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

CFC

DebiT wrote: »

Well in my humble opinion its time breeding or dogs or cats was brought to an end. There are plenty of lovely rescue animals literally dying for a good home, without people breeding more.
I really dont understand this pedigree snobbery either where people are prepared to pay hundreds of pounds for one animal just to show them off. Lets get the stray and unwanted animals homed first before we start breeding more.

Entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Or are you prescribing a world where dogs reproduction is prevented and in 20 years time there are no dogs at all, therefore no problem to be solved?

Personone, do tell me where are the people who ONLY breed dogs because they want a population of happy and healthy dogs? Presumably all these dogs are cross breeds as the parents are selected on the basis of matching good temperament, good health and size and with no relation to looks or breed?

So.....are we now in agreement that cross breeds are in fact generally speaking more likely to be healthy than many, if not most, 'pure breeds' of dog, regulated by the Kennel Club? There's a reason that the Jack Russell owners didn't want the Kennel Club sticking its snout in and they had to make do with just the Parsons....

The real problem is that dogs are, and have over the last 100 years, genetically manipulated by people who do not understand genetics - even at a fairly simple level. This is where the issues have arisen.

DebiT

CFC wrote: »

Entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Or are you prescribing a world where dogs reproduction is prevented and in 20 years time there are no dogs at all, therefore no problem to be solved?

So my opinions on breeding are irrelevant to a thread about breeding? (where's the "confused" smiley?)

As for dog reproduction being prevented, do you think animals need the help of breeders, or anyone else for that matter, to reproduce?
Of course they dont, and they dont need people exploiting them either.

lostinrates

DebiT wrote: »

So my opinions on breeding are irrelevant to a thread about breeding? (where's the "confused" smiley?)

As for dog reproduction being prevented, do you think animals need the help of breeders, or anyone else for that matter, to reproduce?
Of course they dont, and they dont need people exploiting them either.

So you think uncontrolled breeding is preferable? Is the idea not to have fewer dogs needing homes?

I think there are far better ways to improve genetic diversityand reduce the health problems in dogs and certainly to improve welfare for dogs!

Person_one

DebiT wrote: »

So my opinions on breeding are irrelevant to a thread about breeding? (where's the "confused" smiley?)

As for dog reproduction being prevented, do you think animals need the help of breeders, or anyone else for that matter, to reproduce?
Of course they dont, and they dont need people exploiting them either.

You're right! Let's just turn our dogs onto the streets like they did back in the day and wait to be surprised with what the litters look like every few months.

We can always drown the ones that don't sell.

mountainofdebt

At the end of the day the KC is nothing more than a business who is out to look at after its own interests and those of the animal will come second, and until people are preapred to stop paying a premium for a KC registered animal, they have no incentive to change.

One thing I really don't understand is why if vets are seeing a lot of these poor animals why their governing council dont' start banging their drum - or could it be that they have a vested interest in keeping the status quo?

cepheus

mountainofdebt wrote: »

At the end of the day the KC is nothing more than a business who is out to look at after its own interests and those of the animal will come second, and until people are preapred to stop paying a premium for a KC registered animal, they have no incentive to change.

One thing I really don't understand is why if vets are seeing a lot of these poor animals why their governing council dont' start banging their drum - or could it be that they have a vested interest in keeping the status quo?

Did you see the chief RSPCA vet during the programme, he was taking no prisoners

Frugalista

mountainofdebt wrote: »

At the end of the day the KC is nothing more than a business who is out to look at after its own interests and those of the animal will come second, and until people are preapred to stop paying a premium for a KC registered animal, they have no incentive to change.

But isn't it down to personal choice?

If you prefer to have a mongrel of indeterminate parentage with absolutely no health checks on any of its ancestors and put your faith instead in hybrid vigour - then I sincerely wish you all the best. I have owned and loved such dogs myself in the distant past and would not have missed that for all the world.

However for the past 30 plus years I have preferred to share my life with healthy, happy, well bred pedigrees with illustrious parentage that can be traced back to the very first animals of their breed ever registered. Some have been gifts and some have cost me thousands to purchase. It is my choice.

I have never, ever dared to estimate what they have cost in food, vets bills, show entries, petrol, health tests, etc, etc. I have loved each and every one and they have returned that love unconditionally a million times over. They are the breed I have chosen to dedicate my life to - and spend my own money on. It is my choice.

If I (and thousands of others) prefer a pedigree dog to a crossbreed, who are you to say otherwise? I will always support responsible, reputable breeders - IT IS MY CHOICE and is not for you or anyone else to decide for me.

Blackjack_Davy

I remember watching the original programme and remember how shocking it was... I'm also shocked about how little has changed. The changes seem to be small and added merely as afterthoughts.

The so-called Crufts "best of breed" and "cream of the cream" are cosmetic considerations only, i.e. whether a dog complies to some idealised version of what someone has decided is the ideal look and it's purely skin deep, the dogs genetic health seems to be ignored entirely...

sure, not all breeders are like this, but why did that Best of Breed winner who knowingly had a dog with a poor genetic history allow it to breed more than 26 litters?! And more to the point why did Crufts/KC allow it to happen?!

Until Crufts and the KC pay attention to more than the dog's mere appearance and turn a blind eye to the practise of breeding dogs with poor genetic health nothing is going to change it seems. Pretty shocking indeed.

Frugalista wrote: »

But isn't it down to personal choice?

It is my choice.

It is my choice.

IT IS MY CHOICE and is not for you or anyone else to decide for me.

So you care more about a dogs "pedigree" than the dogs health and are willing to sacrifice the dog's health because "it's my choice" to do so?

Thats pretty despicable IMO.

Frugalista

cepheus wrote: »

Did you see the chief RSPCA vet during the programme, he was taking no prisoners

Let's be honest here - the RSPCA is not exactly whiter than white and is quite happy to rip people off for donations with one hand whilst destroying the animals they purport to be helping with the other.

I thought he was a bit of a knob - talking about "polishing a turd" as if it would give him some sort of "street cred" :rotfl::rotfl:. He's probably getting a big fat wage whilst the smaller RSPCA kennels are killing animals due to lack of funds .

Person_one

Frugalista wrote: »

But isn't it down to personal choice?

If you prefer to have a mongrel of indeterminate parentage with absolutely no health checks on any of its ancestors and put your faith instead in hybrid vigour - then I sincerely wish you all the best. I have owned and loved such dogs myself in the distant past and would not have missed that for all the world.

However for the past 30 plus years I have preferred to share my life with healthy, happy, well bred pedigrees with illustrious parentage that can be traced back to the very first animals of their breed ever registered. Some have been gifts and some have cost me thousands to purchase. It is my choice.

I have never, ever dared to estimate what they have cost in food, vets bills, show entries, petrol, health tests, etc, etc. I have loved each and every one and they have returned that love unconditionally a million times over. They are the breed I have chosen to dedicate my life to - and spend my own money on. It is my choice.

If I (and thousands of others) prefer a pedigree dog to a crossbreed, who are you to say otherwise? I will always support responsible, reputable breeders - IT IS MY CHOICE and is not for you or anyone else to decide for me.

I want pedigree dogs to carry on existing and stay healthy as much as anybody can, as I'm allergic so if there were only mongrels I wouldn't be able to have a dog in my life.

I worry sometimes that that makes me selfish, but your post puts me in the shade on that front!

What on earth does it matter that you can trace your dog's family tree? Does the dog care? Its this very weird notion of maintaining breed purity that has brought lots of breeds to the point of disaster.

If you love your chosen breed so much, why would you not want to do some sensible outcrossing to widen the genetic diversity in the breed and ensure their health for as long as possible?