Like us all they take what they see as read and the KCs advertising and publicity skills are second to none. We see a car advertised that can do 100 miles to the gallon, we want it, we don't know about cars, but the advertisement says that what it does therefore it is unquestionable. Unless one knows what questions to ask when straying into a new field one is left wide open to the honesty of the seller, regardless of what the product is. However KCs are dealing with living, breathing creatures who deserve a darn sight better than they are currently being served. The public's perception of the KCs need to be met by the KCs, no question, if the KCs says they are established for the care and welfare of dogs and their owners then they should do exactly that. Thus when Heather contacted them and told them of the problem they are firstly damned rude to have ignored her and secondly they are not doing what is says on the packet? That in some people's minds could be construed as misrepresentation. Anyone who has a complaint about a KC registered puppy regardless of whether it was recommended by them or not, should expect the KC to respond to them and investigate the complaint, not just leave a distressed owner swinging in the wind. Like the breeder, the KCs have taken money connected to that puppy and subsequently they have a responsibility towards that puppy, if for no other reason than they are dog lovers, one and all aren't they?
      We are talking about dogs with whom we wish to share our lives not some cheap piece of meat that we intend to eat, just try and remember that, innocent, delightful dogs.

      Delete
    6. PipedreamFarm8 October 2013 at 10:24

      "Bollocks. Sorry, but bollocks. Heather was looking for a pug puppy. Rather than go to the local small ads or look on Gumtree or Epupz, she thought she'd go direct to the Kennel Club."

      That's like someone having decided they wanted to buy a Yugo and then sought out a Yugo car club to obtain information on the best place to buy a Yugo. All the while ignoring all the information on the issues with Yugos.

      Delete
    7. Fran8 October 2013 at 10:46

      PipedreamFarm:

      Heather is not on the internet though, and most of the health information is on the web, and even then you have to be careful where you look (i.e. impartial websites rather than the KC or Pug Dog Club). She certainly wouldn't get the information from chatting to most Pug owners, who will downplay any health issues. I doubt any of the Pug care books, are completely honest about the health problems afflicting the breed.

      Delete
    8. Georgina8 October 2013 at 10:56

      I take your point Pipedream and I think I used the same sort of analogy. But the KC over here is the alleged "point of contact authority" for dogs, thus new owners will use it to seek a puppy. They do so in the belief that to have a puppy registered with them means that certain standards have been achieved by the breeder. This is tosh, we know it, you know it, but inexperienced, new owners do not and they do what they believe is going to be the best for them and the puppy. Their research would probably entail first seeing a Pug and liking it, reading a book about Pugs and perusing the internet. At the level they will be researching probably means that there will no health issues highlighted. The only source of advice on health issues should have been the KC when Heather initially contacted them for a breeder. The thing with cars is that they are merchandise and if one buys badly it's just annoying, but to buy badly a living creature is heart breaking and gut wrenching and if people in the future are to avoid this pain then the KCs have a huge responsibility to help and make sure new owners are fully aware of all and any problems. It will almost become the same as pharmaceutical companies who print contra indications for every drug launched onto the market.

      Delete
    9. PipedreamFarm8 October 2013 at 11:17

      Fran, excuses, excuses. People make the effort to research prior to other long term investments (car, house, phone, etc). Why is it too hard to make the effort prior to purchasing a dog where the purchase may be supporting the breeding of more dogs doomed to a lifetime of pain and suffering? I do not accept the lack of personal internet access as a viable excuse; in the USA libraries offer free internet access for research (the vary place where public research has been done for decades) along with all their books and magazines. Libraries may now have "The Genetic Connection: A Guide to Health Problems in Purebred Dogs" which lists all known genetic diseases in each breed.

      Delete
    10. PipedreamFarm8 October 2013 at 11:43

      Over here there has been enough published articles (available in print at libraries) to inform potential buyers that AKC papers are not a guarantee of quality. The AKC even states this (in an attempt to absolve themselves of responsibility) and claims they are only a registry (BS that's not even good for the garden).

      All of this information is out there; available to all (even those not on the internet) who choose to research prior to purchasing a pup. However, people continue to choose to purchase pups from breeds well known to be wrought with genetic health issues, because the breed's looks appeal to them. At some point one must accept personal responsibility for the lack of research prior to choosing a defective breed; not sole responsibility (since someone did breed the defective pup) but responsibility for financially supporting that breeder's continued production of defective pups.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous8 October 2013 at 15:02

      Pipedream Farm

      Are you implaying that the route cause of the problem at hand here is that Heather did not do her research properly? Despite the fact she went to the most recognised and established organisation in this country that is held up to be a trusted source of information for both new and established dog owners:

      'We are the UK’s largest organisation dedicated to protecting and promoting the health and welfare of all dogs. Besides being a voluntary register for pedigree dogs and crossbreed dogs, we offer dog owners and those working with dogs an unparalleled source of education, experience and advice on puppy buying, dog health, dog training and dog breeding.'

      This is the remit on the home page of the KC website. This is what they are supposed to enforce, regardless of how the information is sourced.

      Breeders need to do the right thing. Organisations such as the KC and the AKC need to ensure that the very thing that Heather did, isn't allowed to be a regular occurence by ensuring that the breeders they register are doing the right thing. Not difficult if you audit, monitor and enforce based on empricism and quality standards.

      You are implying that ALL potential new owners are somehow equipped with a depth of knowledge and awareness that may well be beyond their experience and education. This is unrealistic, unempathetic and will not address the root cause.

      Why should anyone know better if they don't know or understand what it is they need to know in the first place? Just because YOU happen to breed dogs and are educated well wnough to understand the science and the consequences, don't assume everyone else is.

      A little understanding and compassion goes a long way.

      Delete
    12. PipedreamFarm8 October 2013 at 15:58

      Why do you think that trying to alter the actions of what is essentially a trade organization, whose main roll has been to promote the products of its members, would be more efficient and easier than trying to educate buyers?

      My lack of compassion is not for the buyers but for all of you who think the sole responsibility falls on the (A)KC (and its breeders) while the buyers and the dog owning community have no responsibility. Most puppy buyers do not go out and buy a puppy without telling anyone about their plans. How many of those buyers tell dogs owners who know about genetic issues in breeds and they never took the time to educate buyers about the potential issues? This problem will change faster by those who know taking the time to educate just one potential buyer, then it will waiting for the government (slow to act) to force a change on the (A)KC (even slower to change).

      Delete
    13. Georgina8 October 2013 at 16:00

      Both of the responses above by Fran and anon 15:02 are spot on. Pipedream, I think what you may have missed, ironic with your "tag" is that a lot of people's "pipedream" is to be able to afford to buy a pedigree dog of their choice and that the dog becomes a much loved member of the family for as long as possible. That is what Heather wanted, you wanted, I wanted, everyone wants isn't it? It is an emotional purchase and when one has made up one's mind what is going to happen one wants it to be as quickly as possible, in a sensible fashion, and Heather's sensible fashion was to contact the UK KC. The breeder and the KC have let Peppi down hugely never mind Heather. No?

      Delete
    14. PipedreamFarm8 October 2013 at 16:40

      What you are saying is people will be people (prone to make decisions based solely upon looks); they will have what they want regardless of the ramifications of that decision (caring for a genetically defective dog). There is no point in trying to alter how people choose their dog. Instead we should try to change the attitude of people who wanted a dog to look a particular way and instead of buying one they bred dogs to look that way without regard for the ramifications of those decisions.

      Delete
    15. Anonymous9 October 2013 at 10:50

      Pipedream Farm

      Forget about dogs for a minute....think about the average human psychology, intelligence and their resulting behaviour.

      Doesn't it make sense that the people who are invested in the health, welfare and breeding of dogs (breeders, breed clubs the KC and other associated professional canine bodies) TAKE THE LEAD in education and putting their money where their mouth is? After all, they have the expertise, the experience, access to research and the appropriate forums to communicate with the public?

      If you think about it, there are fewer people involved in these ‘professional’ areas than there are potential dog owners, who are essentially the rest of the entire adult population. If these ‘professional’ people took more responsibility and had accountability for their actions, they would see it as their duty to secure the future welfare of the animals they breed/sell/educate people about/register. The net result of that would be that the General Public (who on average, we can safely assume will not spend hours and hours researching health, welfare, behaviour issues about dog breeds but will probably see a picture of a Pug on one of the numerous TV/magazine adverts and cry 'oh that's cute! Can we get one?')

      There is no point whatsoever being idealistic about expectations from potential owners. YOU CANNOT CHANGE PEOPLE'S ATTITUDE IF THEY DON'T WANT TO!

      Only a few days ago I was sat shaking my head at a TV programme called ‘The Wonder of Dogs’ aired by the BBC. They had a rather silly lady (IMHO) raving on about how fantastic and clever her Pug was. Not once did they mention the health issues associated with this breed. To my mind that is irresponsible behaviour from a national broadcaster who had a handful of dog experts (Professor Bradshaw, Dr Bruce Fogle) at hand and missed a golden opportunity to educate an audience about the actual reality of owning dogs such as this. What chance does the General Public have of making informed and intelligent choices in a society that is continually being dumbed down and refusing to be honest about the issues at hand? One could argue that the programme was literally about how wonderful dogs are. Yes they are! But come on! We’re adults not children. We need to understand the important stuff about the actual realities of dog ownership. Behaviour, health and welfare.


      Delete
    16. Georgina9 October 2013 at 10:50

      Yes PF and I agree with you, which is why it is essential that when people contact the "authority in dogs" aka KCs they should be made aware of the health issues of their desired breed. We, you and I and others who visit this site know of the possible perils of some pure bred dogs, but the average person does not. If you strolled down the local high street and spoke to people who had a pure bred dog and asked them how they researched the purchase or what research they undertook prior to buying the dog was, it would be what I would expect. They saw it in a shop, their neighbour/friend had a litter, they saw them advertised in the local newspaper, somebody told them about a litter. It was a breed they were interested in, they were thinking of getting a dog, so they got a dog. It would be as uncomplicated as that, it wouldn't occur to them to enquire further. If and when the dog develops a problem even their vet probably wouldn't tell that this breed or that breed is well known for whatever, he would treat the dog and that would be that. Added to this though is the dilemma that these people decide to have al litter because of the old wives tale "every dog must have a litter to stay healthy". The bitch is mated to whatever dog they can find of the same breed and before the vet can tell them that this was inadvisable, bang, there are average 10 other little genetic pools running around with possibly the same problem and off the cycle goes again. Innocent, unintentional, unintended but it happens and it is why I think Vets, local dog training clubs, food suppliers etc etc all need to participate in an advertising campaign to alert people about the problems within breeds. Not a hate campaign just a need to know campaign that would help the dogs and their owners enormously.

      Delete
    17. PipedreamFarm9 October 2013 at 11:44

      We have entire breeds where the key breed features (how they look) are due to genetic mutations with serious health ramifications.

      Why should the buying public get a pass on knowing about the ramifications of their choice in how their desired dog looks? Don't you think they should know that what looks cute to them (flat face, sloped back, very long body, droopy eyes, wrinkled skin, etc) and what they want is in reality a genetic mutation with serious health ramifications? It will make no difference how good the breeder or the KC is about telling buyers about the health problems if buyers are not told that the exaggerated looks that define the breed (why the buyer wants the breed) ARE the source of the health problems.

      Delete
    18. Anonymous9 October 2013 at 11:48

      Well done Georgina. Some really valid points you make there. This is really a discussion about understanding human psychology and behaviour when it comes to choosing certain types of dogs. Only by understanding why people do what they do and make the choices that they make allows us to address the route cause of the problem. There is plenty of evidence out there as PDF states, but the average person isn't really interested in doing a lot of research are they? When it comes to a dog, their decision is often an emotional reaction (for a lot of people) based on how cute it looks. Whether you view that as being right or wrong is irrelevant. Because if you are pragmatic, you accept that this is what people do regardless of how silly it may be. How can you change a primeval reaction to a brachycephalic dog? Quite possibly, with a person who isn't interested in educating themselves about the pitfalls of the breed, you never will.

      Breeders and the other associted professional bodies associated with dogs have to become self aware and be accountable for their actions when it comes to breeding, based on this understanding. It's far too easy to blame people for making bad choices because people are always going to do that no matter how much information is out there. Give them a head start by committing to breeding gentically healthy dogs in the first place. Pugs can still exist - give them a muzzle as a starting point at least!?

      Delete
    19. Anonymous9 October 2013 at 13:05

      Apologies I forgot to complete my sentance in para 3 Anon 10:50

      The net result of that would be that the General Public would be able to choose dogs based on scientifically, genetically and ethically sound breeding practices. You have then made a head start in tackling the route cause. Education, particularly at a grass root level (in schools), has to go hand in hand with that. But quit laying all the responsibility in the hands of the dog buying public.

      Delete
    20. PipedreamFarm9 October 2013 at 13:29

      I'm not laying the entire responsibility on the buying public; I'm loudly calling out the lack of assigning any responsibility to the buying public. Very few here are suggesting any effort should be made to educate the public about their responsibility when having chosen a breed based upon genetic mutations. Most effort here is about improving the genetic health of breeds via the KC but how can that really occur when the character of the breed is based upon a mutation?

      Delete
    21. PipedreamFarm9 October 2013 at 13:31

      When you choose to buy a genetic mutation you were not duped by the seller when you end up with a genetic mutation.

      Delete
    22. Jemima Harrison9 October 2013 at 14:00

      Haven't had a chance to join in on this until now, but just to say that I agree totally with PipedreamFarm that the public needs to be more accountable for the choices they make.

      It infuriates me that people call about having bought a cav or a pug or bulldog without ensuring any health checks have been done and then start ranting at the breeder when the dog crumples in front of them. Hell, even if health checks have been done, they still need to be aware of the role they have played in perpetuating the problems.

      That all said, expecting the consumer to do SO much work is absolutely counter to the way that it works with anything else you buy and I feel there is real scope for a professional clearing house that sources the best-bred pups and matches with the best homes and in doing so can offer a guarantee that goes way beyond the small return window currently offered by most breeders. Yep, just like a fridge. It doesn't mean the dog isn't going to break down - but it means that there is financial and perhaps even practical assistance if it does.

      Entrepreneur needed.

      Jemima

      Delete
    23. Anonymous9 October 2013 at 14:19

      The point is that there is no point in blaming anyone if people are able to produce defective dogs/cars/fridges and sell them when there is no regulatory system in place to monitor and protect. You take a risk and you live with the consequences. The difference between dogs and cars is that they are sentient beings and they don't have a choice. Check out this article on MRI preliminary data on dogs. The social discussion arising is interesting in that it implies we all have to be accountable for the emotional well being of our dogs - breeders, owners, KC etc. - and that 'owners' is a potentially dirty word anyway....

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

      Delete
    24. Georgina9 October 2013 at 14:26

      But Jemima, to be fair to the average bod on the street they don't look under the cover. Perhaps some of the education regarding dogs could be included in the curriculum of schools. I know that there are some projects of this sort going on and perhaps it could be expanded. Like anon said, most people watch tv, they don't have a dog, see a dog in the tv times or an advertisement and the desire starts to grow. A lot of people are really impressed by the word "pedigree", it blinds their thought processes. Like cigarette advertising, perhaps pictures of bulldogs/pugs/bostons etc etc that are used for promotional purposes, could carry a "health warning" and suggest they contact their vet to seek advice before purchasing such a breed. Definitely the Wonder of Dogs was a missed opportunity but the bit about Jack Russells was totally inaccurate and nonsense. In the main it is successful and enjoyable to watch people enjoying and loving their dogs. Very positive.

      Delete
    25. Anonymous9 October 2013 at 15:11

      Jemima - that is such a good idea. How would such an organisation stand legally? My immediate hunch is that even if someone was smart enough to execute it with the best balance of moral and business ethics, the KC would still probably bitch and moan about it.....

      Delete
    26. Georgina9 October 2013 at 18:55

      Hi Anon 14:19 the only way people who are bad dog breeders stop producing "sick" puppies is when the people who purchase those puppies realise that they can take the matter further when the breeder denies any responsibility. The general public mostly do not know the possible perils when purchasing a pretty little puppy of their desired breed, BUT THE BREEDERS DO. They are passing onto innocent people an expensive, heart breaking experience. As for the poor puppy, what can we say, the breeders are too cruel to continue a "type of puppy" just for money it has to stop. Visit DAC and read what the French Bulldog lady has to say - commendable and admirable but most importantly is that it becomes effective and other FB fanciers shake themselves awake.

      Delete
    27. PipedreamFarm15 October 2013 at 11:14

      "to be fair to the average bod on the street they don't look under the cover"


      Let's be honest, the "average bod on the street" often chooses to ignore what has been shown to them under the cover or chooses not to look when the cover has been lifted for them. You brought up a great example of this; does anyone not know smoking significantly increases ones risk of getting cancers and other health issues?

      Delete
  14. Anonymous4 October 2013 at 05:25

    Fran says the KC were not interested. Do we know that for sure? Where else has it said that? I know for a fact that even if the Breeder is NOT an assured breeder, they will often write to the breeder if they are given evidence that a registered dog is diagnosed from an hereditary condition

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fran4 October 2013 at 14:45

      Really? I know someone who sent X-rays and the vet report to the KC about their pup which died at 10-weeks-of-age from a brain condition previously unheard of in the breed. They did not even receive a reply. The breeder was an ABS too and is continuing to breed from affected stock.

      Delete
    2. Jemima Harrison4 October 2013 at 14:58

      What do you mean "affected stock", Fran? Dogs that are themselves affected by this condition? Do you know for sure this is a genetic/inherited prob?

      Jemima

      Delete
    3. Fran4 October 2013 at 15:12

      She's breeding from a bitch out of the same litter (two siblings were affacted), and yes, it is definitely inherited. I emailed you about it a little while back.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous4 October 2013 at 21:48

      "Definately inherited"? What condition is it? There are very few known heriditary nuerological diseases

      Delete
    5. Anonymous5 October 2013 at 06:34

      perhaps the bitch she is breeding is clear.. if she does not have "it" whatever "it" is.. she will not pass it on if she is clear and bred to anohter clear.. even bred to carrier all be fine..

      Delete
    6. Georgina5 October 2013 at 14:48

      Well the woman is leaving herself wide open, because if the new owner's puppy develops the same condition and they learn about Peppi's plight they will have solid ground to chase this breeder into the ground.. It would be similar to the Dutch case in part and if I was her I would be scared witless, the KC should be informed and registration of the puppies denied. The KC could easily set up a flagging method whereby they can start to identify either too many litters or complaints made about a breeder. They could agree that if there is more than 1 complaint then that breeder needs to be investigated with the help of an outside source or whatever arrangement is deemed to be the most satisfactory and workable.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous5 October 2013 at 23:39

      how about we tie her to a whipping post.. or put her in the stocks. the dunking chair worked wonders in eliminating witchcraft ( along with lots of supposed witches). would that satisfy your vengeful and hateful nature? "Chase this breeder into the ground"? that is despicable

      Delete
    8. Georgina7 October 2013 at 13:04

      My response to you anon 23:39 has been eaten by the gremlins, in brief what is despicable is needlessly breeding sick dogs, even more so when it happens, once or twice or whatever, to deny it and refuse to help either the owner or dog is inhuman. I do get overly colourful in my language when annoyed by injustice done to innocent animals or children.

      Delete
  15. Anonymous5 October 2013 at 01:37

    The sire of the Pug concerned in since 2005 has had 28 litters. Now as the person who owns that dog does not breed, why is it people choose to blame the show world for all the ills of the pedigree dog? Also I doubt if the breeder has even seen a breed standard let alone read and considered one when she choose to use the dog so many times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jemima Harrison5 October 2013 at 15:02

      Where did you get that info from Anon. Not available on Mate Select... And could you clarify... "the person who owns that dog does not breed"? As I understand it, the sire is or was owned by the owner of the dam.

      Jemima

      Delete
  16. Anonymous5 October 2013 at 01:46

    seem to be caught up with your fixation of show titles when you say "Lots of champions in here - and a lot of inbreeding" the second statement but accurate but the first is not, there are only 6 DIFFERENT champions in this pedigree. Had the parents and the grandparent all been champions (and that is the case for many of my dogs and their coi is less than 6%) that would of been just 6!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous5 October 2013 at 15:55

    This is a sad case and while it is good to highlight emerging or covered up diseases in any breed in this case I don't think the breeder could have avoided the problem (other than by not breeding pugs!). I'm sure the breeder was shocked and upset when told a pup she'd bred was affected, and I'm sure she had a panic about what that meant for the future of her dogs and her breeding plans and for what (if any) recompense the buyer may have been after (there are many tales of buyers threatening to sue breeders for illnesses over which the breeder could have had no control). People act defensively in these situations and I'm sure any 'don't blab or i'll sue' comment would not have been made after some rational thought. Breeders of any breed, or indeed crossbreed, can only do so much and can only be guided by the KC, their own vet, their breed club and researchers as to what tests should be done. Similarly the use of COI is only a guide and low COI can not guarantee good health. Currently SM is not high on the list of concerns for Pugs, but maybe there are more cases out there and a testing scheme should be considered.Certainly the breeder, now armed with more knowledge, should test her breeding dogs. Even this is no guarantee of health though as the difficulties in grading Cavaliers have proved. Certainly the breeder, now armed with more knowledge, should test her breeding dogs.
    Buyers must ensure they know as much about the breed (or cross) as they can before going out to look and must know what health questions to ask. A lot is written about good breeders but I think there are good and bad buyers too. For me a good buyer does research, contacts breed clubs and breeders and hopefully is in line for a pup before they're even on the ground....The KC can't make recommendations as it doesn't visit all breeders, even ABS members don't get regular visits, all they can do is tell a prospective buyer what has been registered recently. Then it's Buyer Beware. Such a sad story and such a nasty disease.
    VP

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous5 October 2013 at 15:57

    Anyone can look up who and how many time a dog has been used either via the health testing page of the KC or if you have a MY KC account and look up any dogs record, surly you should know that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jemima Harrison5 October 2013 at 22:42

      Anon, there is no progeny data for this dog on Mate Select. You only get litter stats if there are health tests recorded for the dog. Perhaps different on a My KC Account. But I don't have one of those as I am not a breeder.

      Jemima

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6 October 2013 at 06:38

      On my kc you can see all litter info and yes he has been used 20+ times.

      Delete
    3. Jemima Harrison6 October 2013 at 08:34

      Thanks for that. It would be good for the KC to make the litter stats available across the board, not just on My KC.

      Jemima

      Delete
  19. Anonymous6 October 2013 at 13:40

    But those stats are and always have been available across the board in the KCBRS, true it would of been a little time and effort to look them up but that's what those of us have done for years before PC and the WWW!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jennifer6 October 2013 at 14:32

    Taking a second look at the blog post, I think it should have been titled: "Syringomyelia in A pug" as in ONE pug. Sad story. Sounds like an irresponsible breeder cashing in on the breed's popularity. COI unacceptably high (21% is a minimum estimate as pedigree incomplete past 8 generations). But I don't see any evidence that syringomyelia is a common problem with pugs.
    When I was breeding Labs, there were a couple litters in which a couple pups manifested late onset deafness. Then the problem went away...no new reports of deaf dogs. No one could tell the breeders what happened. I wrote to one of the experts on canine deafness and he said "give me a fresh killed specimen to dissect and I may be able to identify the problem". I would be pretty pissed off at anyone who wrote the episode up as "Late Onset Deafness in Labradors" and implied it was a genetic condition.

    Pugs have enough problems without making every condition that has happened to one pug a problem of the breed as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous7 October 2013 at 09:27

    So Jemima we already know the Pug is a ****** up breed. Let's have some constructive, practical suggestions on how to proceed. Ban them? Establish a minimum nose length? Make a breathing test mandatory for breeding? Make MRI's mandatory? We *know* the above. What do we do about it? You've had five years to do something constructive, even create a forum for constructive debate and education. But you have failed to do anything helpful. Just my opinion mind. Maybe some constructive work WITH DAC could be a start.........or do you find playing verbal ping pong online a more productive way to waste time? Meanwhile the dogs are in desperate need of practical workable action....of which none has come from you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jemima Harrison7 October 2013 at 11:26

      Anon, I am delighted that you hang on my every word (the above post references a comment I've only just made on the Dog Advisory Council's Facebook page although misquotes it rather). But sadly pug breeders, in the main, don't take much notice of what I say.

      They might, however, take notice of what the DAC says as it is backed by science and experts in their field; and the DAC is in a position to put some pressure on the KC.

      For what it's worth, the solutions are pretty obvious in how to breed a less ******-up pug or bulldog - at least in terms of the dog's breathing.

      • establish a minimum muzzle length for each breed based on the best-available data (e.g the recent RVC study); to be revised every five years.
      • breed standards to include historical pictures of pugs showing examples with longer muzzles.
      • *any* noisy breathing - static or on the move - to be heavily penalised in the show-ring (and I don't mean "quiet for a pug") as well as narrow nares (the latter now noted, but not taken seriously enough).
      • severely penalise fat pugs in the ring - no matter that the breed standard asks for "multum in parvo". Obesity not a genetic issue, but overweight dogs suffer more.
      • only breed from parents that have passed a fitness test that has established that they are free breathers on exercise (ideally via minimum oxygen sats or other veterinary test).
      • never breed from a dog that has had surgery for BOAS (should go without saying, but it doesn't)
      • *much* more effort to ensure that veterinary procedures for BOAS are reported to the Kennel Club. This to include a rousing mail-out to every veterinary surgery and or ads in the vet press. ("We need *your* help to help us improve the health of our pugs, bulldogs etc...")
      • KC to keep an open database of dogs that have undergone surgery - avail via Mate Select.

      Jemima

      Delete
    2. Anonymous7 October 2013 at 13:35

      So why are breeders not following these entirely sensible guidelines then? Because they are not written into the KC standards that breeders seem to blindly follow? Are these guidelines not endorsed by the KC? Is DAC putting pressure on the KC?

      Dr Fraser's extremely pragmatic viewpoint seems to be lost on the people who are supposed to have the Pug's best health and welfare interests at heart - the breeders. What is actually being done here to change the breeding practices for the better?

      Jemima can only do so much as a blogger/campaigner and journalist - that is to raise awareness by providing the information - good and bad - in a forum such as this and keep reinforcing her opinions on pedigree dogs with science and emprical data. The required action is up to the people who buy and breed pugs. Either they demand and make change. Or they don't...

      I hate cliches but they have a habit of rininging true...
      'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink'.

      Quit blaming the people who are actually a force for good for the welfare of dogs!

      The only thing I can suggest is to e petition the government for radical welfare changes for pedigree dog breeding to be discussed at parliament. One could certainly argue a moral and ethical case against breeding these types of dogs given the list of health issues they have to endure to simply stay alive to fulfil our warped view of canine beauty.

      I have to say 'The Wonder of Dogs' on BBC seemed to be aimed at children. 3 hours later we get to the important issue - breeding for health and temperament. And they spend all of 5 minutes on it! Some nice studies in the last episode on the science behind the benefits of canine companionship.

      Unless they are leaving it to JH for PDE3?

      Delete
    3. Kate18 December 2013 at 03:09

      To Jemima's admirable list I would add - open up the stud books to allow BYB pugs with a "touch" of Jack russell or other breeds in.
      Most of the seriously damaged breeds have nowhere to go - they are caught in the "genetic cul de sac" with not enough variation left to back out.
      Crossbreed them!

      Delete
  22. Anonymous7 October 2013 at 12:33

    Of course you are delighted. There is nothing you like more than when threads supposedly about pedigree dog health turn into threads about you. Now roll your sleeves up girl and help to actually bring about those changes. That is simply a wish list you have there until good people, good people in breed clubs and good people on the DAC invest their time and effort into making those come about. So go on make a pledge about some action YOU are prepared to take to see these changes instead of just blowing hot air. Oh unless of course you are as we speak putting together that rousing mail-out and planning to actually errrr mail it out......that at least would be something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7 October 2013 at 14:30

      Anon 12:33 and I guess 09:27.

      Your apathy,misplaced blame emphasis and lack of understanding of where the heart of the problem lies speaks volumes...sadly.

      Delete
  23. Anonymous11 October 2013 at 16:45

    Hmm...
    Jamesbe Welsh Border, total 2x,grandfather 2x (3, 5). Therefore responsible for all of his ancestors showing up double, which shall be noted.
    ------
    Ch Claybridge Likley Lad w/ Edtzu, total 2x (2x through Welsh), great-grandfather 2x (2x through Welsh) (7,11).
    Jamesbe Jazzmin at Ranaholme, total 2x (2x through Welsh), great-grandmother 2x (2x through Welsh) (8, 12).
    -------
    Ch Huptzah His Nibs at Edtzu, total 2x (2x through Welsh), great-great-granfather 2x (2x through Welsh) (15, 23).
    Claybridge Lucy Luv, total 3x (2x through Welsh), great-great-grandmother 2x (2x through Welsh), great-great-great-grandmother 1x (16, 24, 62).
    Ch Ranaholme Im'e Zag of Claybridge, total 6x (4x through Welsh, 3x through Lucy), great-great-grandfather 3x (2x through Welsh), great-great-great-grandfather 2x (2x through Welsh, 2x through Lucy), great-great-great-great-father (inferred) 1x (1x through Lucy) (17, 25, 29, 33, 49, father of 62)
    Claybridge Is It Ismay, total 2x (2x through Welsh), great-great-grandmother 2x (2x through Welsh) (18, 26)
    ----------
    Sandabur Felix, total 3x (2x through Welsh, 2x through His Nibs), great-great-great-grandfather 3x (31, 47, 55)
    Jubullea Sahbra of Hutzpah, total 3x (2x through Welsh, 2x through His Nibs), great-great-great-grandmother 3x (32, 48, 56)
    (Im'e Zag)
    Ranaholme Tiger Lily, total 3x (2x through Welsh, 3x through Lucy), great-great-great-grandmother 2x (2x through Welsh, 2x through Lucy), great-great-great-great-grandmother 1x (1x through Lucy) (inferred) (34, 50, mother of 62)
    Ch Claybridge Revenge, total 7x (4x through Welsh, 3x through Lucy, 6x through Im'e Zag), great-great-great-grandfather 4x (2x through Welsh, 3x through Im'e Zag), great-great-great-great-grandfather 2x (inferred) (2x through Welsh, 2x through Lucy, 2x through Im'e Zag), great-great-great-great-great-grandfather 1x (inferred) (1x through Lucy, 1x through Im'e Zag) (35, 51, 59, 61, father of 33, father of 49, paternal greatfather of 62)
    Jamesbe Gypsy Rose of Ranaholme, total 6x (4x through Welsh, 3x through Lucy, 6x through Im'e Zag), great-great-great-grandmother 3x (2x through Welsh, 3x through Im'e Zag), great-great-great-great-grandmother 2x (inferred) (2x through Welsh, 2x through Lucy, 2x through Im'e Zag) great-great-great-great-great-grandmother 1x (1x through Lucy, 1x through Im'e Zag) (36, 52, 60, mother of 33, mother of 49, paternal greatmother of 62)
    Ch Poosbury Punchdrunk, total 3x (2x through Welsh, 2x through Is It), great-great-great-grandfather 3x (2x through Welsh, 2x through Is It) (37, 53, 57)
    Claybridge Mini the Moucher, total 2x (2x through Welsh, 2x through Is It), great-great-great-grandmother 2x (2x through Welsh, 2x through Is It) (38, 54)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Fran18 October 2013 at 14:27

    Just seen on the Staffie club website that SM has been found to affect some staffies too.

    Interestingly, there was nothing on the SBTC website about the massive over-population problems in this breed.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jemima Harrison19 October 2013 at 00:12

    That's because, Fran, they don't believe that "responsible" breeders are adding to the overpopulation problem.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous22 October 2013 at 05:00

    IMO: Pugs are half of a breed.

    How can it be okay to breed puppies who will grow up to struggle just to breathe? Isn't there some law against cruelty to animals which would apply to breeding dogs to a standard which causes suffering for the dog?

    Can there really be good pug breeders? What's good about cursing puppies to grow up unfit?

    Given the inbred problems and the wording of the standard, I believe the best pug breeders produce Puggles or Pugpins - which are cuter, less extreme, and not inbred.

    Have you seen the cute photos of all the pug+ (pug plus something else) puppies?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous24 October 2013 at 21:30

      Designer dog breeders are another species of scam artists. They have no integrity, no knowledge in genetics or dog breeding and overcharge people for what can only be called mutts. They have no sound breeding program with clearly defined objectives which justifies the price they charge to an uneducated public. They are some legitimate crossbreedings with a long history of producing a reliably consistent hybrid, like the lurcher or the crossings performed to obtain high performance sleight dogs. But all those overpriced mutts coming out of the woodwork are as much a disaster than what the show ring has done for the dogs. Its done by people who don't care about dogs for the sake of make a quick bucks of uneducated people.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous25 October 2013 at 02:31

      My! Anon 2130 you must know many designer dog breeders to be able to paint so detailed a picture of them as a group.Yet, it seems that you are not one of them?

      How is it that you believe you know what they are like unless you hang out with them? And if you loathe them so much, why do you hang out with them?

      I believe that designer dog breeders are creative and forward thinking. Did you know that Herr Dobermann was a designer dog breeder? He crossed feisty little terriers with larger dogs. And the Captain who made the German Shepherd breed?He was a designer dog breeder too, wasn't he ?

      I guess we all know about the creations of many designer dog breeders, because that is how many of the dog breeds were developed.

      It takes as much work the plan and raise a crossbred litter as a purebred one, so I doubt that money is a motive in designer dog breeding. People who crossbreed are often aiming to produce a healthier litter of dogs - that is as worthy a goal as aiming to produce a litter for the show ring, isn't it?

      Delete
    3. Fran25 October 2013 at 13:24

      Anon 02:31: I'm not convinced that breeders of crossbreeds are all out to breed a healthier dog. I'm sure a lot of them are simply out to make money. Cross breeding from unhealthy dogs will likely result in unhealthy puppies. I've seen plenty of adverts for 'designer dogs' and I don't recall a single one mentioning health tests. Of course there will be ones that do health test and are breeding for health, but just like in the show world, there are plenty who aren't. There are good and bad breeders, whether they're show, working or cross-breeds.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous25 October 2013 at 15:38

      Fran, you are right in that there are good breeders and bad breeders in most types of dog breeding. But many people define "good" as "anyone who breeds like I do".

      Many show breeders feel that only other show breeders can be good breeders. People even post this belief of their's on the internet as if it were a fact!

      And I have heard show breeders say that not all show breedes are good breeders BECAUSE many of them think they can just breed two champion dogs, BUT that is not enough as the grandparents count too, so a good breeder is one who only breeds champion dogs who also come from a long line of show winners.

      And there are plenty of trail dog people who laugh at show breders, and who believe that REAL dogs enter into competitive sports.

      The themes here are that both believe that what makes a breeder a good breeder is that they breed dogs who win at the owner's hobbie.

      My idea is that a good breeder is one who breeds dogs who fit well into the types of homes/places that the puppies will be sold into. If many of your puppies are sold as pets, then it makes sense to breed dogs who are what pet people will be happy with - a healthy dog who is tame, safe, and easy to care for.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous29 October 2013 at 16:52

      Anonymous25 October 2013 15:38 EXACTLY my thoughts. very good post.


      I know of a top show breeder who had a litter of crosses and got nothing but praise because of who they where. the other show breeders couldn't praise the puppies enough, even saying what nice quality type they had ,lol it was quite funny to see.
      they gave them a daft name too.

      now if it had been a pet breeder they would have been lynched

      Delete
    6. Kate18 December 2013 at 03:26

      Having bred crossbred dogs for 20 years (before they started to be called designer dogs) I can assure you all that most serious hybrid dog breeders crossbreed because they know their puppies will be sound, sane and appropriate pets.
      We may be breeding for vile commercial reasons (although I personally think anyone who doesn't make money breeding dogs will stuff it up) but we know we can offer health guarantees and lifetime rehoming policies without the risk of going broke.
      If breeders of Shar Peis, Pugs etc were obliged to give refunds for health problems they'd stop breeding overnight.
      The list of genetic problems facing purebreds is ovewhelming and most screening programs further reduce genetic diversity. Until the stud books are opened to allow new bloodlines and genetics from complementary breeds you'll never win guys!

      Delete
  27. Anonymous27 October 2013 at 22:58

    Yesterday 2 pugs were competing at a KC agility show, one of them a young dog at his first show, won 2 classes. The other, a 5 year old who was shown at Crufts as a pup, won his class, this win was the last one he needed to become Agility Grade 6, only 1 step from the highest grade possible. Not all pugs are unhealthy, unfit, and unable to breathe. The pugs competed against dozens of dogs who would generally be considered much more likely to be succesful at agility, such as Terriers, Spaniels, Shetland Sheepdogs and lots of crossbreeds too. They belong to a club where almost 30 pugs are in training for agility, ranging in age from 15 weeks up to 9 years old. They adore the speed, the challenge, some of them squeal with excitement as they go round - and they all breathe without problem. OK, not a response to the Syringomyelia problem which opened this discussion, but in reply to the persistent assumption that pugs are ALL unhealthy. I would love to be able to add that all of these pugs are well bred, but they are a mixed bag, quite a few are show bred, but the rest are simply pugs form the local area whose owners wanted to give the activity and the training a go. Some are long legged, one or two have longer noses, but several are very much to breed standard and none of them have any health issues.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous28 October 2013 at 19:21

    What does it say about judges IF there are all these healthy pugs, pekes, and bulldogs running and happily jumping about, but we often see winning dogs that are so sickly they need ice packs and struggle to breathe?

    And is it fine to breed dogs if 25% of the puppies grow up to suffer worse than if they were being beaten? And to say,"Look at the 75% who seem okay."?

    With these breeds, some of the problems can be helped with surgery which allows the dogs to breathe better, maybe to even do agility if they don't have other health problems too, and to be an amassador of good health for their breed. But if the surgery were so easy and affordable,wh y do we see, and hear, so many dogs that struggle to breathe?

    A few good apples on top of the barrel doesn't mean that the rest of the haven't gone bad.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous28 October 2013 at 20:55

    Anonymous 28 Oct, you are missing my point. This is a mix of pugs who simply live in the same area, so a random selection. None has had surgery, none has health issues. Where do the figures of 25% born to suffer come from? It cannot be that part of the UK simply has healthier pugs than the rest ? (or the world) ?. Healthy pugs are here, they look like pugs, have flat faces, but with not overdone nose rolls and with good open nostrils. IF your figures are correct why do I see and know dozens without problems, and none (that I know personally) with them? And of these pugs quite a few have shown before doing agility, and shown successfully. The problem is being exaggerated, and those promoting the thinking that pugs are seriously flawed then seem to fly into self righteous fury when challenged. Of course there are some health issues in pugs, and in other breeds and crosses to, but to read the majority of the post here it looks like every other pug is in danger of keeling over at it's next breath. Breeders are addressing health problems, testing where available, but no, not changing the basic structure because it works as it is - and our bunch can prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous29 October 2013 at 07:22

    Anon 28, 2055,

    I am not surprised that all the pugs who showed up for agility were healthy. All the people who signed up to run the local Marathon were probably healthy, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the city is also healthy. Who would sign up a sickly wheezing pug for agility?

    That doesn't mean that there aren't unhealthy pugs still out there, and many other pugs who were quietly put to sleep because of expensive health problems or because the owner felt that there was no other way to relieve the pug's suffering.

    25% is an average number of unhealthy puppies produced in a case where a person buys a puppy with certain health problems, and the breeder says that her dogs don't have that health problem and that "most"of the puppies she sells are healthy, so why shouldn't she rebreed the parent dogs again?

    What that means is that she has weeded out the afflicted from her breeding stock, but is breeding carriers. About 25% of puppies from two recessive carriers will become afflicteds. Sad. The numbers were NOT in reference to just pugs or any one breeder.

    I once met a woman who wanted me to see how healthy her pug was. I had trouble believing that a dog with that short a muzzle could be healthy. She insisted he was. I asked if he had had surgery and she started to get angry, wanting me to look and see for myself that he was a pug and he was healthy.

    I talked with her for awhile. She said the pug was a rescue and that he had been a young adult or older puppy when she got him.

    So how could she know if he had had surgery? She said it had been her sister who had actually adopted the pug.

    When her sister walked over, she asked her if the dog had surgery before she adopted him.

    Yes, he had had some type of throat surgery. So I ask: how could anyone look at a bunch of agility pugs and guess which had had surgery?

    And I re-ask, if there are so many fit pugs, pekes, and bulldogs, then why are we seeing gasping dogs with ice packs at dog shows? Even winning the shows!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous1 November 2013 at 19:54

    So what would you think was a representative number of pugs in training in 1 small geographical area to suggest that the hype about vast percentages of pugs being unhealthy are exagerated? We often have 50 pugs at our get togethers, all capable of a 2 hours walk or 2 hours of robust play. No special selection other than the owners want to bring them along. Of the regular bunch I know of 1 who has had surgery (a rescue) this is very far away from your assumption of 25% unhealthy.

    A lot of the people who join the pug agility class do so because they want to improve their pug's fitness, we have a few older, tubbier or less active pugs come along, none have not been able to take part in the training due to health issues or struggled for breathing at any time. But of course, my sample of up to 50 pugs I know would have to be skewed in some way as it does not represent your assumed 25% of defective pugs, is your "sample" based on the 1 rescue pug you met, or purely on the hype?

    ReplyDelete