Aaaarrrgghhhh - Pedigree dogs programme....

[MooMoo]

i suppose, but its a shame that it has to be that way. and it could be so difficult to distinguish between the good and bad breeders.

and by the looks of things there are quite a few popular breeds that can be "dodgy".

 

[smallbutgreat]

Did anyone catch the name of the report that was quoted ... sounded like the "Cork" report, but googled that and nothing came up so I must have mishead.

 

[sade1986]

May have been something by the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC). Not sure though, i remember hearing this mentioned but not sure if it was this document.

 

[joeanne]

then those breeds should be steered clear of IMO. if people stopped screaming for tiny little chihuahua's that can no longer give birth without assistance, pugs and peke's that cant draw a breath at a sedate walk, then people would stop breeding them to be that way!

 

[Starbucks]

One positive is that the programme will have raised awareness to the public.

J - I think when you use the internet and forums, such as this one, it is much easier to catch onto what is generally acceptable/ethicially correct with dog/horse breeding, but a lot of people still don't use it!! In which case they can't google something and see the good and bad points, they contact breeders and take their word for it.

 

[xspiralx]

[ QUOTE ]

sorry but i totally disagree.
its the buyers responsibilty to make sure the they know about the breed BEFORE going out to purchase one, and these days with the internet there is no excuse for not knowing, because a search engine isnt "bias" and will show good and bad alike

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't really agree with you there. Yes, someone should do their research on the breed before buying, of course they should.

However, if you go to a reputable KC reg'd breeder who has a good performance record, you would expect to be able to trust what they were selling you to be a good example of the breed, and healthy etc.

As much research as you can do, the inexperienced eye will not necessarily be able to tell if the puppy has a problem that will show itself later in life - you ought to be able to trust that a reputable breeder will be breeding good healthy dogs - that is why people are prepared to pay hundreds for them!

 

[MooMoo]

[ QUOTE ]
then those breeds should be steered clear of IMO. if people stopped screaming for tiny little chihuahua's that can no longer give birth without assistance, pugs and peke's that cant draw a breath at a sedate walk, then people would stop breeding them to be that way!

[/ QUOTE ]

but its not just those is it, labs, GSD'd, spaniels - all popular breeds. your average family isnt screaming for one of those breeds, the people in the programme whos dogs died because of it werent screaming for it either

the only thing i saw screaming was that poor dog

 

[joeanne]

starbucks i honestly dont think that is the case.
NOTHING is a substitute for researching and knowing about the breed you are going to buy.
if you cant get internet access or find what you are looking for then you ask word of mouth, people are always quick to bad mouth if they have had a bad experience.

 

[sade1986]

I do believe there is something mentioned in this report, but am not sure if it was the one quoted. Section 5.7 Breeding strains whose welfare may be compromised. I had a brief read, here is the link

http://www.cawc.org.uk/sites/default/files/CAWCRepNDA.pdf

 

[joeanne]

moomoo they bought the dog didnt they?
they should have seriously done their homework beforehand, and then maybe they would have known what could have gone wrong later down the line.
i wouldnt dream of buying ANY animal, be it dog, horse, cat, or any other pet without knowing the in's and out's of the breed and be sure i could cope with what maybe could go wrong, and if i felt the animal had been bred to be a "type" and NOT a healthy individual i wouldnt touch it with a barge pole, i would look elsewhere!

 

[smallbutgreat]

Thanks a lot! Twill make interesting reading ... see they also refer to horses and ... wait for it ... goldfish!

 

[MooMoo]

so basically you're saying that we shouldnt buy any dogs at all because a selfish bunch of people decided that mutation looks good? and seeing as KC reg'd seems to count for little its hard to see where the good ones are coming from.

and no...i dont think for a second that the people who bought those dogs knew that would happen, they could have done all the research in the world and still not known.

 

[joeanne]

i am saying we shouldnt buy certain breeds until the standard is drastically improved, particularly as its the animals themselves who suffer because of it.
most of these breeds are the small and toy breeds, and they really do seem to have suffered from bad breeding/inbreeding, call it what you like, but if we refused to buy a breed due to its problems, you can guarentee breeders would soon start trying to breed better healthier dogs which would benefit everyone (the dogs themselves especially!)

 

[MooMoo]

ok i agree with you there. not having a go or anything, i just think it would be harsh to place too much blame on the owners. i cried just watching a few seconds of it so god knows how it felt to see that for the first time happening to a loved family pet.

 

[Starbucks]

That's what I was thinking moomoo!!

In that case some breeds would surely become extinct (can't think of a better word)!!?? Because of the bad breeders... surely that's not good or what anyone wants.

So say if I wanted a CKCS for example, I have read up about the problems they may have (which all pedigrees have some of), how would I know if the parents have the big-brain, small-skull thing, if the breeders do not tell you??? And all the majortiy of other people who are in with the showing circles think the breeder is great because there dog wins stuff??

I really don't see how you would know!!

 

[MooMoo]

[ QUOTE ]

I really don't see how you would know!!

[/ QUOTE ]

especially when kennel club recognition or registration (whatever its called!) seems to count for very little. they're supporting this mutation!

i cant believe that one guy (he's the chairman i think) "oh i dont need some scientist to tell me...yadda yadda" - well evidently he does because he's not doing a very good job is he? or maybe he is just completely stupid/blind/selfish. take your pick!

 

[joeanne]

starbucks, i would find a breeder that could show me several generations of the puppies parents in question, that would pretty much rule out anything nasty rearing its ugly head in years to come.
and if i couldnt i wouldnt buy. better a breed die out than continue to be badly bred at the animals expense
a lot of breeders keep several dogs from a family line for exactly this reason.

 

[Starbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I really don't see how you would know!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



especially when kennel club recognition or registration (whatever its called!) seems to count for very little. they're supporting this mutation!

i cant believe that one guy (he's the chairman i think) "oh i dont need some scientist to tell me...yadda yadda" - well evidently he does because he's not doing a very good job is he? or maybe he is just completely stupid/blind/selfish. take your pick!
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I really don't see how you would know!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



especially when kennel club recognition or registration (whatever its called!) seems to count for very little. they're supporting this mutation!

i cant believe that one guy (he's the chairman i think) "oh i dont need some scientist to tell me...yadda yadda" - well evidently he does because he's not doing a very good job is he? or maybe he is just completely stupid/blind/selfish. take your pick!


[/ QUOTE ]

Yea I know what you mean.

He was the border terrier guy wasn't he?? I don't think they are too mutated, probably just lucky that there breed characteristic doesn't have anything too freaky in it!!

Joanne - I understand what you are saying. I would think twice, well 100 times before I bought any pedigree now!!!! I have 2 rescues now, one of which is a pedegree, but not sure I would buy any puppy, espeically now.

 

[kickandshout]

do you know what your talking about !!!!
or are you just referring to a man who used a gun to killed unregistered 'flapping' dogs which the press then made headlines with ( and no i seriously don't agree with that either)

registered dogs are mainly put into organisations to re-home or they have to have a good reason to pts not all greyhounds are suitable for homing in much the same way as some pet dogs aren't actually suited to being pets !!!!

 

[jacks_mum]

I went to bed last night but I'm coming back to this thismorning as it's been on my mind all night. Sooty made a comment about Crufts being the pinnacle of the dog showing world and that 'deformed' dogs consistently win. I responded by saying that fat horses consistently win at shows. To elaborate on that, excuse the upcoming pun, but I think you are all barking up the wrong tree blaming breeder, the KC and the buyers. You need to get to the judges. I'm sure we all agree that a fat horse is a 'bad' or unhealthy horse and should not win a class when in with other healthy horses, but how many times do we see that fat horse placed high up the line, if not first, by the JUDGE. You need to change the ideals and attitudes of the judges in any type of showing to place the healthy well conformed animal over the unhealthy malformed animal. When breeders see that their particular type of animal is no longer being placed and highly prized on the show circuit and the buyers will be looking for the healthier winning 'style' of animal then the breeders will have to fall in line with what the public buyer is requesting them supply.

 

[MurphysMinder]

Not read all the way through the thread so apologies if I am duplicating anything. I thought the RSPCA chief vet was sensationalising a bit, but do agree that some breeds have been totally spoilt and the KC do not seem interested. In my own breed (GSDs) responsible breeders have been asking for years that the KC insist all breeding stock is hip scored, and that a maximum score be set for breeding, but nothing has been done about it. I thought the attitude of some of the cavalier breeders was very wrong, particularly the woman with the winning cavalier who allegedly had the neurological problem but still allowed it to be used at stud. Not a problem with showing the dog imo, just using it at stud. I had a GSD with a hip score of 96 who did a lot of winning in the show ring (she was sound as a bell until the day she died) but she was obviously never bred from. If a judge cannot see a fault they cannot penalise a dog for it, bear in mind that in this country the judge is not supposed to know who the dog is. Whereas in some countries they see the dogs full pedigree.

Couldn't believe the culling of ridgeless RRs, so wrong, but would disagree that white gSDs are culled nowadays. Instead they are sold at ridiculously high prices as "rare", which in my opinion is also wrong, the reason they are rare is that it is a disqualifying fault according to the breed standard. But they should not be culled, just sold without papers and the breeder should ensure they are neutered by the new owners.
Sorry, bit of a rant there. Just so annoying that a programme like this can band all the responsible breeders with what I hope is just a few totally irresponsible ones.

 

[TarrSteps]

The idea that "some people do worse" isn't really a defence in any arena, but leaving that aside I think what's most worrying to people not involved in dog showing, looking in at the situation, is how little the people involved SEEM to care about the dogs involved.

Yes, they love them and talk in glowing terms about the breed etc. but then they KNOWINGLY reproduce an animal with proven health problems. The reason is immaterial - love or money, they're still putting dogs on the ground that will most likely suffer in completely unnecessary ways. THAT'S the hard part to fathom.

To knowingly breed a conformation/genetic makeup that leads to suffering seems insane to me, be it a brain condition or turned in eyelids. It would be so easy to stop doing that and I think that's the part that stuns people.

But then again, horse people do that all the time. Technically speaking, anyone who breeds a horse that did not remain sound because of a conformation fault in potentially making another horse with the same fault that will have the same restricted future. (All very well to say one is "fixing" the fault by careful choice of a mate but genetics don't actually work that way.)

And both the Kennel Club and the breed organisations actually SAY they have the dogs' best interests at heart - they have codes of conduct/ethics etc. Perhaps if they just said, "We don't care. Prettiest dog wins." people might be a little more aware that they cannot rely on getting a healthy dog just because it's registered.

On the rescue/rehoming front, I got my current dog from a small one that concentrates on the type of dog I wanted and had a superior experience. They visited and interviewed me, the dog was in a foster home where he was systematically tested with cats, kids, recall etc., all of which was reported both on the website and to me personally, he was seen by a vet and received whatever he needed before being rehomed, and we were encouraged to use the rescue, knowledgeable about this particular type of dog, as a resource after we got him. True, I know many pedigree breeders who would offer the same framework and I would never deal with one that didn't.

I thought the program was biased - they could have shown more people on the other side of the story - but they were going for sensationalism. The good part is at least it gets people talking and breeders can defend themselves publicly however they please. I don't think simply saying spina bifida or a neurological condition is "rubbish" is exactly a defence though . . .

 

[HeatherAda]

I see what your saying but the judges interviewed last night were adamant that breed standards were the be all and end all. Who sets the standards - the KC...?

 

[cefyl]

Breed standards are set by the breed society with approval from the KC. The UK KC standards differ in the main part for each breed from the American KC and the FCI, the variation depends on the breed but it may be a slight difference in the shape of the rear / front feet.

Interestingly it is a strict NO NO to film dogs in the show ring WITHOUT permission from each individual exhibitor. I take it that the BBC footage shown from Crufts of the Bassetts, GSD, and others was from their footage taken for their own live programme each day of the show in March. There could be cause for the exhibitors to come down on the BBC for later showing this out of the context of the original show coverage.

 

[Alibear]

Not reading all the way , read 2 pages through.
THe breeders that cull the pups that don't make the grade.
Well isn't that actually better than adding them to the 1000's of unwanted dogs we already have in this country? Is it not better to give them a certain and peacful (I Hope) end rather then send them off to very uncertain lives?
After all we have many posts on here about PTS our lame or older horses rather than trying to loan or sell them on the uncertain futures?
Just a thought.

 

[girla]

What was shown on TV last night has been going on for years. There are many reputiable breeders and exactly the same amount of un reputiable breeders. Demand will always be there and so will the supply.

Responsible horse breeders have there stallions vetted and licensed (i did) and even though i loved my welsh cobs and bred some good horses i stopped breeding in the end because i just felt that there were just too many foals out there and to many bad homes they ended up in.

If every stud dog was made to have a compulsory vetting and then obtain a license surely this would help towards cutting down on bad confirmation etc.

One last comment i was absolutely gutted to see the state of the so called prize winning german shepherds. I have never seen such deformed confirmation and terrible movement in a dog, and to think that judges were awarding them championships send s shivers down my spine.

Money leads to a lot of evils if you know what i mean

 

[Sooty]

Little bit different, because they were culling pups purely because their aesthetics were wrong. In the case of the Ridgebacks, if what the vet said is correct, the ones without the ridge were better physical specimens than those with (the ridge is caused by a mild type of Spina Byfida).

 

[Acolyte]

[ QUOTE ]
do you know what your talking about !!!!
or are you just referring to a man who used a gun to killed unregistered 'flapping' dogs which the press then made headlines with ( and no i seriously don't agree with that either)

registered dogs are mainly put into organisations to re-home or they have to have a good reason to pts not all greyhounds are suitable for homing in much the same way as some pet dogs aren't actually suited to being pets !!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I do know what I am talking about thanks, I have had rescue greyhounds for about eight years now and have read a lot of information which the rescue organisation has available

 

[kick_On]

i was genuine shock last nite with programme.

Are some people blind to conformation defects (german sheppard springs to mind). Even if breed standard!!!!!!!! i'm sorry WTF the dog couldn't walk sound!!!! totally out of order

I think the industry does need a GOOD kick up the bum to get it's house in order. And this is a good way to bring it more into public eye.

As most things i'm sure there are good breeder out there and have their dogs screened and use a bit more brain in NOT inbreeding through parental lines. BUT others in my eyes are greeding money grabbing bast8rd and have a totally warped sense of totally inbreeding.............

If i ever got dog, i'll be off to local resue centre

 

[Fantasy_World]

QR I too watched this programme last night and was appalled by it.
In my opinion it was not biased. What other sides of the story could they show? The programme was about the KC and breeders and the practice of breeding unhealthy and deformed dogs. While it is true that there are millions of happy tail wagging pedigree dogs living their lives in good homes with equally satisfied owners, that is not what the programme was about so why was there a need to show perfectly 'normal' dogs as I think many of us can surely see many of those in our day to day lives.
The programme was an expose. True while many people may be already aware of the problems that are surfacing ( and have been for years) in pedigree dogs, there are those who perhaps might not know and it was for those people this programme was made for.
I don't think the documentary was sensational in my opinion. In fact I think the coverage of Crufts is more sensational including the old TV adverts of champion dogs being fed by certain dog food manufacturers.
I was not aware of the condition affecting CKCS at all. My dad used to own one and I can say that they have been a favourite little dog of mine for a while as they are charming to look at and have wonderful temperaments. I found the footage of the dogs suffering with the condition who later died very distressing. But even more distressing was the dismissive views of some of the breeders who were depicted last night. The woman outside parliament for example. What a snotty woman she was ( could say worse). Talk about not looking past the end of your nose. The lady she was referring to in the first place who had been interviewed after her dog won a show well what do they say about brains and looks. How the hell could this woman allow her dog to sire litters when he was suffering with that awful condition and would pass it onto his progeny is beyond me. The same could be said of the woman who vehemently stated that she would not pay for her dogs to have CT scans. Does the phrase ‘eating into profits’ spring to mind? Because it does to me. Breeding dogs in my opinion should be about producing healthy , disease and condition free dogs. Whether that in turn means extra costs for the breeders so be it. How the hell could anyone defend that they want to produce true to dog types and prevent a breed becoming existent when people around them are breeding specimens that will ultimately lead to the demise of the said breed is beyond me? Instead of all this defensive attitude of’ we don’t think like that’ and ‘not all breeders are the same’ and having a go at people who are questioning breeding ethics including last night’s journalists and people on this forum for example ; why not do something even more constructive and turn your attentions to the very people who are fellow breeders? The breeders who are in turn not only slurring the very name of a pedigree dog breeder but who are also jeopardising the health and in some cases the very existence of some breeds by their attitudes and own actions!
While we are on the subject I do believe that many dog breeders do it for the money. Even allowing for stud ( if needed), medical intervention, feed, vaccinations (which is usually covered by the high price for the puppy anyway), worming and sometimes insurance I would love for someone to show me a poor pedigree dog breeder and one who makes no profit at all from selling their puppies even allowing for such thing as deaths and illness too!
When referring to actual breeds the pugs are just cruel beyond belief. To produce dogs that that can barely breath and are in danger of overheating. Cue the part where the Cruft’s champion was placed on an ice mat for the photo shoot. There was a woman who was dismissive of their suffering who said something like they may pass out and then come round again. WTF! Even the champion dog of 2003 it was revealed had had surgery on his soft palate because it was interfering with his breathing too much. A palate which was produced by breeding and part of his genetic makeup. Which in turn he would pass onto to any of his offspring but that wouldn’t matter because he was KC registered and had won Crufts so he would be in high demand. Personally I thought the couple with the pug were cruel. That dog should have been pts with all its conditions and ailments.
The same was true of the boxer with epilepsy. Now true I know that dogs can lead normal lives with that condition so long as they have medication. It is a subject close to my heart because my mum’s last dog a border collie died at the vets through a massive fit when in for the night under observation. But I think with the boxer the medication it was on was a lot. The fitting was horrible and as someone who did a lot of research about it a few years ago it is very, very distressing for the animal. That boxer was in severe distress. Now whether it had been brought upon by withholding medication so as to induce a fit for cameras I don’t know( very questionable code of ethics if that were true) or whether it is still fitting with meds I don’t know for certain. But surely if it was the latter then how many drugs i.e. type and quantity can you give to a dog before it is deemed a cruel waste of a life? One interviewee said last night that dogs are very stoical and don’t usually show outward suffering. The boxer last night certainly did. Its howls were very upsetting as that was distress. The dog was most probably blind and/or deaf at the time.
The GSDs shown were awful. My friend had one years ago. He was a direct descendant of a champion as I saw his granddad or greatgrandad ( can’t remember which) in a book once and neither looked like the show type of today. Carpet, rug or no surface that was poppycock. That dog was lame! It’s gait was uneven. Its back looked odd. It did not look anything like the GSD dogs that I remember as a kid and I am only talking late 70’s-80’s. Cruel just plain cruel. I just cannot comprehend or condone the breeding of any animal for fashion and to make them look aesthetically pleasing for influential individuals especially at the expense of health and welfare of the said animals.
Don’t start me on Ridgebacks either. My uncle has two. One healthy and the other which has had to have growths removed ( most probably the type discussed in last night’s programme). I know of someone who owns a ridge less too and she is a very sweet dog. It angered me to hear that it is acceptable practice by their own club to cull ridge less pups. Surely finding a pet home and neutering would be a better alternative. To cull an unhealthy individual fair enough but to do it purely on the grounds of cosmetic reasons and the inability to have them KC registered is not a valid excuse in my opinion!
As for inbreeding too and incestual pairings between individuals I find that not only morally sick but also very worrying from a genetics point of view. Over the years I have bred small animals, gerbils, hamsters and now ferrets occasionally. I keep records and never ever have I ever inbred any of them. My own morals stop me from doing it as well as the fear of producing individuals who may or may not be unhealthy either in the first, second, third and so on generations. For me personally the risk is too great. I cannot comprehend dog breeders especially who do this. There needs to be a complete review of the breeding ethics by the KC in my opinion. People may not like being told what to do but it is sheer stupidity and blatant disregard for mother nature that has helped to create these dogs that have so many genetic faults. The buck has to stop somewhere. Someone has to be responsible. In my opinion it should be the people who are responsible for regulating the breeding of pedigree dogs since it is the KC status that gives breeders the edge over non KC registered rivals in the first place when it comes to prices, showing status and credibility.

There is so much more I could say about this programme. I admired the lady who was campaigning about the condition in CKCS and I commend her efforts. I was appalled by some of the attitudes towards her though. I think the grey haired man ( can’t remember his name) who was speaking on behalf of the KC who laughed a lot ( including outside parliament) was a comedian. His whole attitude on the matter was a joke. Personally I have a great deal of time for the RSPCA head vet Mark Evans ( not necessarily the organisation though) who spoke on their behalf last night. I can remember him from BBC children’s TV programmes from a few years back. He has a great deal of knowledge about animals which I have seen him display countless times on TV over the years so I was really annoyed by one comment by someone on another thread about him. I have viewed him over the years as someone who is very sensitive and very passionate about animal care and welfare so was appalled to read what I did. I don’t think he was being sensational in his approach and choice of words. He is clearly a man who cares deeply about animals.
I only hope that now this subject has made national TV that something good can come from it. Eyes have been opened in some cases and I think any breeder good or bad should seriously question their own codes of practice as well as others. The buying public need to be more aware of what they are taking on. Personally I would recommend a rescue dog or mongrel any day. I have two. One is a crossbreed from the RSPCA, the other a JRT who may look like a pure bred but isn’t. Had her from some nice gypsy folk. She has her tail too, only drawback is hind dew claws which I wish I had had removed a pup as the nails can be a pain to cut sometimes. She is also what looks like a pudding JRT in that her back length is longer than the height from the front. But I wouldn’t have her any other way. We have thought about pedigree dogs though and I would like a mini YT to be honest when the older dog passes away as he is older than the JRT and I don’t like keeping animals alone that are group animals. When the times comes I will look for another rescue dog and give it a good home. I would not buy from a breeder personally as I think in most cases dogs are overpriced. You could buy a horse or pony cheaper than what you could for a puppy in some cases which is absurd.

sorry for long post

Caz