Dog breeding... is anyone doing it right???

fits

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ABBJFJFZBJ5N5QFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/health/2007/03/07/ftcrufts107.xml&page=1

I was shocked at the state of some (but not all) dogs I saw at a dog show recently.... admittedly my first ever dog show. I was so surprised that judges seemed to actually encourage breeding of exaggerated traits into a dog... an example being the daschund and his back. Looks seem to be the primary concern, rather than health or movement.

Anyway, I'd like to hear some opinions on this.

Heres the article

Dirty tricks and eccentric topiary are one thing. But on the eve of Britain's biggest dog show, Beverley Cuddy asks whether we are endangering man's best friend
# News: cruelty row on eve of Crufts

We're all suckers for puppy dog eyes. Maybe that's why the BBC has, for the second year running, allowed Ben Fogle to present its Crufts coverage, which begins again tomorrow. It obviously doesn't matter that he can't tell his Affenpinschers from his Estrelas; most of his audience will drool in any case.

A dog at crufts
Pampered pooch: Coco, Crufts 2005 Supreme Champion

Unfortunately, for the excessively jowled breeds like the St Bernard, Newfoundland and Bloodhound, the drooling will continue long after the credits stop rolling.

I'm far from immune to canine charms, but increasingly I find myself wondering whether it would not be better if Crufts were banned. After all, what good does it do? For me, showing dogs must have some higher purpose than simply accumulating rosettes. I'm no killjoy - the exhibitors can all have their bit of fun with the silly walks and eccentric topiary - but surely someone has to look after our best friend's best interests.

We've all had a snigger over the past few years at the bizarre goings-on in the show world: the poison pen letters that led to the Best in Show judge resigning in 2004; the drugging of rivals' dogs; even the case of the terrier that had three testicles - the owner had implanted a fake one (just one of the dog's testicles had descended into the scrotum and the judges require two on display), only to have the retained testicle drop during the show. As a result, the owner was banned from showing dogs for several years.

But behind the outward eccentricities of the owners and trainers, real dogs' lives are being increasingly affected by this seemingly mad and ferociously competitive world.

Sadly, health concerns seem to be close to the bottom of the show dog agenda for the canine governing bodies in Britain and America. There are just over 200 pedigree breeds in Britain and, shockingly, more than 150 of them have significant hereditary diseases.

At the moment in the UK, testing dogs for health issues is purely a matter of personal conscience. Most people believe all the beautiful dogs at Crufts are perfectly healthy. I'm afraid many are anything but.

Let's put Crufts into a historical context. Dog and man have been best friends for 100,000 years or so. Dogs helped us catch our dinner; they protected us while we slept. In return they shared our food and homes. Over time, the genetically elastic dog was changed into different shapes to help us more. Thankfully, our dabbling with eugenics didn't harm the dog, as we selected for function not fashion.

With industrialisation, the dog's employment opportunities started to dry up. It was around this time that Britain invented the dog show and Kennel Clubs. The face of British dogs was to change as the concept of human beauty became the reason to breed. In an era where bearded ladies were considered interesting, many oddities were prized when they should have been avoided. Physical traits such as hairlessness and squashed faces were encouraged.

When the first Kennel Club was formed in 1873, the gene pools for hundreds of pedigree dogs were soon to be sealed. It wouldn't have taken a genius to predict that there would be trouble ahead as relatively small numbers of dogs were then mated together for the next 150 years.

There are now more than 30,000 genetic defects identified in pedigree dogs, with a new one being discovered every month. As well as the inevitable in-breeding caused by the cult of pedigree, dogs' health has been further challenged by the peculiar fashions and foibles of the show world, which has kept "improving" the appearance of breeds.

The Bulldog is the obvious example of a breed changed almost beyond recognition. Show judges began to favour a massive head, so it grew ever larger, unchecked. However, the pelvis remained the same size, meaning Caesarean births became the norm. Almost every breed has been changed to a degree - the Chow used to have fairly normal eyes, but the judges took to favouring tiny eyes, with devastating results.

Many Chows now have to have their painful in-growing eyelashes removed. The judges liked the Dachshund to have a longer back and shorter legs - unsurprisingly, spinal problems resulted. It has not taken long for 100,000 years of breeding for function to be undone.

If you wanted to breed from a dog that's deaf, blind, crippled with hip dysplasia or suffering from a heart condition, you'd probably expect the Kennel Club to refuse to take your money. Sadly, you'd be wrong. At the moment - I think shamefully - KC registration is no mark of quality. It'll proudly compare itself to Debrett's. It'll say it is paid to record lineage, not intelligence or health. But it doesn't have to be this way.

wenty or more years ago the Swedish Kennel Club decided to reform its practices and made health tests mandatory. It also ensured that breeders took notice of the results by simplifying the complex systems of testing for hereditary diseases, so people had clear guidelines on what to breed with what.

It even came up with ways of ensuring the breadth of the gene pool was preserved by establishing quotas so that no stud dog could be overused - unlike in Britain and America, where a top winning stud dog can sire an unlimited number of litters, meaning that almost every dog in the breed can end up a half brother or sister.

The Kennel Club (as the British KC likes to be known), however, has left it to the breeders to police themselves. It has softened a few words in the breed standards that constitute the blueprint which the judges are meant to aim for - but hasn't disciplined any judges for continuing to favour the unhealthy exaggerations that make even breathing hard work for many breeds.
advertisement

Over the past 50 years, our pedigree breeds have been growing increasingly unhealthy, life expectancies have fallen drastically and some breed characteristics have become exaggerated almost beyond recognition. For example, the Bernese Mountain Dog, a breed that increasingly suffers from cancer, is now lucky to reach the age of seven. The Irish wolfhound, selectively bred for its massive size, has been left susceptible to bone cancer and has a similar life expectancy. Your average mongrel will live two or three times as long.

Those who sport the hallowed KC members' badge at dog shows radiate pride. But while everyone wants to wear the badge, few seem to want to reform the system. Maybe history has taught them to keep their heads down. About 20 years ago, the Kennel Club decided to expel one of its members for publicly saying it should do more to prevent health problems in dogs.

That member was Dr Malcolm Willis, probably the world's leading expert on hip dysplasia in dogs. The club has taken him back now, but sadly no one listens to his demands for mandatory health testing in dogs that will be bred from and are disposed to hip dysplasia.

Similarly, no one at the KC seems interested in the British government ratifying the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. To date, 21 countries have signed this, including Turkey.

As well as laying down minimum requirements for good animal welfare, the convention highlights a list of breed characteristics that need to be modified for the dogs' best interests. The KC argues that we don't need Europe telling us what to do - the breeds are safe in its hands, it says; it has got it all under control.

The KC's expensive Clarges Street offices in London are hung with beautiful canine art from an era before the show world distorted the shape of so many of our wonderful breeds. The dogs in those pictures left the destiny of their pups to the KC - and it has let them down very badly.

I'll still watch Crufts. After all, I'm an optimist. I'm just hoping someone will soon stand up and start making Crufts not just the biggest dog show in the world, but the best.

peasant

A very good find and a very frightening article.

But according to some experts' opinion the situation is actually worse than described.

It seems that we are not only breeding dogs towards ill health but actually to extinction :eek:

The genepool of virtually every breed is now "infected" with heredetary diseases, some of which even have made the "jump" from recessive to dominant genes.

Through inbreeding also entire gene sequences seem to have "vanished" from the genepool altogether.

Recent studies of "mongrels" have showed that the old story of the healthier mix is no longer true either, as there are hardly any true "mongrels" left anymore, they are all crosses of "purebreds" carrying their defective genes.

As re-creating good genes from bad genes is not possible and as the amount of genetically unspoilt dogs worldwide is very small, these experts aren't very hopeful for the future of "man's best friend"

I would quote sources ...but can't remember the websites ...plus they're in German anyway

tinkerbell

We took our Newf to a dog trainer and she said she went to Crufts once. Said she never went back there again. She said most people who have show dogs don't give a damn about the dogs and are more concerned about their own ego. She said the methods they use for training are horrible and cruel

In one part of the show, all the dogs are made line up and sit and then their owners leave the arena for 10 mins .... the big lights are on them, a crowd of people surrounding them and they have to not move for that length of time. Apparantly if they do move, then god help the poor doggy when he gets home

Nala

Some horse shows are no better. I remember once seeing a girl no older than 11 beating her pony around the face and kicking him because he knocked a pole down in his round.

fits

I kind of hoped this thread would discuss dog breeding rather than actual behaviour of the dogs and their owners.

I too have seen bad behaviour at horse shows, although it isnt too bad.

I dont think there is anything inherently wrong with dog showing as long as the judging takes health and temperament and long term well being of the dog breeds into account. These concerns seem to be absent in the judging of competitions in Ireland, Britain and the US.

tinkerbell

fits - regarding the whole breeding issue, I agree that there are so many defects in pure bred dogs now. Like Newfoundlands are vulnerable to certain illnesses, like this heart condition that can kill most if they get it - only a small % survive. This is what happened to our previous Newf. As it happens, the vet had only just read an article about it the previous week so knew exactly what was wrong with her, but he couldn't save her

Lou.m

Humans are weird.

Thats what i think.

shinners007

it comes down to inbreeding, un reputable breeders who dont do heart line testing, hip scoring, eye tests etc... thats the problem and people buying just for a breed rather than for a healthy puppy who is well cared for and thats somes with vet facts sheets and approval also. i have seen terrible examples of breeds recently that would make one cringe.:mad:

fits

shinners007 wrote:

i have seen terrible examples of breeds recently that would make one cringe.:mad:

And there are terrible examples of breeds winning prizes at crufts... This is not just coming from uneducated buyers and puppy farms.... this is coming right from the top...

andrawolf

I agree with sinners it is about the breeders and the people buying them. There are breeders who breed for the good of the line. the hip test eye score and if it has any problems don't use the dog for breeding. then you have the breeders out to make them money. IE. My breed siberian huskies. at christmas eight below came out and they where cashin in the don't care if there dogs have any health probs just sell the pups to stupid people that seen the movie. the people buying don't even know what they are buying. huskies need a lot of work and they do a lot of reckin. This people then after the novelty has worn off the put them up for sale. It would help if the kennel club made it copulsery to have these test done and that they should discide if the dog is fit to breed. The breeders are breeding for eye colour and coat colour and the same as the buyers they are leaving the breed in a mess and a lot of pure huskies needing new homes.:mad: :mad: :mad:

Phaedra

It is very easy to tar all breeders with the same brush, there are groups out there trying to improve things for example to join the Golden retriever club of Ireland you have to sign a pledge that you will screen your dogs and that you will not breed from dogs that are affected. People need to change their attitude when buying a pedigree pup, only buy one with both parents screened for whatever diseases occur in that breed, expect a responsible breeder to do background checks on where the puppy is going. Many responsible breeders will make you promise to return the pup to them if there is a problem.

fits

So why then... for example... are dachunds with incredibly long backs that can only give problems still winning prizes... Why has the German Shepherd breed been completely messed up with this sloping back and quarters, which they seem to be unable to straighten out again.

Has anyone read the article in the OP???? ... Phaedra, andrawolf and Shinners....

iguana

Not all breeders are show breeders. Some dogs are bred for working purposes, such as border collies, field springer and working cocker spaniels and retrievers. I've recently read an article by a gun-dog breeder who is currently aiming to breed gun-dogs with shorter tails so they don't need to be docked. (It isn't uncommon for undocked gun-dogs to split their tail so badly that they need to be amputated as adults, which is a pretty serious operation.)

corkimp

Unfortunately, dog breeding is a big business. There are some out their trying to keep up the breed standards and ensure they are top quality to breed from. Others are overbreeding, inbreeding or just breeding with any dog they get their hands on. Most of the breeds problems come from inbreeding be it respiratory problems, eyes, hip dyslpacia (pardon my spelling!) and so on. They cam e about because we liked such traits as big eyes, hernias, short snouts, long backs, short legs and more. The original cavalier King Charles in paintings of the royal family in the past are very different to what we have today.
I love german shepherds - getting one on saturday to be precise. She is IKC registered but I made sure to see both parents and where she was bred. They were in good health, happy and playful. But despite that, I don't know if somewhere along the line her bloodline she might be inbred. Who knows unless the IKC gave me the information. But when she is older, if I am considering breeding her or even if I don't, I'm going to get her hip scored and checked out. I can't wait to get her though being honest.
I believe the KC have to take responsiblity for the breeds it registers both in the protection of the standards and ban overbreeding the dam.

iguana

corkimp wrote:

But despite that, I don't know if somewhere along the line her bloodline she might be inbred.

Will you not get the dog's family tree? When I got mine I got a KC assured family tree, which had all the dogs that mine were descended from going back 5 generations. If I had wanted to breed mine I would have been able to add this information to their offspring's papers.

corkimp

iguana wrote:

Will you not get the dog's family tree? When I got mine I got a KC assured family tree, which had all the dogs that mine were descended from going back 5 generations. If I had wanted to breed mine I would have been able to add this information to their offspring's papers.

I'm not sure. Do I get that from her breeder or the IKc? I will get her certificate and have to post it off to the IKC and get my own back. Will it be on that? Oh any chance you know how much it costs to register her with them? Cheers

iguana

I got all my papers with the dogs, their breeders had registered them and had the paperwork which they gave us when we took the pups. We just had to call the KC and register ourselves as the dogs new owners and then we got 6 weeks free puppy insurance. The family tree came with their papers.

Though what you'll have to do may depend on the breeders. The people that we bought our dogs off didn't seem to be in it for the money as our dogs cost about 1/3 of other litters. They said they just wanted to cover their costs. Tbh, we were a bit suspicious until we met them. But we met the parent dogs, (which was sort of horrible as the mother was very upset when she realised we were taking her pups - I felt like a monster). Though I was re-assured to see what were obviously well loved dogs as the parents. And the breeders kids were also very upset to see the pups go.

shinners007

a quick warning from a breeder there has been an increase in breeder giving out photocopied Pb certs say the so called lines of the pup, you should get this line cert from the IKC (stamped) before considering breeding as it may be forged. i have 12 lines on each side of the dam and sire to ensure no line breedeing occurs. Some other info a dam can only reg 6 litters of puppies i persoanlly believe this should be reduced to at least four, a female over six should not be breed from nor should one under 14months of age. I personally believe 2 and a half or over is soon enough to breed no earlier.

The IKc paper is not the same thing as a PB cert, the ikc paper says name of dog, parents, breeder, microchip nuber, regisrtartion number sex, breed etc.

the Pb cert gives names and lines og parents, grand parents, gt gt granparents etc.. The Ikc charge a few for an offical PB cert with there stamp on it, think its in the region of 30 euro plus depending on how many lines/generations you are looking for.

Also you dont need generations anymore to bredd you only need the sir and dam's registration nuber for the IKc litter registration and i think this is a disgrace the club changed it, before all generations had to be written in now its only the sire and dam, if some one just went off and bought two dogs and breed them then registered em to to told by IKC there inbreeding they cant reg pups what will happen then, they'll prob toss em aside or something its crazy.

@ Fits i dont show my dogs hence i agree its a disgrace dashaunds are being bredd to show standard or what ever you want to call it yet have such back problems. BTw i read the OP's post.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

as stated before the problem is unresponsible breeders in it for the money and the stupidity of people out there creating the demand for these PB's.

fits

shinners007 wrote:

@ Fits i dont show my dogs hence i agree its a disgrace dashaunds are being bredd to show standard or what ever you want to call it yet have such back problems. BTw i read the OP's post.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

as stated before the problem is unresponsible breeders in it for the money and the stupidity of people out there creating the demand for these PB's.

I was just trying to point out that in my opinion, the kennel clubs are just as much at fault as irresponsible breeders. GSDs, wolfhounds, daschunds to name a few, are examples of breeds ruined by bad judging and bad breeding...

shinners007

please explain how the kennel clubs are as much at fault?

fits

shinners007 wrote:

a

Also you dont need generations anymore to bredd you only need the sir and dam's registration nuber for the IKc litter registration and i think this is a disgrace the club changed it, before all generations had to be written in now its only the sire and dam, if some one just went off and bought two dogs and breed them then registered em to to told by IKC there inbreeding they cant reg pups what will happen then, they'll prob toss em aside or something its crazy.

As you said yourself... not exactly stringent control of breeding is it?

fits

And an excerpt from the first post, explaining how the Kennel Clubs are at fault...

When the first Kennel Club was formed in 1873, the gene pools for hundreds of pedigree dogs were soon to be sealed. It wouldn't have taken a genius to predict that there would be trouble ahead as relatively small numbers of dogs were then mated together for the next 150 years.

There are now more than 30,000 genetic defects identified in pedigree dogs, with a new one being discovered every month. As well as the inevitable in-breeding caused by the cult of pedigree, dogs' health has been further challenged by the peculiar fashions and foibles of the show world, which has kept "improving" the appearance of breeds.

The Bulldog is the obvious example of a breed changed almost beyond recognition. Show judges began to favour a massive head, so it grew ever larger, unchecked. However, the pelvis remained the same size, meaning Caesarean births became the norm. Almost every breed has been changed to a degree - the Chow used to have fairly normal eyes, but the judges took to favouring tiny eyes, with devastating results.

Many Chows now have to have their painful in-growing eyelashes removed. The judges liked the Dachshund to have a longer back and shorter legs - unsurprisingly, spinal problems resulted. It has not taken long for 100,000 years of breeding for function to be undone.

If you wanted to breed from a dog that's deaf, blind, crippled with hip dysplasia or suffering from a heart condition, you'd probably expect the Kennel Club to refuse to take your money. Sadly, you'd be wrong. At the moment - I think shamefully - KC registration is no mark of quality. It'll proudly compare itself to Debrett's. It'll say it is paid to record lineage, not intelligence or health. But it doesn't have to be this way.

wenty or more years ago the Swedish Kennel Club decided to reform its practices and made health tests mandatory. It also ensured that breeders took notice of the results by simplifying the complex systems of testing for hereditary diseases, so people had clear guidelines on what to breed with what.

It even came up with ways of ensuring the breadth of the gene pool was preserved by establishing quotas so that no stud dog could be overused - unlike in Britain and America, where a top winning stud dog can sire an unlimited number of litters, meaning that almost every dog in the breed can end up a half brother or sister.

The Kennel Club (as the British KC likes to be known), however, has left it to the breeders to police themselves. It has softened a few words in the breed standards that constitute the blueprint which the judges are meant to aim for - but hasn't disciplined any judges for continuing to favour the unhealthy exaggerations that make even breathing hard work for many breeds.
advertisement

Over the past 50 years, our pedigree breeds have been growing increasingly unhealthy, life expectancies have fallen drastically and some breed characteristics have become exaggerated almost beyond recognition. For example, the Bernese Mountain Dog, a breed that increasingly suffers from cancer, is now lucky to reach the age of seven. The Irish wolfhound, selectively bred for its massive size, has been left susceptible to bone cancer and has a similar life expectancy. Your average mongrel will live two or three times as long.

Those who sport the hallowed KC members' badge at dog shows radiate pride. But while everyone wants to wear the badge, few seem to want to reform the system. Maybe history has taught them to keep their heads down. About 20 years ago, the Kennel Club decided to expel one of its members for publicly saying it should do more to prevent health problems in dogs.

That member was Dr Malcolm Willis, probably the world's leading expert on hip dysplasia in dogs. The club has taken him back now, but sadly no one listens to his demands for mandatory health testing in dogs that will be bred from and are disposed to hip dysplasia.

Similarly, no one at the KC seems interested in the British government ratifying the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. To date, 21 countries have signed this, including Turkey.

As well as laying down minimum requirements for good animal welfare, the convention highlights a list of breed characteristics that need to be modified for the dogs' best interests. The KC argues that we don't need Europe telling us what to do - the breeds are safe in its hands, it says; it has got it all under control.

The KC's expensive Clarges Street offices in London are hung with beautiful canine art from an era before the show world distorted the shape of so many of our wonderful breeds. The dogs in those pictures left the destiny of their pups to the KC - and it has let them down very badly.

shinners007

I aked you to explain your views on it not re read the article, everyone is aware that inbreeding is a major contribuatory factory to this problem. The IKC will not allow people to register pups from in breeding parents or where the lines cross a five generation is mandatory. I merely stated the change to the method of litter registration, i felt the old way was better as then one wouldnt knowningly breed (i would hope) from related sire and dam's and there would not then be a problem.

Again the major issue is with the breeders, people that are creating the demand and lets not forget those who neglect to ensure that the correct tests have been carried out before breeding coences eg heart line testing, hip score's, vet checks etc.. Now im in Munster and there is only one cardiologist who performs heart line testing using a holter system.(how many are there for humans.. not very likely to improve in either area), the facilities are not in place or even any where near where they should be to stop all these problems arising in particular breeds. I agree with you fits the judges are wrong in what there doing but so are those selling "show dog material" and the biggest person to blame is those buying them.

If the demand wasnt there and people were more aware of the problems we'd see less of these problems. im sick of saying it its not just the unreputable breeders its the people of ireland creating the problem.

fits

shinners007 wrote:

I aked you to explain your views on it not re read the article

Well my opinion is articulated pretty well by the article. Everytime someone comes on here looking for a particular breed, they're given advice about finding a good breeder... who has run all of the health screens that you have mentioned. But does that guarantee a healthy dog?
I believe that the Kennel Clubs, dog showing and these so-called 'good breeders' are all inextricably linked and are all at fault. Judges are giving prizes to dogs with serious defects... There seems to be no judging that accounts for the long term well-being of show dogs and their breeds. Most people think that 'champion bloodlines' are a great thing, but from what I've seen, that isnt necessarily so. Too many breeds have been wrecked. I think judging should first and foremost be based on whether a dog is sound and healthy, of good conformation and temperament, and shows good movement. I believe there is too much emphasis on flashy traits and flashy movement, and not enough on the health of the dog.
Because of bad judging...
pugs and bulldogs are bad breathers and have to be born by c-section
daschunds have vastly overlong backs with too-short legs, and suffer from horrible back problems and pain
GSD conformation has been altered beyond recognition with this stupid sloping back
Whippets seem to be following this trait of the sloping back...
Wolfhounds are too big, bad tempered and suffer from bone cancer and a short lifespan
I'm sure there is more to add to this, but my knowledge lets me down.
In my opinion, the whole focus of dog breeding has to change.

shinners007

To answer your question no great or excellant breeding can guarantee a dead cert healthy dog for life... i mean come fits no human is a sure thing to be healthy for life even if they eat healthy excercise etc.. Things happen.
My main focus is on heart line testing hip scoring vet checks etc.. ensuring that both that dam and sire are healthy have no mumours have a good hip score etc. It is also iperiative there is no genetic links to the parents all these factors reduce these problems occuring that you speak of. this does and this is a fact reduce congential heart problems and defects occuring in off spring. To aid have a healthy dog owners should give a balanced nutritious diet to the dog, sufficent excercise, love, grooming care time etc..
In order to comabt these issues surley corrective breeding methods are a must which i have summarised some compoments of above or do you not agree with this??

You believe good breeders are at fault thats a ridicilious statement to make when there are a small minority out there that are trying to improve the breeding industry in this country to to oust unreputable breeders, where exactly can you find fault in that????????? Espically when it done so correctly, my boxers are healthy and have never had any problrems nor have my puppies i know this as i keep in touch with the owners. My boxers see the vet only for health checks vaccines etc. never hasd to go to vet with any pronlems, so you tell me what im doing wrong to have healthy dogs pups would ya?? Im experienecd enough to know what im speaking about are you yourself a breeder or do you simply assume all breeders are the same?? Its attitudes like yours that need alterning as well as unreputable breeders as your opinion is as low as theres.

to sum it all up a dog breed correctly is more likely to be healthier and to have less genetical diorders or problems than one breed without carrying out the tests i have mentioned above hope that answers the question for you.

fits

What I am trying to say is that the kennel clubs are not encouraging good breeding.... I'm really not getting through to you, and I feel that some of your comments in your above post are unjustifed. I am not blaming breeders alone for this. Please reread my posts...

shinners007

No fits your blaming "good breeders" your words not mine, there shouldnt be a problem in reffering some one to a reputable breeder why would there be, if all pups parents are helthy, tests have been carried, vet checked etc.. i dont see the problem with that. Im sorry if you think some of my coments are unjustified however i will not take the back as they clearly state my opinion on things.

A bigger problem lies with puppy farmers and bad breeders who are only in it to make a few bucks. Some of us out there love the breed we'r breeding and are trying to improve the breed .

I agree the kennel club are part of the problem they could do more ie as i stated above changing how litter regisration is carried out they could also make it mandatory for tests to be carried before breeding as this would reduce the problem.

Not all breeders are in to shows or selling show dogs or dogs with champion bloodlines. Some of us are doing it right and drastically trying to improve the breeding industry why cant you see that, your simply painting everyone with the one brush.

As for shows i have no interest in them and do not attend them as i see them as pointless and judgemental again i agree that some thing needs to be done to iprove the standards currently there and to change the attitudes of judges and show people.

Back to the OP and to simply anwer the question. Yes i believ some people ( sadly very few) are doing it right.

fits

If you didnt think I was attacking you personally (which I'm not) perhaps we'd have a more satisfying discussion.

We are going around in circles here... so I'm not going to respond to you anymore.

shinners007

Its not about you attacking me or anything like it fits and you know that, you earlier began by saying good breeders are linked to causing the problem i have just pointed out how wrong you are and hence since you didnt answer my questions on what im doing wrong, it just shows ive highlighted your statements as being wrong and everyone should not be painted with the one brush so feel free not to respond i dont mind as ive gotten my point across.

In addition to this i have no personal grievance with you in fact ive as good as said i agree with some points youve made, your entilted to your opinion as everyone else is so we'll leave it at that.

peasant

The problem is a lot more far reaching than mere testing for eyes, hearts, hips etc, the problem lies within the idea of a "breed" as a whole.

All the health tests that good breeders carry out merely ensure that the individual animal is reasonably healthy ...the real issue is though that most breeds by now are inherently sick / defective.

This also goes far beyond obvious deformities, even seemingly healthy breeds are now genetically crippled.

Genes mutate ..that's what they do. In natural selection (in the wild) these mutations are "field tested" and only the ones that further the animals' ability to survive make it into the genepool, while detrimental genes are slowly weeded out through the carriers dying off or not reproducing.

Now enter human selection:
Early attempts at breeding for ability (working dogs) created types ...you got the scenthounds, the sighthounds, the herders, the pullers and carriers. While within a type a certain shape started to develop, you still got all sizes , coats and colours and thus still a fairly large genepool per type, albeit already deviated from the "natural".

Now when "breeds" were introduced is when the real desaster happened. All of a sudden certain sizes, shapes and colours became undesirable and were excluded from the pool. Only a limited number of animals with a limited number of genes were allowed to reproduce and interbreed.

I'm no geneticist ...but from what I understand the problem is that genetics is far more complicated than it seems.
So, by deciding to remove the coulour black from a breed, you may accidentally also remove the gene code that furthers the development of a healthy heart, for example. Mostly this is a result of interbreeding where all of a sudden formerly recessive genes become dominant. You end up with dogs that are no longer black but blond, but through the back door you also introduced a now predominant disease.
Because of the interbreeding the healthy genes can't simply be re-introduced either ...they have vanished, been eradicated.

This has by now taken place over such a large percentage of the dog population that there are hardly any dogs left with a full compliment of healthy genes.

Even mongrels these days are "infested" with pure-bred genes and no longer a guarantee for good health.

So ...what needs to be done?


I haven't the foggiest ...:(

But personally I will never buy a "purebred" again and support this madness with my money.

Nala

peasant wrote:

So, by deciding to remove the coulour black from a breed, you may accidentally also remove the gene code that furthers the development of a healthy heart, for example. Mostly this is a result of interbreeding where all of a sudden formerly recessive genes become dominant. You end up with dogs that are no longer black but blond, but through the back door you also introduced a now predominant disease.

This is a bit like the problem with Dalmatians. Someone somewhere decided that Dalmatians must be predominantly white, unfortunately the gene for the colour white is often carried with the gene for deafness, hence, the problem of Dalmatians and deafness (a substantial proportion are deaf in at least one ear if not both).