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

pawsies

lostinrates wrote: »

Some breeders really do care about health. Many of these are those who have long standing showing and judging careers. Some breeders import stud dogs from around the world to enhance breed genetic diveristy, and some breeds are pushing the artificial insemination line...which WHEN USED PROPERLY can reduce close crossing. When poorly used though it has terrible, terrible effects.....imagine every breeder could used the dog that one breed class at crufts.....a whole generation from one dog.


We have here a girl who is a beautiful example of type, absolutely stunning with amazing movement. She is here not showing and breeding, because she is from a line found to have a genetic issue. Its true there is nothing to stop me showing her, nothoing at all but my laziness, but her breeder, an internationally respected judge, believes it is bad for the breed and has been winding down her previously successful line becuase problems came up. The breed society, also puts hundred of thousnads of pounds into research of a condition that appeared inthe breed in the late eighties and nineties, and the breed together have worked to weed out the lines with those issues.

all the problems that have come up have not been swept under the carpet which has taken huge guts from the breeders, who are big names in group not just breed.


Edit: fwiw i am a bit of an odd person in out in that i would like to see permitted outcrosses to some approved breeds (e g breeds behind the original breeding of the breed) and part bred registers kept, as we do for horses.


To tar all breeders with the same brush alienates them and honestly it is my opinion risks making the issue worse not better, but i agree that kennel club should be imposing greater restrictions, and we should accept some breeds were a loveable but unethical development.

What breed is that?

dottydoglover

CFC wrote: »

Did you see tonight's program on pedigree dog breeding and the kennel club, a follow up to the 2008 program that lifted the lid on breeding and showing scandals?

Discuss!

please don't tar us all with the same brush.some of us actually agree with you.my own dogs are all in the house (6) sleep on the bed etc and are my family.I am not a TOP winner ( maybe because I avoid top studs whose tests cannot be proven etc) the kennel club is autonomous membership is restricted to the few elite but we cannot follow our sport without paying them for the priviledge and obeying their rules,breeders etc don't need kennels filled with dogs,taken out for a show and put back,but it is a way of ensuring a plentiful supply.some of us guarantee to have our puppies back (but if careful enough about the choice of home shouldn't need to).my last puppy sold was 8 mths old before I found what I considered to be the Right home and he had more than eaten any money I got for him.some of us only breed for ourselves and need to sell excess pups but we don't want unhealthy dogs either and when rearing a litter all pups receive the same care.the ones to wary of are the ones who always have pups available because they are churning them out.

dottydoglover

cepheus wrote: »

How about arranging a petition.

The simplest solution would be have a publicly available database of veterinary records for dogs so the ancestry of pups could be checked. Presumably those with gaps in the record would be worth far less, and those with older female dogs with problems have nothing to lose from this system.

It isn't foolproof since unscrupulous owners might try to use false ancestry, but it would make the industry far more transparent.

vets would be reluctant to spend time etc on the above for nothing and also might be seen to be compromising patient confidentiallity BUT anybody can log on to the kennel club health tests site to see whether any registered dog has had their health tests AND THE RESULTS not so with unregistered crossbreeds.E.G. the kennel club now refuses to register pups from a !!!!! who has already had 2 ceasarians.

cepheus

dottydoglover wrote: »

vets would be reluctant to spend time etc on the above for nothing and also might be seen to be compromising patient confidentiallity

Why could it not be chargable? I'd rather pay a vet than the kennel club. Don't vets keep records anyway? It's only a matter of coordinating the reports in a national database. Moreover the database might only be accesible by the vet to provide a score for the dog concerned based on all these results rather than identifying individual animals.

dottydoglover wrote: »

BUT anybody can log on to the kennel club health tests site to see whether any registered dog has had their health tests AND THE RESULTS not so with unregistered crossbreeds.E.G. the kennel club now refuses to register pups from a !!!!! who has already had 2 ceasarians.

So why did my Friends Golden retriever develop severe Epilepsy and its ancestor wasn't reported to the KC registered breeder (she says) till later? She was given an elaborate family history going back 5 generations.

As you say, KC no use for mixed breeds anyway, so we need something else for them don't we?

Person_one

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.

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.

cepheus wrote: »

No he wasn't from your own quote of his, my emphasis

You have to look at the comment in context.

Overall, mixed breeds are healthier, but this is not necessarily the case for the first crosses that are becoming popular, such as the cockerpoos and labradoodles errata was talking about.

I'm all in favour of outcrossing and sensible crossbreeding to widen the genetic diversity in the breeds, However it is not as simple as crossbreed=no health problems. It needs to done with care to stop all the same problems cropping up again further down the road with 'pedigree' cockerpoos.

For example, mating two dogs from different breeds but that carry the same gene for hip dysplasia will not reduce the risk of hip dysplasia in the resulting puppies.

dizziblonde

Trouble is round here at least the cockadoodlewoodleshipoo breeders are the same ones who were banging together two un-health-tested pedigree dogs of the same breed, and have now twigged they can make more money banging together two similarly un-health-tested pedigree dogs of different breeds... they haven't miraculously started health testing or developed scruples as the names have become more ridiculous and the "want a puppy - postcard in the shop window" brigade haven't miraculously developed a clue or giving a stuff where their puppy comes from really.

lostinrates

cepheus wrote: »

Why could it not be chargable? I'd rather pay a vet than the kennel club. Don't vets keep records anyway? It's only a matter of coordinating the reports in a national database. Moreover the database might only be accesible by the vet to provide a score for the dog concerned based on all these results rather than identifying individual animals.

Personally, i agree we should register, its so ething i have been saying for years, partbreads/cross breeds and have an interbreed data base, but i feel it should be held by kennal club

So why did my Friends Golden retriever develop severe Epilepsy and its ancestor wasn't reported to the KC registered breeder (she says) till later? She was given an elaborate family history going back 5 generations.
[COLOR="rgb(255, 0, 255)"]. Could the ancestor have developed it later? It happens that dogs get ill AFTER siring pups, sadly. But it should be reported and be without penalty to report, so as not to make it any more taboo than it already is.[/COLOR]

As you say, KC no use for mixed breeds anyway, so we need something else for them don't we?

Why create something else, where some dogs will be duplicated and incomplete records held. Imo the breed databases, including partbreds should be on a single register, cheaper, and more complete, and the records for animals being used for crossbreeds or new breed decelopment should be alreadybheld there. I feel there is strong potential to lobby for a crossbred arm to the kennel club, hell, i would even volunteer my time to be involved in its inception, and thats as a passionate advocate of good breeding.

cepheus

lostinrates wrote: »

Why create something else,

Because it doesn't work as we have seen. Presumably the one you mention is run by the Kennel club and would continue to do so? I want it run by those who care and understand about the health of the animals, not a promoter of dog fashion and breeders businesses.

snowman2_2

Regarding genetics, there is a difference between an individual's health and population health. You can never guarantee anything with a single cross breed but you are adding a wider variety of genes to the pool - see the discussion about Dalmatians on the programme. In-breeding is never good and this could be managed on a breed basis with more careful management. Zoos have been doing this for years with worldwide organised stud books to control breeding to give the best genetic variety. Two good hip scores is not guarantee that a pup will have good hips but it does make it more likely - all shades of grey with genetics. It is a very complicated subject but the more variety in a breed / dog, generally you are less likely to have genetic diseases.

As to a wolf looking like a Border Terrier - they have the same basic shape - legs in proportion to body, relatively slender body (not fat!!) and a decent nose. Nothing to the extreme - no long ears, short legs or faces in the breed. A collie is probably the closest looking common breed to the wolf but the principle is that you can tell that they have a common ancestor.

lostinrates

cepheus wrote: »

Because it doesn't work as we have seen. Presumably the one you mention is run by the Kennel club and would continue to do so? I want it run by those who care and understand about the health of the animals, not a promoter of dog fashion and breeders businesses.

Afaik the kennel club does not have such a register atm, but has the material from purebred registers that coul dbe built upon.

Fwiw, not every one in the kennel club is as you describe, i would say a healthy proportion are not. Sadly, pushing people to poles in disagreements is never going to help the dogs, but finding inclusive ground for improvement really could imo.