[Quincy]

In the following video which was televised in the UK back in 1985, near the end note what the UK Kennel Club mentioned back in 1985. After the latest documentry the Kennel Club reviewed Breed Standards and where some were amended. With things like this in mind I wonder what the dogs scene will be like 25 years from now.
Anyway have a look at this which goes for 8:27.
Pedigree dog problems + Kennel Club response in 1985
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5RMa7AW5u8
.

[Keechak]

Originally Posted by Xeph

Actually, that is not an American lined dog. That is Dingo Haus Gero, a German showline

I personally think the 1920/30's dogs were hideous...for a number of reasons. I prefer the dogs of the 40s and 50s

Realy wow. he certainly doesn't look like the german show lines of today.

[Pai]

Originally Posted by TxRider

Check out how different breeds looked in 1924... The German shepherd and dachshund are in this one.

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=20407

A lot of interesting videos on the site.

1930 champions.

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=8263

Check the heads on those bull terriers

From head on, the bull terriers look the same as today, pretty much. There's less stop and fuller cheeks nowadays, but the overall 'expression' is identical.

I love those old videos. Some breeds are still the same, but others are so different now! A lot have way more coat today, which I guess is a side effect of many breeds not being used for their original outdoor work as much as back then.

[Spicy1_VV]

Originally Posted by TxRider

Of course there are.

But there are also thousands in shelters and rescues.

The only reason I could see for me to get a pedigreed dog would be to show or breed, and since the type I would own would never be able to win at show, and I have no interest in breeding, there's no reason for me to ever want to get a pedigreed GSD. There's no value in it.

So I chose a generally well built looking GSD from rescue.

And I could still do AKC tracking, herding, obedience etc. if I want under the alternative listing program.

And I get a girl who does goofy things like a standing leap over the back of the sofa from a tile floor onto me to keep me on my toes at times..

I fully support rescue. So I think it is great that there are people out there who don't go to breeders because the dogs in rescues do also need homes. Everyone has different wants and needs.

I'd rather have a pedigreed dog, though this reaches beyond showing and breeding for myself. I would still like to have pedigrees for my pets. I want pedigrees on cross bred or mixed dogs as well and there is certainly no show venue because there isn't a conformation standard.

I also don't feel by not having a pedigree on a pure bred it means I have something any different because that pure bred probably comes from some known dogs somewhere. Maybe the grand parents were registered, sometimes even a parent (or both parents) of a dog is registered but the litter wasn't for whatever reason they were sold without papers. Not saying this applies to you TxRider, it just reminds me that some people wanting to breed dogs of unknown pedigree to "increase genetic diversity" and all that BS I never understood. As those Pits were without known pedigrees, doesn't at all mean they were not from the same lines as their dogs who had pedigrees. They are being added to the gene pool (though it is a select gene pool within the overall breed) but does it bring in true genetic diversity, probably not.

[TxRider]

Originally Posted by Pai

From head on, the bull terriers look the same as today, pretty much. There's less stop and fuller cheeks nowadays, but the overall 'expression' is identical.

I love those old videos. Some breeds are still the same, but others are so different now! A lot have way more coat today, which I guess is a side effect of many breeds not being used for their original outdoor work as much as back then.

As well many have done what GSD, Labs, Goldens etc., so many breeds that are still worked, in splitting between working and show lines.

I really don't have a problem with people morphing working dogs to exaggerate the distinctive traits of the breed, until it gets to the point it is so exaggerated that it affects the dogs well being which was the sole point of that documentary. It's their choice. After all most aren't used for their original working purpose any more anyway.

But I don't see it as improving a breed to move in that direction away from being fit for it's original purpose, and I don't care to own one.

To me it's just ridiculous for kennel/breed clubs to be so adamant about saying they are improving breeds and protecting breed lines while morphing them so drastically for cosmetic reason alone and away from their original form to some show standard that ever increasingly exaggerates them over time. Just a look at changes in breeds over time makes it quite obvious what's happening.

Breeders defend themselves against that show by saying they care about their dogs and always breed for healthy dogs, I'm sure that's true, but it totally misses the point of that documentary, that the ever exaggerated conformation standards pushed by the industry and rewarded by the dog shows is the issue, they seem blind to it.

[spanielorbust]

Originally Posted by TxRider

Of course there are.

But there are also thousands in shelters and rescues.

The only reason I could see for me to get a pedigreed dog would be to show or breed, and since the type I would own would never be able to win at show, and I have no interest in breeding, there's no reason for me to ever want to get a pedigreed GSD. There's no value in it.

So I chose a generally well built looking GSD from rescue.

And I could still do AKC tracking, herding, obedience etc. if I want under the alternative listing program.

And I get a girl who does goofy things like a standing leap over the back of the sofa from a tile floor onto me to keep me on my toes at times..

TxRider, I will always commend anyone who makes the decision to get a dog from a shelter or rescue, or who just happens to take one in. My first many came to me that way and I encourage adoption whole-heartedly as a wonderful way to get a pet.

I do want to point out that there are some problems in your thinking, though, that there are dogs available for everyone by going to shelters. The shelters here cannot begin to meet the demand.

In 2008, between both the open admission Humane Society, and Calgary Animal Control, only just under 1200 dogs became available for adoption but almost 9800 dogs were required just to keep pace with those lost to old age.

In this City of more than one million, and where the next closest small city then is 90 minutes away, (and Calgary opens its doors to their animals as well), just to replace the ones that owners lose to old age, in 2008 we required 8645 MORE dogs for homes than our two city facilities had to offer. Some of that number can be filled by a few small no-kill rescues that take in dogs here, and those that rehome their own, but those numbers are minor. Most are filled by BYBs and commercial breeders.

This is perhaps why rescues here broker in small dogs from the kill shelters in the Southern states, and then charge $400+ for them . . .

. . . but we certainly cannot provide every person who requires a dog here with one. We need well bred dogs and breeders willing to do that work, or the puppymills will continue to increase in size and prosper, causing a whole 'nuther kind of suffering.

-------------------

These are the numbers if those reading want to take a closer look, from this 2009 webdoc:

http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/occtopusd...2009PCS003.doc

The city of Calgary has a human population just over one million and a canine population estimated at 110,242. With average canine age at death being 11.25 years (Pullman longevity site), just to keep up with replacement of these, then the shelters have to be able to offer 9799 dogs for adoption.

In Calgary a total of 6256 entered the city system (Calgary Animal Services + Calgary Humane Society) 4399 were reclaimed (a 90%+ licensing compliance rate and microchips help with that), 1154 were adopted and 552 were euthanised. Those euthanized reflect dogs that were dead on arrival, owner requested euthanasias, and the euthanization of animals temperamentally unfit or too unhealthy to adopt out. That euthanasia rate is 0.5 per 1000 residents . . . incredibly low, which happens when all adoptable and healthy are reclaimed or placed.

(To compare, on average in the USA, with numbers compiled thru 2007, there were 4.6 dogs and 7.9 cats euthanized at shelters per 1000 residents. This is an average. There are vast differences area to area though ranging from <0.7 (dog only)thru to 18 (dog only). If you would like to look up what the rate is where you live, at the end of this pdf there is a link:
http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/07/7...drops7_07.html
and there is an easier to read chart here: http://www.lacity.org/ani/PDF/report...al%20Stats.pdf)

Cats here still are, sadly, another story. We're far from there yet.

SOB

[GottaLuvMutts]

Originally Posted by spanielorbust

The shelters here cannot begin to meet the demand.

How much better the world would be if that were the case everywhere! In this type of a situation, I can definitely get on board with breeding (responsibly, of course, with all the health testing possible) in order to ensure that anyone who wants a dog and can afford their upkeep has that opportunity. Of course, bringing in dogs from areas with an overpopulation problem could be part of the solution, too, although I don't know if I'm on board with the high price tag.

Spicy, I guess I'm not really against showing a dog that isn't healthy, if that floats the owner's boat. But purposely breeding an animal known to have major heritable health issues? That's just sick. As the video pointed out, showing can lead to breeding - at least in the case of that show champion CKCS who's owner knew he had a debilitating health condition and allowed him to sire somewhere on the order of twenty litters since finding out about the condition (and more before that). As the vet (or tech) pointed out, if you cause an animal pain by beating it, you go to jail. So why is it ok to breed an animal that it is likely to experience horrible pain?

[Xeph]

Realy wow. he certainly doesn't look like the german show lines of today.

Dingo was around in the 1980s The roach wasn't as present/exaggerated as it is today.

I will say that I've actually seen dogs getting BETTER in the department of topline for the German show lines.

[TxRider]

Originally Posted by spanielorbust

TxRider, I will always commend anyone who makes the decision to get a dog from a shelter or rescue, or who just happens to take one in. My first many came to me that way and I encourage adoption whole-heartedly as a wonderful way to get a pet.

I do want to point out that there are some problems in your thinking, though, that there are dogs available for everyone by going to shelters. The shelters here cannot begin to meet the demand.

Certainly, and someone has to keep breeds going and correct or the breeds won't be around.

There's just no value in a pedigree for me, or I would guess many if not the majority of pet owners who never care to breed or show.

If I had a job for a dog, say I was a big duck hunter, I would go for a well bred lab. Or a well bred gun dog for hunting quail or pheasant. Or if I needed a good stock dog to work cattle or sheep, rescue dogs aren't where I would be looking at all. But I likely wouldn't want to go to a show dog breeder for any of those either, I would be looking for breeder who breeds the best working stock.

I don't do those things though, nor do most people.

[Quincy]

Here is something new in this world and happening in the State of Victoria Australia. The following is from this link address and document in PDF format.
http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenfa...%20Disease.pdf

Code of Practice for the Responsible Breeding of Animals with Heritable Defects that cause Disease

1 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 sets out offences for intentionally or recklessly breeding an animal with a heritable defect that causes disease as listed in the Schedule (‘the Schedule’) of the Act.

It is a cruelty offence to permit an animal to suffer from a heritable disease.

The code requires that animals with disease caused by a heritable defect must not be disposed of to another person without advice of the animal’s heritable defect status.

The advice provided by the breeder must include:–
1. Permanent identification details e.g. number of microchip implant, brand or ear tag or tattoo, depending on the accepted method of permanent identifi cation for the species of animal; and
2. Veterinary certificate with details of the diagnosis linked to that permanent identification.

2 PURPOSE OF THE CODE

The purpose of the Code is to set standards for the prevention and spread of heritable defects and the expression of disease caused by them.

The Code aims to educate animal breeders how to best minimize or avoid the development of heritable disease in progeny caused by inappropriate selection and mating of animals with heritable (genetic) defects. It also outlines breeding practices that will assist the reduction of the prevalence of the heritable defect in the animal population.

The standards set by the Code should be practiced by owners and custodians of animals used for breeding that are affected by any heritable defect that causes disease and must be observed for breeding of animals with heritable (genetic) defects causing the diseases listed the Schedule of the Act.

A person breeding animals in a program that conforms at least to the principles in this code is not considered to be breeding animals recklessly or intentionally as defined as an offence in Section 15C(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986.

Want to read more then use the link provided above.

Regarding the above and for DOGS these already have been listed in the Schedule (‘the Schedule’) of the Act, and in time more could be added.
Von Willebrands disease (vWD)
Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA)
Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (NCL)
Hereditary Cataract (HC)
Collie Eye Anomaly (CEA)

Seminars have been arranged where a representative from the Bureau of Animal Welfare will be attending to explain the Code Of Practice and how breeders can best work with it. Yes it is happening right now in Australia see via this link address and document in PDF format.
http://www.vca.org.au/assets/pdf/nov...nars%20_3_.pdf

Also where the above applies Breed Clubs right now are be asked to submit their breeding programs so that they can be reviewed and if approved then they become "approved breeding programs".
.

[spanielorbust]

Originally Posted by GottaLuvMutts

Spicy, I guess I'm not really against showing a dog that isn't healthy, if that floats the owner's boat. But purposely breeding an animal known to have major heritable health issues? That's just sick. As the video pointed out, showing can lead to breeding - at least in the case of that show champion CKCS who's owner knew he had a debilitating health condition and allowed him to sire somewhere on the order of twenty litters since finding out about the condition (and more before that). As the vet (or tech) pointed out, if you cause an animal pain by beating it, you go to jail. So why is it ok to breed an animal that it is likely to experience horrible pain?

Just wanted to mention that the scientist/neurologist that was speaking about the crowded brains of Cavaliers in PDE was Clare Rusbridge, who has been at the forefront of research into Syringomyelia (CM/SM affects Cavaliers and numerous other small breeds).

This is her website: http://www.veterinary-neurologist.co.uk/

If anyone is interested in a Cavalier, this American website is frank and informative: http://www.cavalierhealth.org/

In regards to the SM Cavalier that was bred 26+ times after his diagnosis, HIS sire - who obviously carries some problematic genes - was the Top Stud Dog, UK 2005, 2006, 2007 and Top Stud Dog, CKCSC, USA 2008. That would be really scary until you look and find out just how many top Cavaliers are incredibly closely related (1/2 siblings to etc.) to other Cavalier with symptomatic SM.

Here is his pedigree: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfj94g92_0db7z57g4

[Michiyo-Fir]

I haven't known many Cavaliers with SM but I honestly do know lots of Cavaliers with heart murmurs and ones that develop them at 2-5 years old.

Lucky my aunt's Cavalier Truffles doesn't SEEM to have any health problems YET. They knew of no DNA testing and got her from the Harrods pet shop...I'm hoping she won't have tons of puppymill problems as well as the Cavalier prone health problems too!!

I was wondering...how was it confirmed that that particular dog was bred 26 times and how was it proven that that dog HAD SM?

[spanielorbust]

World Pedigrees list the breedings and offspring of this dog. That is the registered ones. He also has offspring listed on other European pedigree databases. He was already a great grandfather at just barely 5 years of age. By the established MVD protocol (since 1998) in this breed, that is the minimum age for a Cavalier to become a grandparent. He was bred many, many times, under MVD protocol age and after knowledge of his syrinxes, to bitches that were owned by some of the top influential show judges and breeders in the UK. You can google and find this one.



As told on PDE, and many times afterward by Margaret Carter, when the owner was told not to breed from this dog (he was 16 months of age and by MRI he already had syrinxes down his spine, a grade E, never to be bred from) she was accompanied by another breeder. After PDE there was an ethics complaint lodged to the breed club against Rollo's breeder, by the witness. Rather than addressing the complaint, his owner/breeder chose to ignore it and face expulsion and removal of her affix. She is still allowed to judge. She has never denied he had syrinxes. She did, soon after PDE, write a letter that I read on a forum somewhere, stating Rollo showed no symptoms, and that she didn't think SM was hereditary - that it hadn't been proven yet.

I have to say that I have some empathy (I think) for this breeder as I have read the posts of the very long standing and experienced breeders/judges she seemed to be associating with, that she probably admired, and that she was probably influenced by. Many disbelieved that SM was hereditary. Many question whether a squished cerebellum (hind brain) is the cause of the problem. Many wonder if syrinxes down the spine aren't common in lots of small breeds (its just that they haven't had large numbers of their population MRId yet). Despite the studies, some still deny it is hereditary. I have read one comment that SM is just what you have to accept as it is part of the breed.

But then . . . as an adult I would hope she would have her own thinking processess in order.

I know two Cavaliers with SM, and I only know 5 Cavaliers (hence my interest) . . . but yes, MVD is a truly great concern in this breed as well. There are no DNA tests for either condition - just phenotypical tests (MRI and heart auscultations).