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

Frugalista

Blackjack_Davy wrote: »

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.

Where did I say that? Please quote the exact extract where I have ever - in any of my posts - said that? Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just making it up as you go along and jumping to erroneous conclusions?

FYI - your opinion means absolutely FA to me as you quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

CFC

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?

Very good points there Mountain; the KC could have the power to change things if they took their responsibilities to the dogs seriously rather than acting as a glorified breeder's club. It needs someone with vision to take control.

Blackjack I too was extremely disappointed - and flabbergasted - to see how little had changed.

Frugalista - I'm afraid you walked into the rake in terms of your post. For example, if your preferred variety of dog was KC spaniel or pug, you're an open target. Also it sounds rather religous, to be proud of tracing your dog's lineage to the 'first animals of their breed ever registered', let's not forget that is exactly what has led to the problems with KCs. So yes, being emphatic that it is your choice is not exactly making a winning point. That's exactly what the breeders who produce deformed dogs in pursuit of a breed standard say. To which the riposte is, where's the benefit and welfare of the dog in this?

Frugalista

Person_one wrote: »

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

I worry sometimes that that makes me selfish, but your post puts me in the shade on that front! In what way? How is loving my chosen breed selfish?

What on earth does it matter that you can trace your dog's family tree? It matters to me and other breed enthusiasts - why would that matter to you? Does the dog care? Of course not - did you think it would? Its this very weird notion of maintaining breed purity that has brought lots of breeds to the point of disaster. But not my breed, which is the only one I was talking about.

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? My breed is a very healthy, very natural one which is in an excellent state. As you have no idea what breed I am talking about nor what steps myself or breeders of this breed have already taken, you are just making inflammatory assumptions to stir the pot.

It is sad (but very telling) to see that it is always the anti-breeders that go on the attack and start to get personal .

All I have said is if you prefer to own mongrels/crossbreeds - then do so - it is your choice and I wouldn't dream of taking that away from anyone - it is my preference and choice to own a pedigree. Each to his own.

Person_one

When you respond within a quote box like that its a pain for people to reply to your points. You haven't actually told me why breed purity and tracing a dog's ancestry matters. I don't care that you care, I want a real reason why its important please!

All breeds with a closed gene pool and nobody willing to outcross will eventually have health problems cropping up. Its just a matter of what and when.

What is your breed? As I don't know of any that suffer no health issues at all.

I'm not anti-breeder, that would be silly wouldn't it as I want there to be dogs after the current population are gone. I am anti head-in-the-sand breeders and showers who refuse to accept reality and perpetuate problems that they are in the best position to start solving!

We all understand and accept without question that inbreeding and small isolated populations that lack genetic diversity are a bad thing in humans, why would it be perfectly fine for dogs? How many individual dogs were the founding population for your breed?

Frugalista

CFC wrote: »

For example, if your preferred variety of dog was KC spaniel or pug, you're an open target. It's not - so please don't concern yourself

Also it sounds rather religous, to be proud of tracing your dog's lineage to the 'first animals of their breed ever registered', So? It's not for you to tell me what I should or should not be interested in (I don't believe I used the word "proud") - one of my hobbies is researching pedigrees and the dogs contained therin - what business is it of anyone elses?? let's not forget that is exactly what has led to the problems with KCs. So yes, being emphatic that it is your choice is not exactly making a winning point. That's exactly what the breeders who produce deformed dogs in pursuit of a breed standard say. To which the riposte is, where's the benefit and welfare of the dog in this?

How sad that a post saying how much I love my pedigree pets should cause so much nastiness.

Night night.

catkins

I and OH went to Crufts last year for the first time in over 20 years. We particularly wanted to see the Afghan Hounds as we both love that breed.

Well we could not believe what we saw. Small skinny dogs with their hip bones jutting up so high. They all looked liked they needed a good meal and if you tried to touch them their bones would break.

We saw one young dog who looked healthy and lovely and speaking to her owner she said other owners told her her dog was fat and that she would never win anything because the judges liked the dogs skinny.

We spoke to a couple of breeders who said they were breeding their dogs smaller and skinnier because that was what the judges liked. We both thought that was bad enough but then the breeders said that in doing so the life expectancy of the dogs had come down from about 13-14 to 11-12.

This is disgusting. In America the opposite is true. The Afghans there are quite big and solid - lovely looking dogs in my opinion - and the average life expectancy is 16-18.

I think the breeders here should be ashamed of themselves and, if in the future, we decide to get another Afghan we will back sure it is an American breed one.

snowman2_2

mountainofdebt wrote: »

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?

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has no legal duty in this respect, they govern the veterinary profession and not the breeders. A lot of ordinary vets are unhappy with the way they are doing this at the moment but that is a different kettle of fish.

The organisation that is campaigning hard for animal welfare from a vet point of view is the British Veterinary Association (BVA). Their website is https://www.bva.co.uk and they run the health schemes such as the hip scores and eye exams. The BVA are trying hard to get welfare issues highligted but they are just a member organisation and have no legal authority or standing unlike the RCVS. This is where the views of the majority of vets are heard and hopefully they are making a difference. Of course, more can always be done.

There are also several other welfare organisations such as the RSPCA, Companion Animal Welfare Council etc that have major vet input.

lostinrates

catkins wrote: »

I and OH went to Crufts last year for the first time in over 20 years. We particularly wanted to see the Afghan Hounds as we both love that breed.

Well we could not believe what we saw. Small skinny dogs with their hip bones jutting up so high. They all looked liked they needed a good meal and if you tried to touch them their bones would break.

We saw one young dog who looked healthy and lovely and speaking to her owner she said other owners told her her dog was fat and that she would never win anything because the judges liked the dogs skinny.

We spoke to a couple of breeders who said they were breeding their dogs smaller and skinnier because that was what the judges liked. We both thought that was bad enough but then the breeders said that in doing so the life expectancy of the dogs had come down from about 13-14 to 11-12.

This is disgusting. In America the opposite is true. The Afghans there are quite big and solid - lovely looking dogs in my opinion - and the average life expectancy is 16-18.

I think the breeders here should be ashamed of themselves and, if in the future, we decide to get another Afghan we will back sure it is an American breed one.

Of course, many great afgan lines are in US now, but often show at crufts, how did the american breds here compare? And the european ones? Sighthounds are particularly international it seems to me, though its the group i know best and perhaps its the same in lots of breeds, sight hound lines are mobile though, you get 'lines' but at least one prominant group judge was importing and exporting dogs for breeding purpose as well as sales throughout europe and us from way back. I love reading the breeder profiles in sighthound mag!

Fwiw, breeding heavy sithounds has lead to some of the problems in some of the breeds...shorter life, heart issues....

I always watch several of the sight hounds, here and abroad, and note often the uk ones lean towards overweight! I do not know much about afgans but love them...exhibited some as a junior. Beautiful creatures. also, i noted in some of the large sight hounds the ones ion the continant as well as being lighter were also smaller, and had really good longevity fropm talking to the breeders.

Its worth looking at some opf the oldest breeds....that have survived a very long time without imploding...why are things getting worse now? I also think its not just about personal choice, i do think some breeds are not sustainable ethically, not just through breeding practise, but also through working redundancy and a simultaneous clash with modern ethics and animal welfare. But not all breeders have that breed of dogs.

scotty1971

a bit off topic,i have been looking for a pup recently,why is there so many breeders of dogs in wales?

Errata

scotty1971 wrote: »

a bit off topic,i have been looking for a pup recently,why is there so many breeders of dogs in wales?

Puppy farms.