Breeders don't care about dogs, but only about 'winning'

cgk1

Sorry yes, typing before coffee - I meant breeders.

CFC

There has to be a way to resolve this. I'm certainly not against 'pedigree' pooches per se, or even against breeding them; but the breed standards must take into account welfare. I've been looking at the RSPCA campaign, and though I'm not generally a great supporter of the RSPCA for many reasons, they're right to take a stand. It's all in a very bad state when you are better off with a cross breed than a dog whose ancestry you can trace, from the health perspective.

I truly believe that people who started dog shows and originally dallied with 'modern' deliberate selective breeding would be horrified at what has happened to the breeds of dogs they loved.

If the breed standards could be rectified, there'd be no problems in the breeders wanting to be 'winners', because the dogs wouldn't be the 'losers.' There is something very wrong with the people who write these breed standards.

I do think you've put your finger on it cgk1 - the trouble is that the breeders are amateur geneticists and there's no room for being amateur; plus many of them are really not all that bright (not all of course, but the general population isn't that smart and they are reflective of the general population) and couldn't get it if you spelled it out in large letters.

Perhaps the RSPCA would be on a better tack if they could persuade the KC that only breeders who had passed a written test on dog welfare, dog physical traits and health, and basic genetics, would be able to register a litter with them?