[Max's Mom]

The problem comes down to dollars and cents. If people would do their homework and buy dogs based on health and temperment instead of just looks then these monstrosities would not be so widely bred. If people don't buy crap no one would breed crap.

[Spicy1_VV]

No not all dogs are being bred away from their purpose/work.

Not all pure breds have health problems and some breeds are very healthy with no significant health issues.

Rottweilers are popular breed, there popularity has dropped some but they are still fairly common.

[txcollies]

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

Which of you breeds or shows dogs?

How many dog shows have any of you attended? What about performance events?

Do you believe everything the media spoon feeds you, or do you have a brain to think for yourselves?

This little piece of "journalism" is straight from the Animal Rights agenda, and they have you thinking just the way they want you to.

At this rate, companion dogs will be a thing of the past within my lifetime.



Can you help me by pointing me to your research that indicates this?



What do you call a "stump" for a face? A correct Rottweiler head is 60% backskull and 40% muzzle.

Thank you, thank you. You said it for me. :-)

[chrisn6104]

Originally Posted by Spicy1_VV

No not all dogs are being bred away from their purpose/work.

Not all pure breds have health problems and some breeds are very healthy with no significant health issues.

Rottweilers are popular breed, there popularity has dropped some but they are still fairly common.

This is true. The problem is these show dogs are in shows sponsored by the kennel clubs. These are supposed to be the true "purebred" dog. Judges and the so called people that know every in and out of the breed are saying this is the standard. This causes the BYB to try and breed these deformities to sell dogs.
I'm not saying all show dog breeders are bad but many are.
Why would people breed a dog that struggles to survive. A dog that cant breath, over heats and cant walk down the street? One that looks good standing but cant walk right? It goes on.
All this video is saying is vanity in humans towards dogs has gotten so far out of control it is destroying the purebred dog. It is asking that breeders and the kennel clubs be more responsible. When a dog that has a skull to small for it's brain wins a best in show title and has 34 litters there is something wrong with that.

[Dozi]

Originally Posted by chrisn6104

This is true. The problem is these show dogs are in shows sponsored by the kennel clubs. These are supposed to be the true "purebred" dog. Judges and the so called people that know every in and out of the breed are saying this is the standard. This causes the BYB to try and breed these deformities to sell dogs.
I'm not saying all show dog breeders are bad but many are.
Why would people breed a dog that struggles to survive. A dog that cant breath, over heats and cant walk down the street? One that looks good standing but cant walk right? It goes on.
All this video is saying is vanity in humans towards dogs has gotten so far out of control it is destroying the purebred dog. It is asking that breeders and the kennel clubs be more responsible. When a dog that has a skull to small for it's brain wins a best in show title and has 34 litters there is something wrong with that.

I agree... also keep in mind... not all breeders are bad. There are still breeders who health tests their dogs before they breed them, and people who don't overbreed or breed dogs too young. Unfortunately they seem to be in the few.

[Quincy]

BBC AMERICA
Pedigree Dogs Exposed premieres Tuesday, December 10, 8:00 p.m. ET/PT
See via this link.
http://www.press.bbcamerica.com/pres...sp?news_id=141
.

Some interesting news that just arrived and I noted that the UK APGAW Report recommends the setting up of a panel of experts as an Independant Advisory Body to do somewhat similar things for the UK Kennel Club and their Breed Clubs. The following is from this address.
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/nov09/091115h.asp

American Veterinary Medical Association

American Kennel Club forms health and welfare panel

The American Kennel Club recently formed the AKC Canine Health and Welfare Advisory Panel, primarily to address issues of responsible dog breeding.

The panel will gather input to assist the AKC in improving the health and welfare of all dogs while providing a forum for outside scientific experts to analyze AKC policy and educate the public about canine health issues.

Ten outside experts, including seven veterinarians, and three AKC representatives make up the panel. Members have expertise in fields such as human-animal interaction, genetics, orthopedics, and veterinary preventive medicine.
.

[bully]

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

What do you call a "stump" for a face? A correct Rottweiler head is 60% backskull and 40% muzzle.

This is not a shot.

Rotties have gone completely down hill after there popularity boom 15 years ago. What a lot of people call Rotties today look like a retriever compared to how they once were.

I'm on the fence with this whole "purebred" thing. One side I see us slowly destroying "dogs" in general. The ridiculous show boating, size exaggerating, ego boosting crap going on. Then there's the other part of me that's completely "thankful" for the breed that I own.

So in theory, I'm only helping the side that I hate

I'd love to see a change in direction which takes health and job function (working ability) as it's main focus instead of what's the latest trend and people show boating like their other possessions in life.

[RedyreRottweilers]

Originally Posted by bully

This is not a shot.

Rotties have gone completely down hill after there popularity boom 15 years ago. What a lot of people call Rotties today look like a retriever compared to how they once were.

Some went downhill indeed. Tens of thousands of people bred their dogs and contributed to the severe issues with this breed health wise, the rescue situation, and the deterioration of a large section of the gene pool.

HOWEVER, there are hundreds and hundreds of RESPONSIBLE breeders who have stewarded their dogs, and their breed through those awful 90s, and now well into the new millenium.

While we are still "picking up the pieces", so to speak, in particular with rescue, the breed overall is in much better shape these days.

[bully]

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

Some went downhill indeed. Tens of thousands of people bred their dogs and contributed to the severe issues with this breed health wise, the rescue situation, and the deterioration of a large section of the gene pool.

HOWEVER, there are hundreds and hundreds of RESPONSIBLE breeders who have stewarded their dogs, and their breed through those awful 90s, and now well into the new millenium.

While we are still "picking up the pieces", so to speak, in particular with rescue, the breed overall is in much better shape these days.

Yes, I didn't mean to say "completely". You are correct saying that some breeders have done a great job in preserving or fixing the breed. It's just a shame that it happened.

[Xeph]

As the owner of GSDs I am very much aware of the problems within my breed.

I am also aware of the beyond disgusting propganda that went in to filming the GSD segment.

They picked THE WORST structured and THE WORST exhibited GSDs for the segment. The dogs either paced are lunged horribly. You never got to actually SEE them gait. The toplines were bad, yes, but they were also exaggerated from hauling into their collars and not moving as they should be moved. It made a bad topline look worse.

I think exhibiting GSDs in conformation has become a detriment to the breed, yes. BUT as a general whole in dogs I believe it HAS done something important. It has brought up the issue of health.

Conformation exhibiting has helped bring to the forefront this issue, and while not ALL people are honest and many don't even care, at the very least even BYBs are (doing the minimum) health tests on their breeding stock because the public has learned to demand it.

Do all breeders stand behind their health guarantees?

No.

Do many?

Yes.

I do find it ironic that conformation has both helped and decimated the concept of a healthy dog.

I have never owned a frog dog, but I have seen many. I've shown some beautiful moderate GSDs that could have and would have worked if they had got the training necessary.

I've seen others that I pitied, and hated the breeders that created them.

I am all too aware of the problems of the GSD, but I do not appreciate them being exacerbated by a propaganda film.

The KC is supposed to be withholding CC's for the GSD in 2012. This is not an act that would have occurred if not for this film. Do I think it's a good step in improving the GSD?

A bit, yes.

But I am not so blind that I cannot see they are doing this to placate the public and nothing more.

[Quincy]

There certainly are many responsible breeders out there who do the right thing this in many breeds, but unfortunately there are some problems here or there and also some bad apples in the barrel. Note in my previous post - "primarily to address issues of responsible dog breeding" and where the AKC and AVMA have setup a panel of experts to help address this which also includes "analyse ANKC policy" and "educate the public about canine health issues". I think that to effect change sometimes shock tactics might be needed and certainly the documentary did that as the producer deliberately intended.
.

[Xeph]

But my point is that the KC's aren't doing this because it's really a big deal to THEM (they are just the registry after all), they just don't want to deal with the flack from the public, and people should be aware of such.

The move is mostly political. We'll see how long things hold up after the hype dies down more.

[Spicy1_VV]

Originally Posted by chrisn6104

This is true. The problem is these show dogs are in shows sponsored by the kennel clubs. These are supposed to be the true "purebred" dog. Judges and the so called people that know every in and out of the breed are saying this is the standard. This causes the BYB to try and breed these deformities to sell dogs.
I'm not saying all show dog breeders are bad but many are.
Why would people breed a dog that struggles to survive. A dog that cant breath, over heats and cant walk down the street? One that looks good standing but cant walk right? It goes on.
All this video is saying is vanity in humans towards dogs has gotten so far out of control it is destroying the purebred dog. It is asking that breeders and the kennel clubs be more responsible. When a dog that has a skull to small for it's brain wins a best in show title and has 34 litters there is something wrong with that.

Well yes the shows would be held by the KCs. The breed clubs write the standards for their breeds. The judges judge by what is written or they are supposed to.

Byb try to breed all sorts of things to make money, it is certainly bad but not much can be changed. Even if breed standards were changed here like what they are doing in the UK bybs, mills would still keep breeding what they have. And other breeders which like the old standards would simply breed to the old way.

Yes many are bad and many are great. That is yet another issue, this show focuses on the worse breeders and certain breeds that have major issues. Despite this most people are under the impression that this is how all breeders/show breeders are and that this is the normal way for breeders to breed and behave. They also blame showing dogs altogether for issues within breeds.

Why? You'd have to ask them. None of my show dogs struggle to survive or have breathing/over heating issues. I'm sure the reasons are selfish in some respects. I've never agreed with breeding such dogs and I'm not fond of breeds like English Bulldogs who have those issues. People like the looks of certain dogs, when they are drawn to those types of breeds they can't help what they like anymore than anyone else but they should question if it is really worth it to get what they want.

You will have to take your concerns up with the breeders and breed clubs. I don't think they will change much because of a simple film.

[Quincy]

Xeph in the UK I think that the hype is NOT going to die down. There is another Inquiry Report due in January from Professor Bateson which is currently being Peer Reviewed. Recently I have seen an extended TV interview with him and he did mention similar things as mentioned in the working group of 12 members of Parliament APGAW Inquiry Report. DEFRA which is their Government Animal Welfare agency mentioned that they are keen to read all the Reports, so maybe think about the possibility of Government Legislation or Regulation under what they call “Codes of Practice”. The APGAW Report that was just released mentioned in lay terms that the UK Kennel Club should pull their socks up and get their house in order and they have a year to do so, and if not politicians will step in with laws.
.

Here is something.

The documentary “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” was recently televised nationally in Australia on their ABC TV Network. A week after that their ABC did a follow up program where they did some quick research to see if the problems in the UK were in Australia which was interesting to see. If interested in seeing the video then maybe you can see it via the internet at this link, but note that some outside Australia might not be able to download and view the video.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2688984.htm

UK Professor Bateson who is doing the other Inquiry Report which is due in January did an extended TV interview with Australian ABC Television Network, interested then see at the bottom of the page at this address, also there is an interview there with Jemima Harrison the producer of the documentary plus an interview with the Australian Kennel Club President (Chairman).
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/extra...gs/default.htm
.

[chrisn6104]

Originally Posted by Spicy1_VV

You will have to take your concerns up with the breeders and breed clubs. I don't think they will change much because of a simple film.

The purpose of the film was to raise awareness. Pressure from the public will force the KS's to change policy. That is exactly what they are trying to do. I didn't view the film to be against breeders, show's or show dogs. They are looking to correct serious faults.
If a show dog is the pinnacle of the breed then the KC's should be holding them to such standards. These show dogs should pass all medical tests. No show dog should ever win top prize or even be in a show that has any medical conditions.
Top prize winning dogs fetch a lot of money from their litters. If these dogs are to be bred they should be a top representation of the breed. KC's are responsible for breeding diseased dogs. If these dogs never won a show they would never be bred by these show people.
Now if you want to have a "show" dog and a "purebred" dog the KC could bypass the medical requirements for show dogs. These would be dogs that are only best for showing even though they struggle to live and have many medical issues. Purebred would be the ideal for that dog breed. May not be the best in physical appearance but it is the best all around representation for that breed. Though I think in the end the purebred would win hands down.

[Xeph]

But how do you prove every dog has passed every test? You can't.

Or what about a dog that has a breed health issue that doesn't present itself until later? The other thing is, horrible as it sounds, you cannot weed out EVERY dog with an issue...the gene pool becomes this big || and you have nothing else to breed to.

The UK already faces a severe genetic bottleneck in many breeds (as was mentioned earlier).

If these dogs never won a show they would never be bred by these show people.

Not true. There are plenty of dogs that end up not being shown for one reason or another, but they're still bred

[GottaLuvMutts]

Originally Posted by Xeph

But how do you prove every dog has passed every test? You can't.

Or what about a dog that has a breed health issue that doesn't present itself until later?

Not to mention that one of the major problems with inbreeding is that conditions can surface that weren't apparent in either of the parents...so health testing for known health issues of the breed isn't really enough.

All organisms including humans have genetic mutations (an average of 3 in every human, if I recall correctly). What's great about sexual reproduction is that the vast majority of these mutations are recessive, and so they never show up in the individual (because that individual has another copy of the same allele from its other parent and THAT one doesn't have a mutation). When you inbreed, though, by chance you can get two copies of the mutation, since the parents are related. That's when you begin to see some of the genetic disorders mentioned in the video. If you keep breeding those inbred individuals to each other, that's when you begin to see a higher incidence of problems. Continue doing it over the course of many generations, and you get the CKCS. But even if you screen your two genetically-related parents for health problems in the breed and they come out clean doesn't mean breeding them is safe - you may be creating a whole new problem that could have been avoided if inbreeding never occurred. This is why an effective population size of 50 (as mentioned in the video) is SCARY to anyone who cares about their breed, or just the welfare of dogs in general.

[zimandtakandgrrandmimi]

Originally Posted by GottaLuvMutts

Not to mention that one of the major problems with inbreeding is that conditions can surface that weren't apparent in either of the parents...so health testing for known health issues of the breed isn't really enough.

All organisms including humans have genetic mutations (an average of 3 in every human, if I recall correctly). What's great about sexual reproduction is that the vast majority of these mutations are recessive, and so they never show up in the individual (because that individual has another copy of the same allele from its other parent and THAT one doesn't have a mutation). When you inbreed, though, by chance you can get two copies of the mutation, since the parents are related. That's when you begin to see some of the genetic disorders mentioned in the video. If you keep breeding those inbred individuals to each other, that's when you begin to see a higher incidence of problems. Continue doing it over the course of many generations, and you get the CKCS. But even if you screen your two genetically-related parents for health problems in the breed and they come out clean doesn't mean breeding them is safe - you may be creating a whole new problem that could have been avoided if inbreeding never occurred. This is why an effective population size of 50 (as mentioned in the video) is SCARY to anyone who cares about their breed, or just the welfare of dogs in general.

records, probability using inbreeding coefficients and RESEARCH...are very important.

and I care about dogs. a lot. and the 50 population size doesn't scare me. it simply presents a puzzle requiring management at the start, research in the middle and a solution at the end.

[Inga]

Originally Posted by chrisn6104

Top prize winning dogs fetch a lot of money from their litters. If these dogs are to be bred they should be a top representation of the breed. KC's are responsible for breeding diseased dogs. If these dogs never won a show they would never be bred by these show people.
Now if you want to have a "show" dog and a "purebred" dog the KC could bypass the medical requirements for show dogs. These would be dogs that are only best for showing even though they struggle to live and have many medical issues. Purebred would be the ideal for that dog breed. May not be the best in physical appearance but it is the best all around representation for that breed. Though I think in the end the purebred would win hands down.

First off, exaggerated features do not mean "diseased". It is true the some of the breeds have taken breeding to the extremes. IMO anything extreme tends to be not good.
IMO what it comes down to is greed. Some breeders breed for extremes to win at shows, OR to sell more puppies. It is the public that demands extremes in many cases. People want to brag to their neighbors that they have the dog that is the smallest, or the shortest nose or the most angled or the smallest head or whatever. Some breeders will fold to the wants of the buying public. Not all of them will. Good breeders keep that "standard" in mind when breeding and will not be pressured into making changes to their much loved breed on the whims of the uneducated public.

I think the point of a show like that is to show the buying public what some of those extremes are causing. Hopefully they will be educated and will pressure the breeders to do what is right for their breed, not what is right for bragging rights.

I can only speak for my breed in that, I can't seem to go anywhere with my dogs (over the past 25+ years that the average Joe, knew what they were) that someone doesn't say "I have a Rottie or know someone who has a Rottie that is twice that size", when they see my dogs.

I have done rescue for most of those 25 years so some of my dogs were "over sized" and yet people still felt the need to have BIGGER dogs. Head size seems to be the most popular feature to brag about in the Rottie. So yes, some (crappy breeders) will fold to the whims of these uneducated souls that want BIG MASSIVE HEADS on their Rotties.
I do not see how that is the fault of the kennel club. I think it is the fault of the uneducated public and the breeders who will greedily breed for the money they can make from these people.

[Labsnothers]

Long ago, I concluded you will never win anything putting in a reasonable effort. Nearly every form of competition draws the win at any cost types. They ruin it for everybody else.

I really blame the breed clubs. They need to pressure the judges to stick to the breed standard. The one for Labs clearly calls for a leaner dog than most winners. Of course, the win at any cost people may be the same ones attending the meetings.