Bbc Could Drop Crufts Over Unhealthy Breeds

[cycas]

I think the rather wonderful thing this programme has done is to expose that there are apparently a substantial number of breeders who are knowledgable about the situation, who understand the implications at least in part, but wantonly choose to carry on. I can forgive the muppets who bred blue merle to blue merle and produced my deaf girlie, but when a specialist breeder knowingly breeds pups that could be inherently diseased and unsound ??? There's a level of responsiblity which such people have yet to accept, I wonder what kind of bond they really have with their dogs

 

Just what I thought. Getting it wrong through ignorance or stupidity is bad enough, but to know exactly what you are doing, to know that you are creating dogs that will suffer horribly, not to mention inflicting huge emotional pain and turmoil on the people unlucky enough to think they are buying a nice healthy dog from good lines and love it dearly - and to go ahead and do it anyway? That's just - evil.

 

The ridgeback woman I felt slightly less upset by: I mean, obviously killing puppies is pretty damn grim, but at least she was doing it quickly under veterinary care, and I'm not sure that she really understood the implications of insisting on the ridge as part of the breed standard. The fact that she was happy to stand there and talk about killing puppies to a television camera suggests to me a considerable level of naivety. Not that that's an excuse, but I was less shocked by it.

 

The cav people quite obviously knew they were doing something really awful and were trying to hide it.

[ReikiAnge]

I think the cost to the breeder to register a pup with the KC is around £12, but I don't even consider the registration worth that at the moment, which is a shame for the good breeders out there.

 

I too found the cav and the boxer fitting distressing. I don't think I could personally stand

by and see one of me beloved dogs having to suffer that every day. This may get me into trouble

but I would rather they go peacefully in my arms, in their own home with my vet easing their pain, than put

up with a lifetime of misery.

 

I think it would depend on the dog. Many dogs live with epilepsy and it's managed, just like it is with people, and the dogs generally live fulfilling lives. Was that boxer fitting every day? I missed that bit. It was horrid to watch, poor dog

 

ps I have always loved the rhodey ridgeback, if i ever get one i would try for one with

no ridge, rescuing it from a breeder murdering it (if there wasn't any rhodeys in rescue of course, of any type)

 

I gather that not all ridgeback breeders cull the ridgeless pups, some do keep them and sell them onto pet homes thankfully.

 

I have read about the various pug crosses, including the pug x beagle one which is being bred and always been opposed to this as they seem to be sold as "designer" dogs rather than the crossbreeds they actually are. However I did read a comment that this cross actually looks far more like the original pug than the current pedigree pug does - which is a good point - and I wonder how improved the dogs health is in the crossbreed

 

The ridgeback woman I felt slightly less upset by: I mean, obviously killing puppies is pretty damn grim, but at least she was doing it quickly under veterinary care, and I'm not sure that she really understood the implications of insisting on the ridge as part of the breed standard. The fact that she was happy to stand there and talk about killing puppies to a television camera suggests to me a considerable level of naivety. Not that that's an excuse, but I was less shocked by it.

 

Really? I could quite happily have slapped her (well that's the polite version). Anyone that considers it acceptable to kill a puppy because they are not physically perfect according to a set of cosmetic standards does not deserve to be anywhere near a dog - and they should take a good look in the mirror themselves if they're interested in physical perfection.

 

Having met an ex boxer breeder who happily told me how he had drowned the white puppies, these people make me feel sick to my stomach and I think they are vile rather than naive. They're concerned for the reputation of their line and don't want people to know that they have ridgeless (/white) puppies - that's about money and reputation, I don't think they're niave.

[ranirottie]

I was totally disgusted that knowledgable breeders with good reputations would carry on breeding dogs knowing that they were passing on defects , some of them painful and life threatening. How can you say that you love dogs, and especially your breed, and then condemn them to a life of misery!! It totally baffles me! and as for drowning/killing pups that aren't "perfect" well that just sickens me to my stomach, If humans had to be perfect to live I wonder how many of us would be alive today!!x

Edited August 20, 2008 by ranirottie

[cycas]

Really? I could quite happily have slapped her (well that's the polite version). Anyone that considers it acceptable to kill a puppy because they are not physically perfect according to a set of cosmetic standards does not deserve to be anywhere near a dog - and they should take a good look in the mirror themselves if they're interested in physical perfection.

 

Having met an ex boxer breeder who happily told me how he had drowned the white puppies, these people make me feel sick to my stomach and I think they are vile rather than naive. They're concerned for the reputation of their line and don't want people to know that they have ridgeless (/white) puppies - that's about money and reputation, I don't think they're niave.

 

It doesn't seem to me very different to, for example, what happens to male calves during milk manufacture, or cocks during egg production. I know that many people will feel that is different because it's dogs, and that you probably think that what happens to farm animals is just as appalling anyway, as a vegan, but it was at least a kind of thought system that I felt I could comprehend.

 

Not saying that I would support it, and I do think it's awful - I meant that on a scale of awfulness, I felt it was less incomprehensible. (drowning pups rather than getting a vet to PTS would also count as 'worse' for me).

 

Frankly, anyone who is involved with animal welfare in any form, and goes on camera to say she slaughters puppies routinely has to be naive in my book. She was risking all sorts of 'direct action' against her personally, such as sabotage, personal injury, vandalism, and yet she seemed genuinely surprised that these 'younger vets' might not agree with her, and confident that the film crew and general population would agree with her. I mean, there are pounds that don't even let their locations be known in case someone decides putting to sleep unwanted dogs is so awful they will try to wreck the place! That woman was clearly recognisable and probably quite traceable : I wouldn't want to be her and eat out at a restaurant or visit a pub for a few months: I reckon there will be at the very least, slugs in her food and people moving away in a pointed manner . (well, I wouldn't want to be her at all, but you know what I mean).

Edited August 20, 2008 by cycas

[scotslass]

I too found the cav and the boxer fitting distressing. I don't think I could personally stand

by and see one of me beloved dogs having to suffer that every day. This may get me into trouble

but I would rather they go peacefully in my arms, in their own home with my vet easing their pain, than put

up with a lifetime of misery.

 

I do understand how deeply we all love our assorted dogs, cats, rats, horses etc, but I dont think

I could live with myself letting one of mine go through that constantly.

 

I agree, certainly about the cavalier. If Bonnie was in that state, I'd let her go. It would break my heart, but not as much as watching her live like that.

[DanishPastry]

There's going to be something on The Wright Stuff this morning

 

That ridgeback woman , she even had the cheek to say she'd rather have a ridgeless puppy pts rather than it landed in the hands of dogfighters........eh?

yes, there are no other options... it is either showing or fighting! what a moron, and what a lame excuse.

 

ridgebacks say it all really they are bred to a standard of deformity not quality

why didnt they when they realised this quirk was a deformity just change the breeds name i think Rhodesian flatback has a ring to it

but no its easier to hide away and cull anything that might be remotely healthy

I said to Martin, change it to Rhodesian Lion dog, it still sounds good, and it doesn't need a smart hair-do!

[Ciren]

Out of interest had anyone heard of that brain condition in cavs before? I noticed they said it affected 1/3 of the breed which seems staggeringly high I'd love to have a cav one day but I have to say I'd be really worried about it now after all the health problems that were mentioned in the programme I was aware of the heart mumour issues but had never heard of the brain condition before - it sounds horrendously painful

 

i have and there is alot of research going to to help stop the condition spreading. it is painful but there ARE responsible people out there breeding the dogs, in a moment i am going to pm you the addres of a cavalier forum where you will be able to find help in finding a healthy dog.

[Rudi]

She was risking all sorts of 'direct action' against her personally, such as sabotage, personal injury, vandalism, and yet she seemed genuinely surprised that these 'younger vets' might not agree with her, and confident that the film crew and general population would agree with her. I mean, there are pounds that don't even let their locations be known in case someone decides putting to sleep unwanted dogs is so awful they will try to wreck the place! That woman was clearly recognisable and probably quite traceable : I wouldn't want to be her and eat out at a restaurant or visit a pub for a few months: I reckon there will be at the very least, slugs in her food and people moving away in a pointed manner . (well, I wouldn't want to be her at all, but you know what I mean).

 

We were talking about this at work; that some of the people on the programme may be targeted by 'fundamentalist' animal rights people. Whilst I wish them many evil things, I do hope they aren't targeted in this way as it will just make them victims. I sincerely hope that the breeders are taken to the cleaners by the people they have knowingly sold puppies to who could carry the condition.

[ReikiAnge]

It doesn't seem to me very different to, for example, what happens to male calves during milk manufacture, or cocks during egg production. I know that many people will feel that is different because it's dogs, and that you probably think that what happens to farm animals is just as appalling anyway, as a vegan, but it was at least a kind of thought system that I felt I could comprehend.

 

Not saying that I would support it, and I do think it's awful - I meant that on a scale of awfulness, I felt it was less incomprehensible. (drowning pups rather than getting a vet to PTS would also count as 'worse' for me).

 

Frankly, anyone who is involved with animal welfare in any form, and goes on camera to say she slaughters puppies routinely has to be naive in my book. She was risking all sorts of 'direct action' against her personally, such as sabotage, personal injury, vandalism, and yet she seemed genuinely surprised that these 'younger vets' might not agree with her, and confident that the film crew and general population would agree with her. I mean, there are pounds that don't even let their locations be known in case someone decides putting to sleep unwanted dogs is so awful they will try to wreck the place! That woman was clearly recognisable and probably quite traceable : I wouldn't want to be her and eat out at a restaurant or visit a pub for a few months: I reckon there will be at the very least, slugs in her food and people moving away in a pointed manner . (well, I wouldn't want to be her at all, but you know what I mean).

 

I do find some farming methods dreadful, but I'm not a vegan, I'm a hypocrite veggie. I just couldn't find anything good about the ridgeback breeder at all, she was extremely arrogant - and her attitude to the younger vets that might not consider killing a puppy for a physical fault, acceptable really did make me want to put slugs in her food! The fact she was prepared to say all that on camera as though there was nothing wrong with it, makes me feel she has no real compassion for the dogs she breeds, they appear a commodity and she's concerned for her finances and repuation and not for the happy pet lives those dead puppies could have had. There are other ridgeback breeders who thankfully don't cull, so it's entirely her decision to do so and it makes me feel sick.

 

I wouldn't wish any "direct" action on her because it would detract from the horrible person she is, but I do hope she is made to change her ways, somehow. I understood from the programme that the KC seemed to have agreed the breed standard which included the culling of ridgeless pups too, which sickens me - and it was the KC that was one of the groups that stood up when DNB started and proclaimed that dogs shouldn't be judged/killed based on physical appearance!

[Rudi]

The breed standard doesn't call for the culling of puppies itself http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/36 that was the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club's own rules which were ratified by the KC and then when attention was drawn to them, the KC hurriedly backed away and played dumb.

 

The breed standard is at fault because it calls for the ridge in the first place ("Peculiarity is the ridge on back formed by hair growing in opposite direction to the remainder of coat; ridge must be regarded as the escutcheon of breed") when the programme clearly showed that the ridge is a mild from of spina bifida and linked to dermoid cysts.

[Rudi]

Looking at the breed standard for the GSD - for a start the picture is of a dog with a level top line and the description of the back end mentions 'effortless forward propulsion' and and strong hocks. The breeder they interviewed swore blind that the roach-backed dogs in the ring fully met the breed standard, but how could they?

 

GSD breed standard

[scotslass]

The breed standard doesn't call for the culling of puppies itself http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/36 that was the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club's own rules which were ratified by the KC and then when attention was drawn to them, the KC hurriedly backed away and played dumb.

 

The breed standard is at fault because it calls for the ridge in the first place ("Peculiarity is the ridge on back formed by hair growing in opposite direction to the remainder of coat; ridge must be regarded as the escutcheon of breed") when the programme clearly showed that the ridge is a mild form of spina bifida and linked to dermoid cysts. (my emphasis)

 

I didn't know that until last night. Horrifying, but enlightening, as so much of the programme was.

[blackmagic]

The other problem is that people will still buy the unregistered pups - people that just want the first pup they see advertised/

 

 

Oh so true.

 

I have just read on another list about a woman who spoke to people on the Cav health stand at Crufts. She had bought a pup that had to be pts at 11 months because its pain from SM became uncontrollable. She wanted to know where she could get another puppy who would be SM free. They discussed the options with her at great length and later sent her details of a breeder who lived in the same town and bred from scanned and SM free dogs and was planning a litter later this year. However the woman saw an advert in the local paper, visited the breeder a few miles away, who says she's never heard of SM so of course her dogs can't have it, and bought a puppy.

 

What does it take to get through to people?

[ReikiAnge]

The breed standard doesn't call for the culling of puppies itself http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/36 that was the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club's own rules which were ratified by the KC and then when attention was drawn to them, the KC hurriedly backed away and played dumb.

 

Ah, sorry, my mistake, I got the wording wrong I think the fact the KC looked completely stupid over that.

 

The breed standard is at fault because it calls for the ridge in the first place ("Peculiarity is the ridge on back formed by hair growing in opposite direction to the remainder of coat; ridge must be regarded as the escutcheon of breed") when the programme clearly showed that the ridge is a mild from of spina bifida and linked to dermoid cysts.

 

That was how I understood things from the programme - that the breeder that culled, was essentially killing the more healthy pups? Although presumably many ridgebacks do live very healthy lives.

 

It was a very sad, but informative programme, which admittedly did rather single out the bad stuff about the KC and breeding, but I truly hope it will stir people into action and improve things for pedigree dogs.

[reds]

SM doesn't just affect cavaliers but any breed with a heavily domed skull. The fact that people are breeding cavaliers whilst claiming they've never heard of the condition astounds me and totally makes the case in point - irresponsibility. If these conditions obviously and immediately affected the puppies before they were 6-8 weeks old, I bet a lot more breeders would be caring a whole lot more because then it would affect THEM.