merledogs Posted August 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 The Cav woman who declared she wouldn't have any of her dogs given an MRI scan, could that be because it would cost her a grand ? and how much does she make from one litter ? say if there's a litter of 6, she sells them at, what? about 450 each? Puppies sired by a best in breed or show winner can sell for thousands rather than hundreds of pounds. Regarding the reference to Eugenics, I thought it was very valid to the programme because it is precisely what is being done. I am glad it is being discussed on the Wright Stuff and GMTV, because the more it is talked about and debated, the more people will be aware of it. The KC statement - I just got to the first line which made me splutter my coffee ... The Kennel Club feels that the programme, Pedigree Dogs Exposed (BBC1 19 August) missed a real opportunity to progress the cause of dog health. They really can't see the feckin irony can they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted August 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 Another point : The KC say they don't want to mandate certain health tests because that will drive breeders away from them. What they can (and should IMO) do though is mandate that all dogs which are shown under KC rules should be health tested for any hereditary diseases and should not be allowed to take part if they are proven to be unhealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 Another point : The KC say they don't want to mandate certain health tests because that will drive breeders away from them. What they can (and should IMO) do though is mandate that all dogs which are shown under KC rules should be health tested for any hereditary diseases and should not be allowed to take part if they are proven to be unhealthy. This is the thing that annoys me - the good breeders would do the tests, well they already do without being made to, because they are (I feel) genuinely concerned for their breed. If the KC did make certain health tests mandatory (and I know they would have to do this in a breed specific way but the information is out there so it surely wouldn't be too difficult), then any breeder who wouldn't/didn't want to test, wouldn't be able to register future pups under the KC. These breeders would then be driven away from the KC, which might mean at some future date that the KC registration might actually be worth more than a bit of paper - and it would be far clearer for puppy buyers, many of whom I'm sure currently see the KC certificate as a mark of quality, when there is no guarantee whatsoever on that score. The only people to lose out on this would be in my opinion the breeders who weren't prepared to test - and the KC themselves, financially. The KC registration is a joke at the moment, as far as I'm concerned. There are obviously good quality pups from good breeders with the KC registration, but when you hear that puppy farmers have managed to get onto the KC Accredited Breeder Scheme, you lose all faith really don't you. I suspect this must be extremely annoying for those that do invest everything in their dogs. The other problem is that people will still buy the unregistered pups - people that just want the first pup they see advertised/the cheapest one and people that a good breeder wouldn't sell to and a good rescue wouldn't rehome to. Education will help some, but I think other breeding controls are needed to limit the number of pups being bred. I hope the programme doesn't drive people away from researching the breeds they are interested in and finding out which tests those breeds should have and locating a good breeder - but I do hope maybe a few more people will consider a rescue dog after watching that programme. As said earlier there are at least 8,000 dogs being pts each year in the UK that could really do with a good home! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingrid Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 I've not seen it yet, another one in Scotland and I have cable, I'm not sure I want to see it now . Ingrid with regard to the puppy farm dogs not being shown, I know some dogs that have come from puppy farms and they are registered with the kc, would that not mean that they can be shown at kc shows and possibly even win one. Terri Yes they could, but I think you'll find it's only a very small number of puppy farmers that bother to register their dogs and we already know they don't care about health problems. What this program was trying to highlight was the lack of concern from so called good breeders who are supposed to care about their chosen breed but in fact only care about the presitge of winning, contrary to popular belief they aren't always in it for the money more so for the fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 I didn't expect to see anything that I wasn't already aware of to be honest but I was shocked For the top show dogs (or any of course) to not have to clear any health tests before breeding is nothing short of negligence. The pug that had had surgery and still won The attitude of the cavalier owner , the comment that "all dogs scratch" . it may not have been a well balanced programme but it's aim was to reveal and my goodness it did that. Shame on the KC for me I'm afraid. Epilepsy is a problem with breeding in the sports world as well, the desire to breed that one champion dog seems to have won over any concerns about the total progeny and their future lives and their owners. For all the criticisms you could throw at the programme re: fairness of coverage, they did what needed to be done. What happens next is for everybody to decide. Somehow though I doubt the KC will be doing all that much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 It's difficult to see how a breed like the pug can hope to come back from such a restricted gene pool, even with the best possible practice and health testing. You can't easily breed something out if every individual in the population has already got it. Health checks are all very well where you have a decent sized group of unique individuals, but it sounds like they have almost ended up with a near-clone-like population of pugs, and one wonders if the whole concept of a closed system or 'breed' can possibly work in that situation. It seems like outcrossing is the only way they can possibly re-introduce a healthy level of genetic variation into the pug population, and I really can't see the KC or the breeders going for that. I must say I had no idea that the gene pools were now so tiny in relatively popular and numerous breeds like that. The loss of 90% of the genetic variation over such a short period is just appalling, and really illustrated to me that no matter how much they flannelled and tried so sound expert, these people had no concept of the science behind what they were doing. They should stick to plants, if they want to breed things in that way. I am wondering if dog breeding licences and a course in elementary genetics before you can get one is something they should be looking at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simikins Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 (edited) This programme shocked and horrified me, i too was in tears over the poor little cavs, stunned over the ridgebacks, my first dally which we brought from a KC recommended breeder [many many years ago before internet etc], was a beautiful pup, when Homer was 6 months old he started limping, we took him to the vets, got sent to a specialist, he had a spinal problem which although very rare in Dallys, but often found in Dobermans, is caused by a genetic default, the specialist contacted the breeder and told her to stop breeding from that particular line, and she was very good about it, [don't know if she took his advice], and she gave us another pup for free, interestingly the pup was one that was useless for showing etc as she had no pigmentation on one eye {Blue also had that,} no bother to us, we only wanted the dog as a pet. Poor Homer was given months to live, we were told he would@nt reach his first birthday however he lived to the grand old age of 4and a half, but i have also had a total heinz 57 mutt who suffered with epilepsy . Edited August 20, 2008 by simikins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rileyroo Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 It's difficult to see how a breed like the pug can hope to come back from such a restricted gene pool, even with the best possible practice and health testing. You can't easily breed something out if every individual in the population has already got it. Health checks are all very well where you have a decent sized group of unique individuals, but it sounds like they have almost ended up with a near-clone-like population of pugs, and one wonders if the whole concept of a closed system or 'breed' can possibly work in that situation. It seems like outcrossing is the only way they can possibly re-introduce a healthy level of genetic variation into the pug population, and I really can't see the KC or the breeders going for that. I must say I had no idea that the gene pools were now so tiny in relatively popular and numerous breeds like that. The loss of 90% of the genetic variation over such a short period is just appalling, and really illustrated to me that no matter how much they flannelled and tried so sound expert, these people had no concept of the science behind what they were doing. They should stick to plants, if they want to breed things in that way. I am wondering if dog breeding licences and a course in elementary genetics before you can get one is something they should be looking at. On the one hand the KC rubbished a report for not being scientific enough and being too emotive and then on the other stated that they won't be dictated to by a bunch of scientists. It was an absolutely appalling display of arrogance, cruelty and narrow-mindedness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoebejo Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 It always saddens me to see how many breeds that used to be beautiful now look nothing like the 'originals' and not for the better good. There is a particular breed of dog that I would like to one day own but more recently I've come to realise that it'll probably never happen, not just because it's a rare breed but because it's so far removed from the ideal I have of that breed. They just don't look the way they should anymore and I'm not prepared to buy a dog that is second best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurel n Hardy Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 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. The KC seem very money fixated dont they, a £20 million pound HQ and how many puppies are registered at the cost of £25 per year, its a huge income thats only dwared by bigger egos. That feckin Ridgeback woman Was it me or did anyone else want to slap all those ignorant breeders and the KC people as well well done those 2 who are trying to fight back, i'll google carol fowler (was it) and try to send an email of support for what she is doing. 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. Also liked Mark Evans, I knew he was a vet (he has a motor program on discovery) but had not realised he was now head vet of the RSPCA. 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Rotties Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 the pug has got a lot of research going on for it to try and right the wrong that has been done with the breed, http://www.pughealth.org/ but its like we said last night, its whether the breeders will take notice of it and do something about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple_mog Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 for much of the programme. I've never been that interested in showing dogs/related stuff, but the programme helped me to articulate why. The idea of beauty pagents never really appealed anyway, and personally I very much dislike the handling/positioning of the dogs, that many seem to be pulled up into position with slip leads etc. The fact that actually being physically unhealthy is not a barrier to being shown or god forbid winning seems completely unbelievable to me. Most non-doggy people have no idea about the underlying health problems, and I'd take a fair guess most doggy-people didn't know any of that stuff, so regardless of the 'fairness' of the programme - good on them! I will never understand how someone can breed pups, and then decide to 'cull' those that don't make the grade. Surely this is a new life you have brought into the world, and yes you may choose to neuter or not breed from them, but what gives you the right to deprive them of a loving home for purely cosmetic reasons. Those breeders who continue to breed despite knowing of the problems, I simply don't have the words to express my disgust. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 Yes I had heard of the condition in cavs but didn't know how it affected them. The only reason I know of it is because of a lady on the Pets Ireland board who runs Cav rescue here in Ireland. She has done a lot of research into it and is always preaching (I mean that in a nice way) about it. Two of her own dogs have it. I found the programme very distressing. Especially the boxer fitting, being a boxer owner. I was absolutely disgusted at the breeders attitude. How dare they play God and say that a ridgeless ridgeback should be killed when having the ridge is a defect anyway. And don't get me started on the Cav breeder. I really hope that this programme can get a lot of things sorted. I was very ignorant to all this. I hope it has educated a lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantan Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 I've kept popping in here to read all your comments and perhaps find some way of putting into words just what I felt at seeing the programme - not that I saw it all I had to keep turning over as I found it very, very distressing. I still have no words. I feel shell shocked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts