Tonights program will be the BBC'S take on the situation thus it will be portrayed how they wish it to be. The full story will not be portrayed and it it easy for those at the sideline to shout and scream what should be done.
I have voiced some of my opinions and ideas and they will be published in the dog paper but the KC need to step up and take on the role as the kennel club and fulfill their mission statement.
This is such old news. Really surprised it has taken someone this long to make a TV show about it. My mum used to breed GSDs about 20 years ago and even back then she would go for the big old fashioned working type over the finer showing ones as they were neurotic.
this practice has been going on for years and is getting worse. i notice a theme of stuck up old bats who can't see beyond the end of their nose that they are breeding freaks of nature, surely under the new animal welfare act this could be stopped???? i cannot believe that moron talking about the wobbly legged german shephard being correct...WHAT get your arse down to specsavers mate, that dog cannot walk properly let alone do the job it's bred for????? FFS...and this is happening in the equine world to, especially in miniture horses and inhand welsh section c's and d's
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe buying from someone who breeds dogs as working would be better (even if you werent going to work them) might be better - they probably wouldnt care about some stupid ribbon over the quality of their dogs. Just a thought though.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's another point, there shouldn't be a "working" type and a "show" type there should be one type capable of working and providing a good specimen in the show ring and I honestly think that's where there's part of the problem. You take my HWVs or Tophorse's Weimys both capable of standing there own in the ring and doing a full days work. We show we don't work but we've bred extremely successful working dogs out of our so called "show" bitches.
On the continent most working breeds cannot gain their show Ch. title without also gaining their field title.
The KC is so inbred itself that it will take more than a BBC documentary to have any positive effect on their ways.
The American KC is even worse at exagerating the breed standards Although they do more to encourage breeders to DNA test for hereditary disease and have programmes for heart, eye, hip testing and the central CHIC registry there you can for most breeds look up things like thyroid test results from dogs that responsible breeders have had tests.
On the continent many working breeds (and the FCI groups differ in breed content somewhat to the UK KC) HAVE to attain their field title BEFORE they can become a show Ch.
The UK KC is itself so inbred it will take more than a BBC documentary to bing about changes unfortunately. The American KC is just as bad, if not worse as many of the extreme conformation characteristics we see in show dogs here are often due to influence from the American big bucks winners.
Although the AKC does do more to encourage breeders to heart, eye, hip, thyroid, etc test. And the central CHIC registry is available for all to see and you can check test results of dogs that have been submitted for the scheme by responsible breeders.
I haven't read all the replies so apologies if this has already been said.
The cases shown last night were truly shocking; and the deliberate appearance of being igornant of those 'women' was shameful and pathetic to say the least.
What I would like to know is who actually declares what a specific breed should look like and why breed genetic deformities into a dog (the pug, boxers, GSD, and ridgebacks on the programme come to mind) just to satisfy the opinion of someone in a showring.
In my opinion the whole breeding system needs a complete overall with the welfare and health of the dogs being top priority.
The same can be said for Sibes, the judges like the show types, short and stocky whereas those that race them like them long in the back, the show types look like mini malamutes and can't work for toffee.
The breed standards are supposed to be drawn up based on the ORIGINAL purpose for which the dog was bred. But people down the years (I guess being "only human") have, like with horses, bred for those characteristics that are more eye catching to gain an advantage in the show ring.
There comes a point where they loose sight of the form and function of the dog, you see more and more exageration of conformation (GSD the back/hind limb: daschund the dwarf like legs; pugs the muzzle, etc, etc).
Judges are almost as much to blame as breeders for putting up exageration but then most are hand in glove with the person they give the CC to. Often a dog or bitch gets a CC because the judge has either bred or owns the sire, or has a litter mate, or bred the dam. The KC needs to take a long hard look at the judges as well as the breeders.
I could put a bet on now for Crufts 2009 on who will get the dog CC and BOB in my breed with a 100% certainty it will pay. The judge IS going to put up a dog who is by her own stud. Regardless of the fact her line has health problems. Happens in many breeds.
Shocking programme, sadly the breeders didn't do themselves many favours when interviewed.
A friend of mine, a breeder, wrote the KC regarding AID in Whippets, the subject had been researched, the KC said they would put the details on file. I guess that means that they don't care about AID, and that if your Whippet does live beyond four years of age, so what?
That's another point, there shouldn't be a "working" type and a "show" type there should be one type capable of working and providing a good specimen in the show ring and I honestly think that's where there's part of the problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree completely - that would be an even better solution. I just meant I'd rather buy a dog that is "functional" rather than one that has all the show credentials but cant walk straight. I.E buy from people who care about the quality of their dogs but also their welfare first and foremost. Ribbons should come second.