Sheridan

Me, I think Pet Rescue and the rescues that post on it are a false advertising claim waiting to happen.

Yes, mini long hairs.

Sorry disagree you with you. Do not tar us all with the one brush. The majority of us are ethical registered breeders and would not do a thing like this. But as to purchasing sight unseen, so many of us do send quality pups to purchasers without the slightest hitch. As to seeing both parents sometimes that is an impossibility when we use interstate sires or frozen semen from overseas. :) Of the last five dogs I've got, three were sight unseen from interstate. All five quality dogs from fine and ethical breeders.

Mine since December have been around $2600 but that's for two dogs, one with an ear infection and the other with a niggling tummy issue which was finally diagnosed after a new test came out.

Um, Purina, WTF?

How much of a publicity coup is this given most Yellowpages end up binned.

Not a Dogs ACT member according a statement on its FB page.

Oh well, have fun sticking the boots in.

And the issue I have is that people have lumped every single pedigree dog breeder into the 'bad' basket. Never mind all those who health test their dogs and pour money into health research. Never mind all the pedigree dogs that die of old age. Nope, a few people see some unhealthy dogs of a few breeds and therefore every pedigree breeder is responsible even though they're not and that most dogs are not pedigree dogs. No one has actually said this. Not as directly as I've said it but it's well embedded. There's no acknowledgement at all that there are many breeders who spend $1000s on health testing their dogs or that loads of pedigree dogs die of old age. Hell, there's not even an acknowledgement of the caveat the researchers put on their work. I've said it a number of times and only Steve said anything and that was to dismiss it.

And the issue I have is that people have lumped every single pedigree dog breeder into the 'bad' basket. Never mind all those who health test their dogs and pour money into health research. Never mind all the pedigree dogs that die of old age. Nope, a few people see some unhealthy dogs of a few breeds and therefore every pedigree breeder is responsible even though they're not and that most dogs are not pedigree dogs.

Feel free to provide proof that pedigree dog breeders are sticking their heads in the sand. The proof is in this thread, in the show ring and in vet surgery's. I could ask you to provide proof that they don't have their heads in the sand but that would achieve nothing. I am interested in solutioms not point scoring. You are taking a very combatative approach to this issue. This issue is too serious for me to play word games. I don't like witch hunts but I seem to be alone in this.

Where has anybody said that it's all pedigree breeders fault?? My point is that pedigree breeders always want to blame the BYB for problems in some breeds and that is simply not the case. They are just as much to blame as the BYB and their culture of burying their heads in the sand has to stop or they are going to face some serious questions. All brachy dogs have brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome to some extent. All of them. Also, why are you getting narky at those in the veterinary industry? What have they got to gain by warning people about brachy breeds? Less business? Doesn't make sense. I am in the veterinary industry and I am all for pedigree dogs. I own pedigrees and hope to breed one day. There are people in the veterinary industry in this thread who are simply relating anecdotes that are being accepted as complete proof of the research. Oh, it's a purebred therefore it must be a pedigree. There are far more many 'purebreds' without pedigrees than with. Does it make sense that every pug seen in veterinary surgeries across Australia is unhealthy and a pedigree? That's what is being accepted as fact and given that the researchers themselves have stated only 16% of dogs from 2014 were used in the study and that it is not representative is being completely ignored. Is it too much to ask for a bit of logic? Apparently so.

Feel free to provide proof that pedigree dog breeders are sticking their heads in the sand.

That's the heart of this matter. In any other field where human intervention determines quality or not (cars, electrical equipment, whatever), we don't ban all because some produce poor quality examples. In fact, emphasis goes on identifying who, where & how quality is produced & setting that as the only acceptable standard. For dogs, as you point out, it's likely to be registered breeders who abide by a breed standard that rejects variations which cause health & functioning problems. The Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE) used to have a subtle hint on their web page about buying a dog/puppy, which pointed in that direction. Maybe it's time to spell this issue out more strongly to the public. the major problem is that it seems that some have already determined that it is unlikely to be registered breeders because of the breed standard.- which is being perceived to not reject health and functioning problems. RSPCA "Breeders of brachycephalicdogs intended for the show ring are motivated to selectanimals to maintain breed standards; however, somestandards are inherently putting dogs at risk of BOAS" My link Well, citing the anti-pedigree dog RSPCA does nothing for your credibility. Play the ball Sheridan - when you keep picking on the man its called bullying. See previous post about playing the strawman.

That's the heart of this matter. In any other field where human intervention determines quality or not (cars, electrical equipment, whatever), we don't ban all because some produce poor quality examples. In fact, emphasis goes on identifying who, where & how quality is produced & setting that as the only acceptable standard. For dogs, as you point out, it's likely to be registered breeders who abide by a breed standard that rejects variations which cause health & functioning problems. The Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE) used to have a subtle hint on their web page about buying a dog/puppy, which pointed in that direction. Maybe it's time to spell this issue out more strongly to the public. the major problem is that it seems that some have already determined that it is unlikely to be registered breeders because of the breed standard.- which is being perceived to not reject health and functioning problems. RSPCA "Breeders of brachycephalicdogs intended for the show ring are motivated to selectanimals to maintain breed standards; however, somestandards are inherently putting dogs at risk of BOAS" My link Well, citing the anti-pedigree dog RSPCA does nothing for your credibility.

Exactly but in this case the body of evidence available is weighted against us so if we are to get the desired outcome - healthier dogs which can be proven to be bred by pedigree breeders of these breeds its going to take more than "its not us " It would seem to make more sense to me to gather evidence to prove your point rather than simply demanding the other side shows theirs - which they are doing without being asked. No, the weight of cited evidence. There is a difference. And you know very well the difficulty of providing evidence from BYBs and puppyfarmers who do not health test and who breed possibly purebred but pedigree unregistered dogs. I recall some years ago you showing a photo of two very similar dogs and asking which was the purebred. Any number of people breed purebred but without pedigree dogs. Having a purebred dog doesn't equal a pedigree dog. The number of pedigree dogs bred in this country alone would suggest all these issues are not all from pedigree breeders. That alone should give you pause but it doesn't. And that concerns me. You seem to think Im on the other side - Thats crazy- why would you think I would say or think that all of these dogs are only from registered purebred breeders ? Reality is though that not all registered purebred breeders are innocent either. I want us to be able to come out at the end with exemptions and for our breeds and our dogs to live happily ever after and you are right I do know the difficulty of providing that type of evidence and my major issue is still that stats collected are based on all dogs with no distinction - between a mutt and a registered purebred. But surely if registered purebred breeders do begin to collect data which is representative of only their dogs via mandatory testing and reporting of health issues when they go home etc that would then demonstrate the difference and provide the evidence. Im interested in being honest about the situation and developing strategies to ensure we are able to unequivocally breed dogs which dont suffer due to our decisions in our breeding programs . I dont want to pretend that some of the dogs with issues are not bred by us in order to try to protect the establishment. What Im saying is that if all we intend to fight this on is "its not us" "prove that it is us" that isn't going to fly. My primary interest is in what is best for the dogs over and above everything else and it might be better to concentrate on the topic rather than trying to bully me. I suppose it's how your posts come across, Steve, unhelped by trying to produce strawman arguments of bullying. You simply do come across as saying that it's pedigree breeders fault.

Exactly but in this case the body of evidence available is weighted against us so if we are to get the desired outcome - healthier dogs which can be proven to be bred by pedigree breeders of these breeds its going to take more than "its not us " It would seem to make more sense to me to gather evidence to prove your point rather than simply demanding the other side shows theirs - which they are doing without being asked. No, the weight of cited evidence. There is a difference. And you know very well the difficulty of providing evidence from BYBs and puppyfarmers who do not health test and who breed possibly purebred but pedigree unregistered dogs. I recall some years ago you showing a photo of two very similar dogs and asking which was the purebred. Any number of people breed purebred but without pedigree dogs. Having a purebred dog doesn't equal a pedigree dog. The number of pedigree dogs bred in this country alone would suggest all these issues are not all from pedigree breeders. That alone should give you pause but it doesn't. And that concerns me.

Outcomes are never in doubt when those that should argue for a better approach just shrug and say, 'Oh well.' As someone who spends a lot of time writing up research, there are always two sides of evidence. One that argues for, one that argues against. Overwhelming evidence rarely is.

The paper that says only 16% of dogs were used and are not indicative of the Australian dog population.

There's a lot of assumptions in this thread, not least of which is that it's all the pedigree breeders fault and every single dog with these features is completely unhealthy. Both are untrue and I think those with a stake against pedigree breeders (rescue businesses, alternative registry businesses, veterinary businesses, etc) need to say so.

The difference is that this is this vets ONLY service. She doesn't do anything else, no general check ups, no broken bones, she doesn't even have a clinic, she only does at home euthanasia. She found a niche market, the key to a successful business. Me, I liked that my dogs knew their vet. That Mini gave him a kiss and that he laughed when Grumpy tried, for one last time, to take his hand off. It was comforting.

I've always had my dogs euthanised at home. It's hardly a new thing.

It wouldn't surprise me at all.

For some reason, Trantor has stuck her nose into this one.

Fair enough to say that back yard breeders are scrambling to keep up with the popularity of Pugs, French Bulldogs, etc., and breeding from anything they can get their hands on. This has always led to problems for whichever breed is popular at the time. I think the point is that the average brachycephalic these days is on the edge of respiratory distress, even those from ethical, registered breeders. And, how many registered breeders are there who don't need routine caesarians for their Bulldogs? How many "average" brachycephalics have skin fold problems? Dental issues? Entropion/ nasal folds rubbing the eyes? On other threads in Dogzonline, there has been criticism of a trainer holding a Frenchie puppy while it struggled, with a casual statement that you just can't do that with these breeds. Surely, we should not be breeding dogs that are so compromised they can't handle gentle restraint? A colleague used to bring her Frenchie in to work and it was distressing to see the poor thing struggling to breathe in the airconditoned office. It had to sleep sitting up, leaning against the wall of its crate and was constantly woken by the need for air. It was put down when a specialist could do no more for it. My guess is that that the show quality dogs are usually OK, it is the "pet quality" pups (i.e., the majority of the pups produced) that suffer the worst. If registered breeders really are working to improve the breed, these improvements should be trickling down to the pet quality pups, and they don't seem to be doing this. Although back yard breeders have caused a lot of damage to all sorts of breeds, I think brachycephalic breeders should take some responsibility here. This photo of a Dogue de Bordeaux "good enough" to compete at Westminster i.e., "better" than the average pet quality dog. Um, pet dogs are generally from the same litters as show dogs.