Bbc Could Drop Crufts Over Unhealthy Breeds

[ReikiAnge]

I think this is beyond puppy farming:

 

I was thinking more of this bit of the quote:

 

The programme says the drive for perfection has left golden retrievers prone to cancer, labradors with joint and eye problems, West Highland terriers beset with allergies and boxers at high risk of heart disease, epilepsy and cancer.

Rather than the bulldogs, pekes, dogs that can't breathe or walk properly.

 

I'm not saying puppy farming is entirely to blame but it certainly can't have helped improve the health of some of the dogs we have today and whereas good breeders will be doing their best to ensure labs don't have joint and eye problems, I very much doubt the puppy farmers are promoting the results of the latest hipscore/eye cert. Although I'm quite sure their drive isn't motivated by perfection either.

 

Of course I'm sure the KC could work far harder to ensure such dogs weren't registered by them but that's a whole other discussion I suspect.

[snow]

Jeremy Vine is also going to cover this in advance of the program on Radio 2 between 12 - 2 today.

[suzeanna]

According to the bits I've read in the paper, they are saying that a lot of cavs suffer from syringamyelia...yet when I had our pup checked over when we first got her, I mentioned it to our vets and they said in all the years they've been seeing cavs, they've never seen a case! I just hope that it doesn't make a lot of people with perfectly healthy dogs panic and think they are going to end up with huge vet bills at some point in the future and dump them.

 

A lot of the toy breeds suffer with heart murmurs...but again they seem to be singling out the cavs. I do agree that breeds like shar pei, bloodhounds etc suffer from breeding for too many facial folds and droopy bottom eyelids, leading to infection and pain. I wonder why Westies have so many skin troubles, (my daughter in law's dog is always at the vets) when Cairns, which they were originally, don't?

[cycas]

I'm not saying puppy farming is entirely to blame but it certainly can't have helped improve the health of some of the dogs we have today and whereas good breeders will be doing their best to ensure labs don't have joint and eye problems, I very much doubt the puppy farmers are promoting the results of the latest hipscore/eye cert. Although I'm quite sure their drive isn't motivated by perfection either.

 

Of course I'm sure the KC could work far harder to ensure such dogs weren't registered by them but that's a whole other discussion I suspect.

 

Hmm, I see your point. But I think the bit about registration not implying health is indeed key to that problem: what is the point of registration if all it amounts to is a note saying 'yes, we knew yer mum'? Novice dog owners do expect it to mean more than that, and having a system whose only point is to keep a gene pool closed, without any concern for the health of that pool - why do that? It's daft.

 

I met someone the other day who bought a 'registered' bulldog without realising what she was taking on. It wasn't a puppy farm situation but a hobby breeder - but she did think the fact that it came with a certificate to show it was 'a proper one' meant something. Several thousand pounds of vet bills and operations later, she still loves her dog but told me firmly that she will be adopting a mongrel next time she wants a dog, because now she understands a bit more about how pedigrees work, she thinks they are a con.

[ReikiAnge]

Hmm, I see your point. But I think the bit about registration not implying health is indeed key to that problem: what is the point of registration if all it amounts to is a note saying 'yes, we knew yer mum'?

 

Oh I agree entirely with that.

 

Not that I have sought to buy a pedigree pup myself, but I do believe the general public is very misled on what the KC registration represents and that many see it as a guarantee of quality/health etc when actually it's just as you say a registration.

 

I gather from those involved in breeding/showing etc. that people looking for a pup are far better contacting the breed club for recommendations of breeders/litters than going purely by the KC's list. Trouble is a lot of people don't stumble upon this information until it's too late and the KC aren't going to promote it

 

I met someone the other day who bought a 'registered' bulldog without realising what she was taking on. It wasn't a puppy farm situation but a hobby breeder - but she did think the fact that it came with a certificate to show it was 'a proper one' meant something. Several thousand pounds of vet bills and operations later, she still loves her dog but told me firmly that she will be adopting a mongrel next time she wants a dog, because now she understands a bit more about how pedigrees work, she thinks they are a con.

 

We were looking at getting a bulldog as our first dog (when I was a child, not my choice) but our vet advised against it then, due to the likely vet bills. We went for a boxer instead. This is going back far more years than I would care to remember.

 

Bulldogs are an extreme case of pedigree dog though aren't they, if you look at all the other pedigree dogs there are plenty of breeds (well to me anyway) that are still healthy and able to function without struggling/massive vet bills. The show type labs vary from the working type but dogs from good show type breeders should still be able to function as a lab and come from good hipscored/eye tested parents.

 

I'm sure the woman you met will find far less health problems with a good old Heinz 57 though - and there are certainly plenty waiting in rescue.

[cycas]

Bulldogs are an extreme case of pedigree dog though aren't they, if you look at all the other pedigree dogs there are plenty of breeds (well to me anyway) that are still healthy and able to function without struggling/massive vet bills. The show type labs vary from the working type but dogs from good show type breeders should still be able to function as a lab and come from good hipscored/eye tested parents.

 

I tried to sell her a greyhound, but she was adamant. Once bitten, twice shy...

[mum24dog]

One I'll be watching with interest.

What the KC have to say KC bite back

 

Ironic isn't it?

The KC trying to take credit for trying to fix the problems that it has allowed to develop in the first place.

 

Pam

[merledogs]

Ironic isn't it?

The KC trying to take credit for trying to fix the problems that it has allowed to develop in the first place.

Quite. The KC has to bear a large part of the responsibility - and all I see when I read their statement is "waffle waffle waffle, blah blah blah, poor us, we were duped"

[Rudi]

If you watch the video that's on the lower half of the BBC coverage of the documentary, the KC say that they are a voluntary organisation and that if they start to use a big stick, people will simply stop registering dogs with them, so they are trying to educate and makes changes that way. I can half see their point but think that they are down playing the perception that the public has of the KC. People (mistakenly) equate KC registration with quality and I imagine that many breeders would probably go with any rule changes just to still be able to use the KC name. People need educating, it's not enough to go for a KC breeder, you need to do your own research.

 

Made me laugh in the clip with the bull terriers where the dog shook and the chalk flew off - that's banned in the ring but still people are using it! Rules are useless if they aren't enforced.

[celeste]

Surely though if the KC did pull out the big stick, breeders and judges would have to toe the line, it's the KC that organize and run all the dog shows, if they said, for example, after such and such a date, any dog exhibited with exaggerations would be disqualified, then wouldn't the breeders have to comply if they still wanted to show ?

[Rudi]

Surely though if the KC did pull out the big stick, breeders and judges would have to toe the line, it's the KC that organize and run all the dog shows, if they said, for example, after such and such a date, any dog exhibited with exaggerations would be disqualified, then wouldn't the breeders have to comply if they still wanted to show ?

 

You'd think wouldn't you. I guess, theoretically, there's nothing stopping people clubbing together and starting their own version of the KC though. Someone started the Dog Owner's Registration Club or something or other a while ago for just that purpose, I haven't heard of it for a while though.

 

It would take time to breed away from exaggerations though, no-one could do it overnight. But what could be done fairly rapidly is for the KC to refuse to register litters from dogs with known conditions, certain colour to colour matings or close breedings such as mother and son etc. I'd also like to see all pedigrees endorsed automatically, so the default is that buyers can't breed without permission, rather than it having to be requested by the breeder. People should have to jump through hoops to breed dogs.

[ReikiAnge]

You'd think wouldn't you. I guess, theoretically, there's nothing stopping people clubbing together and starting their own version of the KC though. Someone started the Dog Owner's Registration Club or something or other a while ago for just that purpose, I haven't heard of it for a while though.

 

There are various other registration companies aren't there, but I wasn't under the impression any of them had set up to improve the breed? More that they would register and give "false" credibility to pups that didn't even quality for the KC registration.

 

It would take time to breed away from exaggerations though, no-one could do it overnight. But what could be done fairly rapidly is for the KC to refuse to register litters from dogs with known conditions, certain colour to colour matings or close breedings such as mother and son etc. I'd also like to see all pedigrees endorsed automatically, so the default is that buyers can't breed without permission, rather than it having to be requested by the breeder. People should have to jump through hoops to breed dogs.

 

That sounds like an improvement for sure.

 

I guess the worry is how many people currently buy non-KC registered pups because they don't bother researching/don't care/want cheaper/won't wait/wouldn't be allowed a pup from a good breeder - that kind of breeding would have to be stopped (how?) in order to ensure we didn't just create more of that type of pup/owner?

[Rudi]

There are various other registration companies aren't there, but I wasn't under the impression any of them had set up to improve the breed? More that they would register and give "false" credibility to pups that didn't even quality for the KC registration.

 

I didn't mean that they were or would be set up to improve the breed I'm saying that if people wanted to carry on breeding without having standards pressed upon them, there's nothing stopping them leaving the KC and doing something else. I'm guessing that IF the KC did get the big stick out - anyone interested in improving their breeding wouldn't be leaving in the first place.

 

I guess the worry is how many people currently buy non-KC registered pups because they don't bother researching/don't care/want cheaper/won't wait/wouldn't be allowed a pup from a good breeder - that kind of breeding would have to be stopped (how?) in order to ensure we didn't just create more of that type of pup/owner?

 

I agree, and it's one of the reasons put forward for not tightening up breeding by registered breeders but you have to start somewhere and, hopefully, other legislation would follow. Although I gather that the government think the current legislation and the KC Accredited Breeders Scheme is somehow tackling crappy breeding practices They seem oblivious that there are probably as many dogs born that aren't registered as are

[Pingu]

I have mixed feelings on this

 

on one hand a lot of the deformaties etc are historic and the modern KC is doing stuff to try to alleviate the problems. Lots of bodies etc in the past have done things that today would not be done. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

Then on the other hand you have dogs winning CCs etc that really probably shouldnt (and the KC not doing anything about it). The only breed I can talk about in any detail is Rotties. The Rottie is a working dog. it should be athletic and able to actualy work. Yet at crufts each year I see Rotts that are very very nice looking but couldnt work to save their life. A judge somewhere has placed these dogs highly. On the continent (in certain countries) in order to become a full champion a Rott has to show it can also work. This makes perfect sense in a breed that is a working breed.

 

 

behind it all is that showing dogs is a big money business. the cost of hiring that much space at the NEC each year must be staggering.

[Kathyw]

Terry someone or other is spouting that the GSD shown at crufts is anotomically correct - yet the gene bloke pointed out how wobbly the dogs hocks were - they were very wobbly - the dogs back was sloping to a degree where it was almost sitting. wtf is wrong with these people?

Surely this must cause pain to the dog? Who are these judges who decide what is 'standard'.

 

Fur and legs tail optional = dog.

 

Thank goodness these people have nothing to do with judging human forms - 99% wouldn't make the standard.