shortstep

Well soon, not only will we be following the Europeans on how to bankrupt our economy with carbon gaming, we can then follow them on how they love dogs more than children. I heard the Trade Kids for Pets scheme is very good. Then we can trade our right for a child for the right to keep a high density designed pet! Be Green Go Veg For the Greater Good Buy only Watermelon approved 'High Density Low Methane Designed Pets'

The plan is that all animal use by humans will be banned, not just cows but dogs too. But first they have to set up a tax on everything we need to live, than tax us to death so the worlds wealth can be redistributed, take away our private property rights and put us all in high density living units in cities and begin to enforce the 1/2 child per person reproduction law. By then we will be so beaten down, opps I mean re-educated, that after we say the mandatory One World Order pledge each morning 'For the Greater Good' while bowing facing China, we would never think of saying anything about wanting a dog for fear of being called a climate change denier and being out casted from our living unit. And as we all know, those that loose access to their assigned living unit will be sent to work in the solar panel farms, from which no one ever returns or is ever seen again. Is this what you are talking about, concerning wanting even MORE government intervention in our lives and all based on the coming end of the world? I am sure they said it was already too late to save the world, last week I think it was, we ticked right over into the abyss. So I'll keep my dogs thank you and the Government needs to stay right out of it. Be Green Go Veg Ban animal ownership. For the Greater Good Support Worldwide Watermelons

My 'pooter tells me the article is free from the publishers website (hope I've got the linky correct) ETA: the Skeptivet blog has reviewed the paper here Thanks for both links! Certainly is helpful to read the study. Also the review was excellent and brought up the concern of the narrowness of the sample, (also this was not just vets, it was only teaching hospitals which would further narrow the samples and tend to increase severe or complilcated DX, and would certain explain the high rate of IVDD as this is a disease with a complicated treatment). But the review also relates that there is still ability to see the trends within the sample. It says there are a few surprises but for most breeds it pretty much is what would be expected. At least in the reveiw, that attention seems to be directed mostly around the development and effectiveness of medical treatment, vet training and these sorts of issues.

I think she looks fantastic, what great structure! She looks like she could out on the paddock and really help out. She is just lovely, thanks for sharing.

This was all I could find on the prevelance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873269/ Intervertebral disc disease (IVDD) in dogs is one of the most common disorders in veterinary neurology. The chondrodystophic (hypochondroplastic) breeds are affected more frequently and in the Dachshunds the breed prevalence of IVDD is around 19% [1-4]. Degenerative changes in the intervertebral discs can be detected already in the newborn hypochondroplastic dog and at the age of one year most of the discs will show chondroid metaplasia [2]. The degeneration can lead to subsequent mineralization (calcification) of the discs. Calcifications have been reported to be present in 46-48% of the intervertebral discs on histological examination in Dachshunds edited to add. Following the above, there is evidently a maditory screening program in some european countires for IVDD in dachshounds but I could only find the African program on line. Seems they screen the dog' spines for calcifications and attempt to eliminate the most affected dogs from breeding. http://vetimagingspecialists.com/Downloads/IVDD%20Dachshound%20breeding%20program%20RSA%20final.pdf Edited to add This is the UK KC report, they state 1 in 4 or 5 dogs is affected. They vetoed setting up a screening project at this time. On their owner survey almost 40% of the people responding reported back problems in their pet. Though they did not get a lot of responses to their survey. http://www.dachshundbreedcouncil.org.uk/ There is also a yahoo group with current 4000 members Dachshound with IVDD. 22 new members this week, about 1000 posts per month. Is a consultation groups to help owners through the treatment/surgery or long term care. Called Dogerslist.

There seems to a lot of research being released or close to release that has to do with longvity and cause of death. Seems like there is a real move to collect data to prove certain points. I am wondering what exactly will be done with life expectency rates for each breed. It is unforutnate that KCs world wide can not do some of their own research. The KC has done some but the numbers of dogs is very small. Here is the Dachshound survey and it would be all pedigreed dogs, spinal/neuro 11% cause of death and almost 12% Dx at recent vet visit. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1539/hsdachshund.pdf Anyway I think it is wise to read as many of these studies as possible.

Can you give us a summary, and a few of the details? Do they break down the cause of death by all breeds or just a few breeds are hightlighted? Do you think it is worth buying?

Take a look at this site as they have a done a very good job of discribing the risks and bennfits. I do hope that with this breed and it's history of hip and other joint problems that the negative effects of early desexing and theincreased risk of HD will be expalined to the potential adoptors (as would be expected of the breeder). http://www.greydove.com.au/desexing.cfm Here is just the bit on bones and joints, but the whole page is worth a good read. Orthopedic Disorders In a study of beagles, surgical removal of the ovaries (as happens in spaying) caused an increase in the rate of remodeling of the ilium (pelvic bone)47, suggesting an increased risk of hip dysplasia with spaying. Spaying was also found to cause a net loss of bone mass in the spine 48. Spay/neuter of immature dogs delays the closure of the growth plates in bones that are still growing, causing those bones to end up significantly longer than in intact dogs or those spay/neutered after maturity. Since the growth plates in various bones close at different times, spay/neuter that is done after some growth plates have closed but before other growth plates have closed can result in a dog with unnatural proportions, possibly impacting performance and long term durability of the joints. Spay/neuter is associated with a two fold increased risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture50. Perhaps this is associated with the increased risk of obesity29 or to changes in body proportions in dogs spay/neutered before the growth plates in the bones have closed49. Spay/neuter before 5 ½ months of age is associated with a 70% increased aged-adjusted risk of hip dysplasia compared to dogs spayed/neutered after 5 ½ months of age41. The researchers suggest “it is possible that the increase in bone length that results from early-age gonadectomy results in changes in joint conformation, which could lead to a diagnosis of hip dysplasia”. In a breed health survey study of Airedales, spay/neuter dogs were significantly more likely to suffer hip dysplasia as well as “any musculoskeletal disorder”, compared to intact dogs51, however possible confounding factors were not controlled for, such as the possibility that some dogs might have been spayed/neutered because they had hip dysplasia or other musculoskeletal disorders. Compared to intact dogs, another study found that dogs neutered six months prior to a diagnosis of hip dysplasia were 1.5 times as likely to develop clinical hip dysplasia.

Just found this which I should have read first..LOL but it does answer the questions I was asking. From the OFA web site http://www.offa.org/ed_faqs.html The OFA does not participate in the decision process whether or not to breed an animal. However, the OFA strongly believes it is extremely important that breeders know and disclose the status of dogs' elbows regardless of whether the final decision is to breed or not. Only through complete and openly discussed knowledge of disease status will breeders have the information they need to make good breeding decisions. There are many factors to consider when evaluating the progress of countries that permit breeding Grade I elbows. There may indeed be reasons to consider using Grade I elbows in breeding programs for the purpose of maintaining a broader gene pool, especially in countries where the breed specific rate of ED is approximately 25% or higher (as appears to be the case in some European countries). One must balance the potential consequences as they pertain both to the entire gene pool, and to elbow disease as a part of the gene pool. With a lower rate of ED in many breeds in the U.S., the genetic pressures to include Grade I ED's in most US breeding programs may not be the same as in other countries. Below are two sets of data which may help provide a basis for making a more informed decision whether to breed a dog affected with Grade I ED. Example 1: Examination of the OFA database reveals the following mating probability results for 13,151 breeding pairs of dogs with known elbow status: Normal Elbows x Normal Elbows = 12.2% offspring affected with ED Normal Elbows x Dysplastic Elbows = 26.1% - 31.3% offspring affected with ED Dysplastic Elbows x Dysplastic Elbows = 41.5% offspring affected with ED In this very large breeding study (primarily Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, Rottweilers, and German Shepherd Dogs), the rate of ED more than doubled when one parent was affected, and more than tripled when both parents were affected. In any breed where the overall percentage of affected dogs is already lower than the percentage that can be expected when a dog affected with ED is bred to a normal dog (26.1% - 31.3%), one would find few circumstances in which progress can be made by breeding a dog affected with ED. Example 2: Below are some comparative elbow statistics on Golden Retrievers from the BVA (UK) scheme and the OFA. Of the total of 577 Golden Retrievers evaluated by the BVA (through 2003): 434 are normal (75%) 87 are Grade I (15%) 40 are Grade II (7%) 16 are Grade III (3%) Total of 143 affected (25%) Of the total of 9630 Golden Retrievers evaluated by the OFA (through 2003): 8484 are normal (88.1%) 856 are Grade I (8.9%) 187 are Grade II (1.9%) 72 are Grade III (0.7%) Total of 1115 affected (11.6%) Comparing that data, it would appear that when the overall percentage of ED in the breed is higher, so also is the overall percentage of Grade II's and Grade III's – the potentially clinically affected dogs. It is also possible that this percentage may increase even more rapidly than the overall breed percentage. Note that while the total percentage of Goldens affected with ED in the UK is approximately double that of the US (25% compared to 11.6%), the percentage of higher grades in the UK is more than triple that of the US (10% compared to 2.6%). Although it is not certain that US Goldens would follow this exact trend if the percentage of ED began to increase, the data is compelling enough to warrant close vigilance and caution regarding potentially breeding dogs with Grade I ED. And this http://www.offa.org/ed_grades.html For elbow evaluations, there are no grades for a radiographically normal elbow. The only grades involved are for abnormal elbows with radiographic changes associated with secondary degenerative joint disease. Like the hip certification, the OFA will not certify a normal elbow until the dog is 2 years of age. The OFA also accepts preliminary elbow radiographs. To date, there are no long term studies for preliminary elbow examinations like there are for hips, however, preliminary screening for elbows along with hips can also provide valuable information to the breeder. Grade I Elbow Dysplasia: Minimal bone change along anconeal process of ulna (less than 3mm). Grade II Elbow Dysplasia: Additional bone proliferation along anconeal process (3-5 mm) and subchondral bone changes (trochlear notch sclerosis). Grade III Elbow Dysplasia: Well developed degenerative joint disease with bone proliferation along anconeal process being greater than than 5 mm.

Easy! Dogs that can see and do not go blind, have their eye fall out or have any diseases of the eye. Dogs that can breath and do not have structural defects that cause them discomfort or limits their lives in any way. Dogs that can run and play free of physical defects that limit their mobility. Dogs that have nice coats, free of defective wrinkle genes, skin allergies and other defects. Dogs with normal brains and neuro systems so they can live a normal healthy life free of pain or fits. Dogs with normal mouths, free of dental defects, deformed pallets and so forth. I can go on, but in simple terms, the lap dogs function is to be a companion and that requires a normal healthy form of both body and mind.

Ok on the elbows 10.8% affected, they do count all affected grades, including grade 1. I know in a some breeds grade 1 is routinely used, but it is not considered normal elbows (Grade 0). In these breeds there is a large part of the population with grade 1 or worse. I suppose the thought is that it would worse for the breed to loose all the grade 1 dogs from the gene pool then it is to breed some of them carefully. I do not know if lab breeders use grade 1 elbows, but if so I hope it is more of an exception than the rule. I am not as versed on elbows as my breed is not affected. I have never looked to see how breeding a grade 1 to a normal affects the scores of the offspring, in hips it dramatically increases the % of affected pups. However I would suppose that if grade 1 was not a concern, then it would have just been included as part of grade 0. I have read many times that Elbow HD is considered much more genetically inherited and less related to risk factors than HD. That would also make me think that breeding grades 1 should be done with great caution if at all. On the hips 11.9% affected, this would be the same as AVA score of 26 and higher as the range counted as affected. That is the OFA groups Mild, Moderate, Severe HD. Notice they do not count Borderline which is AVA 19-25 or included in international grade B. I think this is just right and I certainly would not want mild HD AVA 26-35 counted as normal hips. Are lab breeders using dogs with hips scores above 25? Now on both of these, the use of affected dogs that are not clinically lame as you suggested, that is just not information that is collected on the rating system. I also think that dogs with hip scores of 25 (having arthritis) or worse that are not lame, still have HD and their pups will have a much higher chance of getting HD. The risk of using any affected elbow dogs (grades 1-2-3), even if not lame would have even a more likely increased risk of poor elbows in their pups. But I am not up on ED as it does not really occur in my breed. I might also add, that we also do not see grade 1 with or without lameness, almost all dogs are 0-0. If it was the case, that using affected dogs (that had disease on x-ray) but showed no lameness were fine to breed, then we do not need to do x-rays at all. That would be returning to the time thinking it was Ok to breed any dog that appeared sound in movement, and to not consider that some dogs can have very severe HD and not show lameness. Yikes, I personally would not like to go back there again! You lost me on OCD comments, unless you are talking about elbow HD? If so, yes a lot of breeds have high numbers of the population as affected dogs. The HD data is the same with some breeds having as many as 2 out of 3 dogs in the population affected. And even more disturbing is most of these breeds have no mandatory screening or mandatory breeding directives to address the problem (which brings us right back on topic of this thread and yet another topic for pedigree dogs exposed, left wide open for public ridicule of the KC's and breeders). I have never found any data records for OCD shoulder on OFA. However most of the recent information I have seen about OCD shoulder states that in some breeds (not all breeds), it is less thought to be a genetic disease and is more thought to be a disease of trauma and indirect and direct risk factors. Direct risk factors being, rapid growth, large bone size, heavy weight, and male (bigger then females) and the indirect risk factor being reckless behavior, excess exercise, hard ground (cement kennels or house floors) and repetitive trauma or direct injury. BTW Cornell now has at least some 'type' of genes related to HD. They hope to put out a test one of these years, that can be used on pups to indicate their risk.

Oh Ok, so you are saying that they are in fact healthy dogs, but they are not quality. What exactly does not being quality mean? Other then your idea that they do not do well in the show ring which is meaningless when it comes to accessing quality, what exaclty is their lack of quality. So 1000's of low quality blue dogs is also something I would like to see data for, as it is a very big accusation about a lot of ANKC breeders and their dogs(not that that is unsual as KC breeders sometimes seem to thrive on taking pot shots at each other). Seems like just more unfounded accusations to me, so I hope you have some way to back this up with data other then your personal accusations and opinions about all of these breeders. So is there another real welfare issue brewing in ANKC on avoidable lack of quality in this breed or is it just that these folks don't want play by your rules and are not responsive to your ideas. BTW I would bet they do not care what the standard says about nose colour, so are not motived to play by your rules.

Can you show us the data you are using to imply that all these blue dogs are not healthy or proof that shows the breeders are at the root of what ever health problems it is that you are going to show data for? The only known health problem with blues is dilution alopeacia, but that would have nothing to do with the breeders other than the choice to breed blues. BTW I don't think for one min that dogs not going to dog shows or not doing as well in the ring or beating the dogs you think they should beat or not performing in the way you might want in your dogs to perform, would have anything to do with them being unhealthy. So I am very interested to see the data that shows these 'thousands' of blue dogs bred by breeder who you accuse of not haveing their 'act together' in Australia are unhealthy. Amazing too that this is going on and you know about it yet the breed club and ANKC has done nothing to stop it. Another potential animal welfare concern in ANKC pedigreed dogs.

Well your way ahead of me, I have a bad brain day almost everyday...LOL

Just read 40% of Dachshounds die from intervertebral disc disease. and this link was listed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21352376 published March 2011 Anyone have access to this study? and give a report to us?

Shoulder OCD numbers are almost impossible to find, however labs are listed as one the breeds that commonly get OCD. Shoulder OCD has a strong structural component, along with rapid grown and large bone, so it is a disease where structure selection can have a real affect on the outcome. In OFA labs Elbow ranked 28th worse breed of 104 screened, with 10.8% affected of the dogs screened and reported Hips ranked 85th worse out of 160 breeds, with 11.9% affected of the dogs screened and reported . Patella is ranked 15th worse breed of 99 screened with 8.2 % affected of the dogs screened and reported. All reporting is voluntary and OFA states they feel the numbers of affected dogs is far higher then is reported. Here is the link to OFA stats. Look down on this page as you can also look at just your breed. There is a dog by name of number search too on a different page. http://www.offa.org/stats.html Now I do not think these numbers are terrible and surely many breeds have far worse than this. All I am saying is size and structure do impose some if not a lot of risk for most of these problems. If labs are not physically fit to run, play and bound about enjoying life then we have failed them and this is the only acceptable bottom line. Moderate is the key word I agree. I know you agree with this.

I think there is a hell of lot to know about this topic. I personally think JH wil know even less about real working dog breeding practices then she knows about KC breeding practices. But before you can even start talking about it, it is the degree or interpretation of what is meant by working. I like the form follows function as the guideline. Lets take border collies. Some folks think if they do a dog sport, say agility with a border collie, then that is a working dog and they breed working dogs. I think they may breed for fitness, maybe athletic ability, trainability, but agility is not the work of border collies. Border collies doing agility over the past 300 years did not drive the formation of the breed. However I think there is great potential that agility border collies will become a new breed of dog. This is where the expression form follows function can be applied to find your way through to the truth. Personally I believe that the traits that make a real working dog are the very traits tham make them good agility. I would never look to agility dogs to build a working program for border collies, the parents need to work stock not work seesaws and jumps. Some folks would think that attending the local trials on weekend is breeding for working dogs. But the mental, fitness and even the body trait levels needed to do weekend trailing is far different than what a station dog would need to work long hours often day after day. Trials just like dogs shows come with similar faults, though trials may be bases on some idea of what is required to be considered a working dog, it is pretend, staged and not real and will never really reflect the work that developed the breed. The border collie breed was not built on 300 years of selction based on attending trails on the weekend. Though in recent times we are seeing far more breeding programs bases on popular trials dogs that have no real work background behind them, these are dogs only used to compete in trials. Usually, in days of old when the idea of trials were developed, the dogs already lived the life of a working dog, so trialing could have been considered an adjuct, but today that if often not the case. Dogs that enter the trials and never do a real days work in my mind are not as suitable to assess the bennifts of breeding for work as would be dogs and breeding programs that actually do work on a daily basis. I think we can already see some dogs that have lost abilities they need for practical work because of this type of narrowed test and selection process. (also think of the sled dog race breeding leading to new breeds that are very different from the dogs started with). I would also add there are many levels of tests or trials and it is important to understand the different levels of work needed to be sucessfull. Some folks think that dogs that work every day on farms doing the real everyday jobs are breeding for working dogs. I would have to agree with this. It is what actually drove the formation and development of the breed over the past 300 years and it is what will keep it functional and true to type in the future. Very few breeds still are used in the original function. In many cases this is not possible for some breeds as the original work and life style has been for ever lost. But for those breeds where it is posible, I believe there is much to be gained. So when we talk about breeding for work, I think we need to be clear exactly what we are talking about. In all cases of doing activiates, from something like agility to recreational trialing or living the life of real work dog, there are benefits to be gained, but those benefits are not all equal and will give different results.

No, the problem in the reporting, is over-generalisation. And you've added another. 'Everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them.' To misquote Groucho Marx, 'Send out & get me an Everyone!' Mita you took that out of context and you have used it out of context. Sandgrubber said that she did not want to be judged by what some folks in the KC were doing, extremes for example and that she did not think she wanted to defend those breeders, she said it is not a case of all hanging together for her. My statement nor Sandgrubbers had nothing to do with PDE. This thread is about PDE and people are giving responses to it. From all angles. Including those who think there's substance in some of the reporting, & who don't support the 'wrongs' in the breeding. As with that KC example. My comment stands. The evidence is, that not one position tells the full truth. Yet the program under discussion, suggested otherwise. What was wanted by most discerning people in the world of purebred dog breeding, is a balanced view, admitting of the 'wrongs' but conscious of the many 'rights'. No of course not, I would never expect you to say you are using my words incorrectly. Well you are not going to get what most discerning people want (define discerning please as that could mean almost anything except I am sure I am one of the descerning people as it sounds like that is 'good'). She is not making films to show what you want her to show, she is making films to show the bad she sees. Maybe you can name a breed that you think should be highlighted as an excellent example of purebred dog breeding, but she will highlinght the breeds that she feels are the worst examples. If she highlights the neos as predicted, is she over dramatizing? Have you looked over the photos they are showing on their web site? http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/03/parade-of-mutants.html Who can not feel for those dogs.And what are the Neo breeders doing to address the situation? Nothing that I am aware of, and perhaps they feel they do not need to do anything. Just like the bad practice of a few slauter houses being used to judge the whole industry including talking away the livelyhood of thousands of Australian families linked to the industry. Think 4 corners needs to show the 'otherside', not a chance, no one wants to hear that.

No, the problem in the reporting, is over-generalisation. And you've added another. 'Everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them.' To misquote Groucho Marx, 'Send out & get me an Everyone!' Mita you took that out of context and you have used it out of context. Sandgrubber said that she did not want to be judged by what some folks in the KC were doing, extremes for example and that she did not think she wanted to defend those breeders, she said it is not a case of all hanging together for her. My statement nor Sandgrubbers had nothing to do with PDE. What I was talking about is how every breeders seems to think that any time there is something wrong witha breeders methods, everyone is talking about someone else and never them. Look at the term BYB, some people apply it to everyone who is not breeding champions, some apply it to anyone breeding more than 1 litter in 3 years, some apply to anyone whois not a licensed breeder in a coummunity where there are strick breeding laws like you support so stroungly. The number of people who can be labeled BYB by other breeders is endless, but of course they are never talking about me because I am not a BYB! Get it?

Well problem is everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them. Look, I have no idea what your labs are like, but I have not seen a lab in the kennel club in years that was not over done, too big boned too heavy. I look at pics from 50 years ago and they were as I remember them in my childhood, which was not what they look like today. Then I read their OCD, elbow and hip rates. So where you see yourself and where those who are going to hang you out to dry if the see what you do as 'wrong' may be a very different places. Anyway I think what you want is what is happening and is going to happen even more. It really is going to boil down every man and his dog for himself? Will is be a case of the Last dog standing?? I for one have given up trying to convince all dog owners and breeders that the gun is pointing directly at them! BTW I have heard there is soon going to be a call for banning the breeding of all Neo Mastiffs in the UK. Welfare and cruelty related to extreme loose skin, bone and joint disorders, eye disorders, high rates of cnacer and very low life expectency. If I had to bet, I think they will be featured on PDE 2 and it is not going to be pretty. Are those breeders doing anything now while they still have a chance to be seen as proactive? Not that I have heard of.

Well I have to admire your honesty, to admit that a even a blue dog from your lines would not be a dog that in your opinion was a 'good example' of the breed. So do you figure that blue colour gene is directly linked to 'bad example' genes? Hehehe how can a dog be a good example if it doesn't conform properly? Isn't that what breeding and showing is all about? Producing the BEST example of the standard in order to maintain a standard of quality within the breed and putting out the BEST example of the standard you can to pit against that of your peers? I simply meant that a blue dog from my lines, if it ever were to be thrown, would be pet homed because it would not conform to teh current standard due to noseleather and would be desexed because of the current climate of byb's and moneygrabbers churning out the colour for big bucks. Sorry got side tracked back on to the bigger issue of good dog breeding practice. You know how all the sceince is showing that breeders need to stop thowing out perfectly good genetics (yes it is important to not intentionally increase the inbreeding in closed stud books) for things that really don't matter, like coat colours that are well known in the breed but upset some folks, or in this case a blue noses on an acceptable coated blue dog. I just found this new statement but The Kennel Club, and I am sure we soon follow and see this come into place down here. This is far superior to the silly method we have here of picking the closest colour on the computor, a colour that the dog is not LOL, and for implying that any deviation from some short list is a disqualifier to full registration. I think this is a great first step in the right direction of working in reality and getting over it (so to speak). It is amazing how many changes are underway. KC clarifies its position on breed colours 09 Jun 2011 08:02 CONCERN about the colours included for registration of some breeds has led the KC to give some explanatory advice. This week the KC said it was aware of the concern, which had become evident since the development of the online registrations system and the consequent need to provide lists of acceptable colours for breed registrations. There are also concerns about the colours described by breed Standards, it said, and so it has provided the following guidance to distinguish between breed Standard colour descriptions and registration colour descriptions. Not desirable “The list of colours acceptable for inclusion on the registration of breeds intends to include all colours which are known to occur within a breed. In some breeds, colours regularly occur which are not desirable but they nevertheless exist,” a spokesman said. “Some breed clubs and breeders have expressed concern that dogs who are of undesirable colours are being registered, but the view is that breeders need to be aware of the precise colour of dogs as far as possible, so the registration system aims to accommodate this. “However, we do not wish to include in the registration system inappropriate colour descriptions or terminology which gives rise to ‘fashion’ colours. “We will not refuse registrations on grounds of colour unless there is a health-related restriction in place. Therefore, any dogs who are of colours not listed will be registered currently as ‘colour not KC recognised.” The KC will continue to revise the lists in place, and breed clubs and breed councils are reminded that they can apply for any changes to the current lists for registration. The list of colours for each breed can be seen at www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breeds/Default.aspx. “We have records of colours used in each breed so that we can review whether there has been significant demand for any particular colour in the past decade,” the spokesman said. “The purpose of each breed’s Standard is to describe the ‘ideal’ dog, in terms of judging and breeding, and therefore the colour clause should state the desirable colours for the breed in this context. “Some Standards may state that some colours are more desirable than others, but on the whole a Standard should state that which is desired or permissible, rather than making negative statements. Standards do not contain any disqualifying statements. “The two systems should be viewed separately – they serve different purposes and there may therefore be some divergence in the colours given in the breed Standard compared with those on the lists of acceptable colours for registration.”

PETA (Ingrid) was on ABC radio yesterday making sure all the faithfull Australians know that we can not let animal abuse go on and we now need to ban export of ALL animals. I understand she is supporting the bill which wil be introduced soon by the Greens that will ban the export of all animals, including dogs. I hope they give some notice first so we can flee persecution with our dogs and move to another country, unlike the cattle producers who now face loosing their homes and properties. Be Green Go Veg

The hair product issue I have seen as of late was published in Dog World, the last issue I think if you want to look it up. A large number of showies wanted to ban testing for certain products that are banned at dog shows and I think they got their way. I think this shows just how out of touch dog show folks are with how the world see them and what they should be focused on now at dogs shows. This is not the time to fight about their 'rights' to spray, denude, powder and otherwise their dogs for the show ring. It is time to show the world they are breeding healthy dogs and showing is not a beauty contest. Oh well, you can lead a leapord to water but you can not make it change it's spots (or is that beauty products) LOL.

Well I have to admire your honesty, to admit that a even a blue dog from your lines would not be a dog that in your opinion was a 'good example' of the breed. So do you figure that blue colour gene is directly linked to 'bad example' genes?

I would agree with that. If knowing they look like a bunch of dog breeders with no understanding of the colour genetics (which also is making a case for others to question if they understand things like disease genetics) is not enough to make them consider cleaning up obvious errors in the standard, then nothing will. But not to worry, very soon all breeds will have government appointed panels to assure protection of welfare concerns in breeding purebred dogs. Addressing lack of knowledge of genetics that is evident in the standards will be one of the first areas that are addressed.