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

Person_one

Check out Jemima Harrison's (who made the programme) blog, she highlights a lot of issues in the dog showing/breeding world and it also gives a pretty shocking insight into the behaviour of people who don't want their unethical practices exposed:

http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/

fairymoneysaver

And the rest of us suffer ever increasing pet insurance costs because the insurance companies are having to pay out large sums of money on these dogs that are being bred for money ' because there is a champion or two in the line' rather than to keep the breed healthy. There are so many problems in many breeds now - Pugs with breathing and eye problems, Westies with skin problems, CKC with heart problems, Bulldogs with breathing and heart problems, German Shepherds with hip problems, the list goes on.
Not only do I wish that there was more control over breeding pedigree dogs I also wish people wouldn't buy these breeds without more research, I know its not going to happen but it is going to have a knock on effect with your average dog owner when they can no longer afford pet insurance.

cepheus

Perhaps we should have a campaign not to buy pedigree dogs until the KC sorts out it's act. Owners should be able to use the power of the INTERNET to report problems on breed lines.

My friend has a Golden Retriever which has severe epilepsy. It's only through her devotion and constant attention the dog can remain alive. The drugs are financially and physically crippling. She had supposedly bought it from a reliable breeder with a full history, but they subsequently discovered that one of the ancestry had the disease.

Person_one

cepheus wrote: »

Perhaps we should have a campaign not to buy pedigree dogs until the KC sorts out it's act. Owners should be able to use the power of the INTERNET to report problems on breed lines.

The problem with that is that people will go out and buy 'cockerpoos' or 'juggles' which haven't been bred with anymore care than the unhealthy pedigrees.

cepheus

Isn't the primary problem caused by inbreeding with animals containing a similar genetic background. We all carry dodgy genes but having a child with a relative is just asking for trouble.

Wasn't this the problem with our Royal line, not enough genetic diversity? To produce true genetic monstrosities which can't breathe, walk etc you need to purposly breed a characteristic in, and I guess it is difficult with two dissimilar breeds.

CFC

universalady wrote: »

In reply to the title of the thread, genuine caring breeders (who may also exhibit their dogs/work their dogs) DO care about the health & welfare of their breed as a whole. They DO spend a huge amount of money on health tests, hips, elbows, heart, eyes etc etc BEFORE even considering whether to have a litter from their !!!!!, or allowing their male to be used as a stud, and that is IF the health tests come back as below the breed average, or as a pass/clear.

Genuine caring breeders spend a HUGE amount of time showing their dogs, (not to mention the costs involved with this aswell!) so they can see a number of well bred dogs from all round the country, and then look at the compatibilty of lines, and also to enquire about health tests and to try to pick the best they can, as opposed to just using someones dog from round the corner. These breeders also spend alot of time researching lines, and are prepared to travel a long way to have a particular mating all with trying to ensure that the puppies produced will be healthy, and fit for function.

There will ALWAYS be breeders that breed for money, however the majority of breeders who exhibit their dogs ALWAYS have the welfare of the breed at heart

mmmm but playing devils advocate here - the ones who breed from deformed or sickly dogs are ALSO likely to say they have the welfare of the breed at heart. In their case though they are only considering looks - conformity to breed standard.

They are breeding Cruft's champions, probably considered to be better than any dog you own or breed - these are considered by the Kennel Club to be the cream of the cream.

It's easy to just say 'they are in it for the money' - but then what are the breed clubs and kennel clubs playing at in allowing these dogs to be bred to this breed standard? Isn't it all about 'winning the cup' - a unhealthy combination of competition and years of investment?

This is why I am so against any moves to limit dog breeding to 'exhibiting dog breeders'. On the face of it you are far better off getting a cross breed.

cjmumto2

I was disgusted too, although the up side is that dogs like cockerpoos are just x breeds really and that acutally makes them genetically better off.

Errata

One of the problems with x cross dogs like labradoodles, cockerpoos etc is that they may inerit bad genes from the pedigree parent(s) with all the problems that brings.

snowman2_2

Errata wrote: »

One of the problems with x cross dogs like labradoodles, cockerpoos etc is that they may inerit bad genes from the pedigree parent(s) with all the problems that brings.

Sorry but it is the other way around. With a cross breed you are more likely to have a good copy of any relevant gene and bad genetics are less likely to happen. You can get a bad 'un but generally cross breeds are healthier. A large study 10 years ago showed that cross breeds were 3.5 x less likely to need vet treatment for illness than the unhealthiest breed - the Boxer.

A recent survey of over 400 vets and what dogs they have was interesting. The top 5 covered 2/3 of all vet dogs and were crossbreeds, Labrador, Border Terrier, Jack Russell & Border Collie. None of these have any of the major health problems - at least if Labrador breeders use the Hip scheme properly.

Boxers, Cavaliers & Pugs were all less than 1% of vet dogs and in this survey, no vet owned a Bulldog or Bassett Hound. Most vets don't want an unhealthy dog around the house - we get enough at work!

All of the top 5 would make fantastic family pets but the obvious fact is they look like proper dogs, like a wolf in body shape and proportion. They have been bred as working dogs for function not looks - although they look great as well

Person_one

snowman2 wrote: »

Sorry but it is the other way around. With a cross breed you are more likely to have a good copy of any relevant gene and bad genetics are less likely to happen. You can get a bad 'un but generally cross breeds are healthier. A large study 10 years ago showed that cross breeds were 3.5 x less likely to need vet treatment for illness than the unhealthiest breed - the Boxer.

A recent survey of over 400 vets and what dogs they have was interesting. The top 5 covered 2/3 of all vet dogs and were crossbreeds, Labrador, Border Terrier, Jack Russell & Border Collie. None of these have any of the major health problems - at least if Labrador breeders use the Hip scheme properly.

Boxers, Cavaliers & Pugs were all less than 1% of vet dogs and in this survey, no vet owned a Bulldog or Bassett Hound. Most vets don't want an unhealthy dog around the house - we get enough at work!

All of the top 5 would make fantastic family pets but the obvious fact is they look like proper dogs, like a wolf in body shape and proportion. They have been bred as working dogs for function not looks - although they look great as well

Do you have links for any of these studies? I'm no geneticist but even I know that its not as simple as 'good copies' of genes and 'bad genetics'.

Careful crossing of pedigrees is indeed the answer to the lack of genetic diversity they are suffering from at the moment, but randomly crossing two unhealthy pedigrees won't produce a healthy dog by magic!

Also, if you think a border terrier looks like a wolf I'm not sure what kind of odd wolves you've seen...