sandgrubber

The key words are 'suffering', 'cares for them properly'. I'm not a shrink. It's not my business to diagnose people's compulsions. But if their dogs/animals are suffering, as an animal lover, I feel an obligation to report it.

but just visiting . .. :D "Emmett will be VISITING AUSTRALIA for a limited time . . . " Hope people use him . . . he's lovely.

The Majority of dalmation breeders were against introduction of low uric acid genes via outcross/backcross. The Majority of boxer breeders would have stood against the introduction of natural bob-tailed genes via outcross/backcross with the corgi. Does it make the breeders who have accepted the introduction of non-defective or bobtailed genes unethical? Sometimes, by my reckoning, the majority gets it wrong. I think live and let live is a better dictum.

I've been looking for a chocolate factored or dominant black Labrador stud in the US. I'm finding more chocos than blacks . . . and most of the blacks seem to be yellow factored. And more yellows than anything. It's like people with a BBEE don't bother putting the dog at stud. Australia seemed to be going the same direction. I've heard lots of complaints about the rise of chocolates. But no one seems to be noticing the decline of the blacks . . . So sad! I love to see a glossy black coat . . . and black is the orignial and the dominant colour.

wonderful! but no substitute for bringing in dogs . . . so that kids can cuddle and touch as well as watching

Long overdue! I still want to know what happened to the owner of the dog who killed Ayen Chol. . . . and who rumor says stood by and watched it happen. It's sad to think that the new laws won't apply to the scum bag. Oops . . . didn't read carefully. This is QLD not VIC.

The 'breed's best interest' is highly subjective. Working Labradors often don't look much like the show standard, and oftentimes their breeders couldn't care less, especially in the US where many people take hunting seriously. Show quality pugs/tibbies/bulldogs may be considered health disasters by people who prefer a more natural look and put health above success in the ring. Some people accept line breeding; others hate it. None of us have a right to impose our brand of 'best' on others who subscribe to another version. As for people who just put some dog over some bitch, don't do health tests, and hope for the best . . . I think all you can do is try to educate puppy buyers about what to look for in a breeder.

Oh no, no nastiness. You've been fair and balanced except for things like dismissing my words as 'Diatribe', 'masses of posts', that you must 'trawl' through . . . 'all about profit', 'crap'. . .recommendations that I start a puppy farm. I don't like the Oscar's Law crowd but I never said anyone should stop ALL investigations into puppy farms. Who are you to say what my main concern is? Did it occur to you it might be fear of mob mentality and protection of those who are likely to be wrongly accused?

It would have been rare news, if it occurred 30 or 40 years ago. Back then, parents were respected by their children. To hear "s/he won't do what s/he is told" would have been a rarity and it would have been regarded as shocking news. It was in my neighbourhood and hang-out places, anyway. We weren't subservient kids, we weren't afraid of our parents and we had a lot of freedom. But if Mum or Dad said "this is the way you should interact with the pup/dog", then that's the way we did it. I don't remember having to be told more than once and maybe one reminder if we forgot ourselves in fun. I don't remember Mum and Dad stopping me from playing with our first pup (I would have been about 8yo, I think). I also don't remember EVER copping a nip/mouthing or any trouble from the pup. So I guess they must have been around to supervise to some extent. That, or because it was my brother's pup (he was about 11 or 12 then) perhaps my brother was responsible enough to make sure that everything was as everything should be. We also weren't blocked into a postage stamp sized yard either. Times have changed. People need to adjust if they're going to have dogs in their lives. I agree with the sentiment but not the literal words, and I don't think that everyone had the benefit of parents as good as yours. It would not have been news that someone got bitten by a family dog 30 to 80 years ago. Or a century ago. Or two centuries ago. Find a copy of James Thurber's classic short story (1933) entitled "The dog who bit people" about a nasty-tempered Airdale named Muggs (go to http://sites.google.com/site/thurberworks/ if that doesn't work, try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-GOjV911A&feature=related for a reading). It used to be that dog bites were sh#t that happened, apologies were made, there was a bit of brown nose-ing, and people got over it. A dog is a risk. You can drastically reduce that risk by selecting the dog, training the dog, and keeping an eye on what's going on. But nothing is gained by blaming the people, the dog, the breed, or whatever. Better to learn from the experieince and get on with it. As I've noted elsewhere: Napoleon was scarred by life by his wife's pug, Fortune, on his wedding night. I think that dogs who seriously attack or kill, ie. consider children or adults as prey, are a different kettle of fish. I've never met such a dog, but if they exist, I vote PTS, and go after whoever bred them. But the ordinary dog, who may bite out of fear or misplaced attempts to play, or incompetent protection .. . may draw blood . . . chances of killing or seriously maiming are well below the dangers of a parent or sibling or lover killing the child, sibling, or lover.

Wonderful pickies everyone. Good for a smile. Thanks for posting. Makes me think more seriously about adding a small breed to my medium-large breed as I go from my 60's to my 70's. Though I still have my doubts about a dog you can't thump with a hard pat across the rib cage.

Personally, I'd put socialisation and skilled management above sanitation. I'm not advocating filth, but if you look at literal slum dogs, you'll find dogs do ok in dirt and eating garbage. If the socialisation test requires having your house burned down and seeing how well your dogs do in rescue, spare us all. Sure, there's room for skepticism of this breeder or that. The link I posted was to a kennel I spotted in looking for a possible stud dog. If you went to the Facebook page, you'll notice active communication with puppy buyers, pride taken in dogs placed in various situations . . . and if you looked at the adult dogs they are rehoming, all are described as house trained and good with children. You can't train a dog for field retrieving without establishing good rapport with the trainer . . . imparted in such a way that it will transfer to the owner. I'd be happy to be found wrong, but I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone who produces working gun dogs who doesn't also produce well socialised dogs. You must be skeptical in all directions. If you look at DOL puppy listings, you'll find that many of those who do poorly in terms of providing evidence of health testing etc., and who own one dog and one or two bitches and sell a litter couple litters a year . . . advertise prominently that their puppies are raised in a family environment around children. A family environment is good, but it doesn't make up for careful breeding. Some who boast about family raised make the boast because there is little else to recommend their dogs. I'd much rather buy a pup from a quality commercial breeder/trainer/boarding professional than pick up a pup from a backyarder whose main claim to fame is that they keep their dogs in the house and expose them to children. Small may or may not be good. I bought my foundation bitch as a two year old from a single lady who kept three or four dogs in her back yard and sold a couple litters a year. That girl, much as I loved her, and she wasn't bad by show standards, was always a little shy and unaccepting of cuddles, which is unusual with a Labrador, and hated water. Her descendants have been affectionate, outgoing, and happy to swim. I've seen bitches re-homed from larger breeders at six or seven, after four or five litters, who immediately took to their new families. Although I keep my dogs as house pets, I think there's immense anthropocentric hubris in assuming that a dog must be raised indoors and kept as a pet to be happy. Working dogs often aren't pets. . . . but working labs are often fantastic companions, even when they come from environments where there is a ratio of one (full time) human to twenty or so dogs. As with classrooms, where we all know that teacher quality and classroom size are critical, I think the availability of human attention, and the experience/success level of those in attendance, are points that need to be considered in evaluating breeders/kennels. Bottom line, I think you need to consider many aspects in evaluating a breeder. I think that in a well-rounded appraisal, you'll find that large-ish breeders who make dogs a full time occupation and cover their bases with respect to health issues, analysis of pedigrees, and allowing their dogs a decent life are a good bet. I think these folks are seriously threatened by the Animal Lib agenda. If you follow my posts, rather than go for cheap shots, you'll find I DO believe that dogs are sentient beings and do have rights. It's complicated. Those of you who are fast to judge and sling mud . . . I hope karma is more than wishful thiniking. Maybe my karma is down for hoping you got it coming. But I don't think you stand proud.

I wish there were a 'socialisation test' . . . if there were, I have no doubt that good commercial establishments . . . .generally family run kennels who do training and boarding as well as breeding, and who sell trained working dogs as well as puppies . . . would outrank most small hobby breeders. Why? Because they are able to devote full time to dog care and they have spent decades (in some cases, generations) learning their skills. I lived in a kennel zone in WA for many years and got familiar with all sorts of breeders. The worst abuse I saw was from people who had a full time job, a dozen of more dogs, including breeding dogs, and didn't have family participating in dog care. The best care I've seen is from the breeders most involved in providing pups to Guide Dogs, the police, and other service organisations who graduated from hobby to business, and who involved multiple family members and associates in dog care. In the well run establishments, there is a wait list for retired breedring bitches, and I know they adjust well to new homes. I have never observed a mega establishment with hundreds of dogs . . . I have no doubt that there are some horrors out there, and support reform measures, including shutting down those who can't or won't reform. I don't know if they can be run well . . . but if the number of hours of human attention devoted to each dog can be kept high, and the facilities available are good, I don't see, in theory, why not. I doubt that many of them are run well, because I'd guess the larger outfits end out spending much more of their resources in marketing etc. and can't keep the levels of quality staff required to do a good job. The point to opposing the anti-puppy mill movements is not to support puppy mills. It is to protect quality breeders who are vulnerable to being harassed and denigrated solely because they have more dogs than some people think is appropriate . . .or because they dare to breed dogs when there are dogs in rescue who need to be adopted. The nastyness of the language and weakness of the logic displayed in your posts attacking me is mild compared to what the PITA crowd do. But it gives a hint at the blind intolerance found in the animal liberation movements. I've started trying US dog forums . . . and am being told that breeders, generally, now keep low profiles to avoid harrassment. When I asked "Are there any breeders on this forum" on one of the major US dog forums, I got directed to DOL breeder's forum . . .cause the US discussion has now largely been driven underground. A few quotes: It is a somewhat hostile place for breeders these days It's really too bad that the bad breeders give all breeders a black eye. The good breeders tend to hide out because they don't want to get any backlash and that tends to perpetuate the problem because all the general public hears about are the puppy mills and crappy breeders. Just my two cents worth or in Cali, my ten cents worth. lol Large kennels have played a very important role in founding and developing the gun dog breeds (I don't know much about other groups but this may also be true of groups other than 3). I think those kennels and those who follow them, deserve to be honoured, not denigrated. Given widespread and increasingly harsh restrictions on dog ownership, it hard for people who don't own or have access to large properties to allow their dogs to run free. I'm sure many much loved dogs go weeks on end without being able to get into a full speed run or enjoy a good swim, or even play freely with a dog of comparable size and temperament. While an establishment with a few dozen dogs is going to have a hard time allowing all of them to sleep in the house, they may be able to provide benefits that the average house dog will never enjoy. My mother used to take her dog to a large country breeder's property when she took a long holiday. The dog, a much spoiled house pet, went nuts with pleasure when she felt she was going to the country property . . . and acted depressed when she came home. And to answer your rude question: I am one person who got into dog breeding late in life and who does not have adequate family or peer support to go beyond a few litters a year. Also, I like to have my dogs in the house, which gets messy when you have more than three or four dogs. So I'm scaling down, not scaling up . . . I haven't had a single litter for two years. Snipped the rest to respond to this strawman nonsense. Yes, some small breeders are neglectful as much as large breeders but so what? It isn't a justification. Honestly, I don't know why some of the puppyfarm apologists in these threads just don't go out and set one up themselves. You don't see anything wrong with it, so what's stopping you all? ah Sheridan, I love the way you cut thru crap!

p.s. Here's an example of the sort of kennel I want to make sure doesn't get hit by well meaning people who are against 'commercial' dog enterprises. Between breeding, training, boarding, and stud fees, these guys probably make a profit. . . . and work around the clock I'd say good on 'em. They're producing great dogs. They deserve it http://www.topdogretrievers.com/Labrador-Retriever-puppy-ca.html

I agree with mita. It's 10 times worse to neglect 100 dogs as to neglect 10 dogs. Large and neglectful establishments do a lot of harm. I don't see anyone sticking up for them. But I'm more than happy to stick up for someone who has devoted their life to breeding and raising quality dogs and finds (usually after decades of breeding / showing / training on a hobby basis) they can make a living out of producing dogs who fit into some social role. It can be an honorable and rewarding profession . . . unlikely to be lucrative . . . but rewarding.

Not to sound callous, but BFD. It's hardly news that a family dog bites one of the children in the family. It's usually a toddler. The bite is usually to the face. Often a few stitches are required. The adults should have supervised but didn't. For each child who gets bitten, there are a hundred who spend unsupervised time with the family dog and don't get bitten. I've had a small scar for fifty some years from a face bite I got as a toddler. My mother drank too much. My father worked all the time. It's going to take more than 'education' to prevent such accidents from happening . . . just as it will take more than 'education' to prevent siblings from beating each other up and occasionally breaking bones (I got bitten by a dog, yah, but I also broke my brother's arm . . . Mum was drunk . . . hence not attentive . . . and we could go on with the story about how she became alcoholic . . . yatta yatta yatta). Sounds to me like the journos are in a mood to whip up the anti-dog mood created by a horrid fatal attack.

All I can say is that I hope your daughter learns from the death of this pup. It had a bad start in life, she didn't do right by it and its gone. The only good that can come of this is that your daughter identifies where she went wrong and doesn't repeat the process. And what's with the other house having an unvaccinated pup?? Yes, I think she has definitely learnt a hard lesson poodlefan. And I'm sure she will never make the same mistake again. The other house only got their pup about five days ago, and simply hasn't got around to vaccinating it yet. The person who sold it to them, sold it unvaccinated It is upsetting that other breeders are selling pups unvaccinated (something I would never do), and it is upsetting that people are being slack and not getting pups vaccinated straight away. I guess people think it won't happen to them and think they'll get it done when they have some more time, or when they have some more money. But as this shows, it CAN happen and if you don't get a pup vaccinated ASAP then it is sometimes too late. It's very sad. Believe me I wish people were more careful, but what can you do? If I know somebody has an unvaccinated pet, I strongly encourage them to sort it out, but you can't hold a gun to their head. so sad! In defense, with a first puppy, especially if it was acquired by a young person from an irresponsible breeder, it's hard to know what is serious and what not. In the first litter I bred, I ended up paying a $100 vet bill for someone who took their pup to the vet cause it vomited. The diagnosis: carsickness. As a first-time breeder, I hadn't leaned not to feed the pups for a few hours before they went for a car ride. In a way I count myself lucky. If they hadn't taken the pup to the vet and it had been something serious, it could have ended tragically. I'm sure everyone has learned some lessons -- except the person who bred the pup. Breeders take note, puppy buyers need to be reminded that sick puppies can go from sick to dead quite quickly. Do not delay in getting a sick infant puppy to the vet. Not everyone knows this automatically.

If you're just walking the pup for the first time, meaning just finished jabs, you'll probably have enough on your mind and be taking short enough walks that greeting protocols shouldn't be a big issue. Eg, many pups fight the leash and you may need patience or suggestions to even get the pup walking properly. You'll get opinions every which way about what's right with respects to greeting other dogs. It depends on what sort of pup you have, what sort of dog you want, and what sort of dogs you're likely to run into. Great you're going to puppy pre-school. Bring the question up there and you should get some tips about how to set up positive encounters and how to keep encounters positive.

The study covered: " Dogs. . . routinely housed for their entire reproductive lives in cages or runs, and provided with minimal to no positive human interaction or other forms of environmental enrichment". I would not consider such facilities "well run" . . . I would consider them cruel. I also consider it cruel to keep a single dog confined in a back yard with minimal to no positive human interaction or environmental enrichment. Neither size, nor commercial viability is the deciding factor. It's whether the dog is allowed social interaction, stimulation, adequate food and shelter, etc. Many dogs delight in social interaction with other dogs, and a large kennel that gives dogs opportunity to spend a lot of time out of doors in social groups is often a great place from a dog's perspective. Some small scale breeders are every bit as neglectful of their dogs as "commercial" breeders. In my experience, well-cared for retired breeding dogs go right into a family setting with few adjustment problems . . . mine always slept on the bed and were allowed on the sofa, so most of the adjustment they had to do was in the form of learning new boundaries. Large kennels are nothing new and have played a major role in the establishment of some breeds. . . Sandringham kennels was established by King Edward VII in 1879 to house 100 dogs . . . pretty big I'd say . . . but not a puppy farm . . . a large fraction of the dogs housed there had / have extensive field training and far more opportunity to do dog things than most of our dogs will ever have. Many 'commercial' Lab breeders in the US make as much money off 'starting' pups as they do breeding them . . . and quite a few hunters prefer to pay three or more thousand dollars extra to get a started pup in part because they like the effects of a dog who gets lots of gentle early training and socialisation and recognise that it's hard for a family where everyone works 9 to 5 is not the best environment for a young pup. The largest breeder I worked with when I was in Australia took all her dogs (except young pups, bitches in season, etc.) for a long tromp across fields every day, and gave them a few hours in small groups in a large grassed exposure. It was a joy to watch and the dogs were beautifully adjusted. There is a real danger of society making rules based on size, rather than paying attention to how dogs are cared for. It won't get rid of neglect, and it will cause problems for some people who have devoted their lives to bettering a breed. Back to back breeding is a separate issue . . . I don't have access to veterinary journals at this point in my life . . . but when I did, I could not find any evidence that it was physiologically harmful. I'd imagine someone else can find the references on this.. . .the subject is well worked on DOL and no one seems to change their positions. I have never bred more than two litters in 18 months and never had more than 5 litters from one bitch. So I can't speak from personal experience. But the reproductive specialist vets I know tell me there's not a problem. I am quite happy to poo-pooh the notion of 'poor girl' 'forced' to have puppies. My girls always got very jealous of whoever had pups. Most of them would get milk and work their way into the whelping box to be with the pups when one of the other girls had pups. (I'm down to 2 girls now, one spayed, the other not yet bred . . . so I write in past tense).

The attack may have been mentioned in the other thread . . . but the other thread is basically a pole. I hate seeing within the family dog attacks make headlines, especially if they aren't accompanied by warnings that family dogs need socialisation and children must be supervised around dogs. Occasional bites been a part of life since dogs were taken into the human family, and have happened to people in high places as well as everyday folks. Napoleon was bitten and scarred for life by Josephine's pug, Fortune, on their wedding night. Sigmund Freud's Chow bit his official biographer. James Thurber wrote a lovely story called "The Dog Who Bit People" about a family Airdale who bit everyone. He recounts that his mother gave a box of chocolates at Xmas to everyone the dog bit, and she gave away a lot of chocolates. So what? If you don't socialize dogs properly, or raise them to be protective, or don't adequately watch them around children, bites are likely. A bite is different from an attack. Bites aren't good, but people get over them.

I'm sure there are other people upset by the same dogs and if the rangers don't respond, you'd be doing a favour to go up the hierarchy with complaints. If the rangers are not responding appropriately, you can always 1) complain to your councilman or woman 2) complain to your mayor 3) complain to the CEO of your shire if there are issues with the elected officials (I once had to do this in Cockburn WA when the mayor and most of the council were indicted on corruption charges). I'd try the mayor first. I once spent a lot of time talking to my local council person about a problem of non-enforcement. She finally said, I'll do what I can, but you really should talk to the mayor. He's in a much better position to do something. This turned out to be good advice.

There are lots of questions to be answered, but I disagree that it doesn't mean much. These data are much more meaningful than the normal garbage descriptions of lifespan that come with breed descriptions . . . by in large we have no idea where those numbers came from. If someone says XXX breed has a lifespan of 12 years, does it account for accidental deaths of puppy mortality? Is it collected stories from people whose dogs had long healthy lifespans? Does it exclude 2 of 10 dogs who had to be pts due to some disorder? Longevity figures mean more to me than any other health data, particularly if they are accompanied by cause of death stats. Scandanavians in general, and Finns, especially, are notable for high standards and conscientious dog ownership, and I'd guess this data is as clean as it gets. As for 'benchmarks' . . . not sure what you are proposing. Benchmarks are usually high quality data used to make comparisons of trends over time, space, or some other dimension. The UK 2004 study, if I remember, had low (~15%) response rates and there are quite a few problems with study design (eg, no responses from GSD's). If anything, I'd say the Finnish data may begin to serve as a benchmark. It's sad that data of equal quality don't seem to be showing up elsewhere. Unfortunately the English interface to the Finnish database is down (good of them to provide an English interface, though), making it hard for most of us to work with the data. The respondents in the PDE discussion say that everyone in the KC has internet access to the database and are encouraged to report on their dog(s) over time. From reading what the Finnish respondents report, a few things pop out. (1) response rates are high. To get >2000 German Shephard responses in a country where there are 145,000 members in the kennel club is impressive. (2) the low longevity numbers reflect high reporting of deaths for young dogs. I tend to discount the anecdotal 'I had a XXX(breed) who lived to be 15, and another who lived to 12' . . . because the people who had to put their puppy to sleep at three don't participate in the conversation. We tend to discount the dogs who die young.

For perspective . . . in California, any reported dog bite is followed up on nearly immediately and the dog is put into quarantine for observation for a week . . . unless the report is made more than 10 days after the incident. The motive for the law is rabies control, but rabies is very rare, so most of the dogs impounded are just biters. My county takes the law seriously. I had a malicious person report a 6 mo old Labrador pup who put a tooth into him when he was playing with her. Fortunately, he didn't report it for two weeks so they didn't impound, but they would have if he had filed within 10 days. (Maybe they wouldn't have, cause the fellow owns two adult pit bulls, and it would be hard to prove that my pup bit him and not one of his dogs.) If your dog is impounded you get fees galore. You pay for the ranger visit. You pay daily fees for the impoundment. And if you haven't registered your dog, you get to pay high penalties for non-registration. Although I didn't appreciate the attempt to use this law against me maliciously, I think it's a good system . . . it sure provides an incentive for people with mean dogs to keep them confined, and in the old days when there was more rabies around, it probably did a good job of getting rabid animals off the streets.

I guess the PDE Blog is a little taboo here, but there's recently been an excellent discussion going on the subject of longevity with many links to studies. It includes presentation of data from Finnish kennel club which haven't been published in English, and seem to be the highest quality data available since the UK study of 2004. See http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/10/lifespan-long-and-short-of-it.html a couple extracts (btw, the Finns seem to report early/puppy deaths and accident deaths too, so they end out with lower average lifespan that you might expect). Ulla Ruistola said... Finnish Kennel Club collects the cause of deaths and dates also. Owners report by themselves. Koiranetti (unfortunately only in Finnish) shows that: English Bulldogs dies at the age 5 years 3 months (113 dogs) Russian Black Terrier: 4 y 6 m (62) Neapolitan Mastiff : 4 y 11 m (17) Dogue de Bordeaux: 6 y (54) Kooikerhondje: 7 y 4 m (29) Pyrenean Sheepdog: 10 y 10 m (39) Miniature Bull Terrier: 3 y 8 m (6) Shar-pei: 5 y 1 m (37) Great Dane: 6 y 4 m (306) (yellows only) Bloodhound: 7 y (50) Mastiff: 6 y 1 m (38) Shiba Inu: 5 y 4 m (13) St Bernard: 5 y 9 m (55) (short haired) Irish Wolfhound: 5 y 9 m (218) Leonburger: 7 y 1 kk (318) Finnish Lapphund: 10 y (505) Bullmastiff: 6 y 9 m (216) Bernese Mountain Dog: 6 y 11 m (491) Nova Scotia Tolling Retriever: 7 y 11 m (216) Cesky Terrier: 8 y 9 m (14) Maija Vilppo said... Like I posted earlier there are 2207 German Shepherds with cause of death in Finnish KC database. If you leave out the - 130 dogs listed as accidental deaths (averarge age of death 4yrs 3months) - 9 dogs reported missing - 1 dog killed by a predator (bear, wolf ect) - 67 dogs put down for behaviour related causes (average age of death 4yrs) - 398 dogs with no cause of death given (average age of death for those 7yrs 4 months) - 424 dogs who are reported to have died of old age (mentioned in my earlier post, average age of death 11yrs 6months.) You get 1178 German Shepherds dying of health related causes, that's more than half (53% ) of the total. The most common ones are: - Cancers and tumours (257 dogs, 8yrs 9 months) - Bone or joint diseases including athritis in hips & elbows (255 dogs, 4yrs 9months) - Back diseases including spondylosis and joint deformities (100 dogs, 7yrs) - Liver and intestinal diseases including bloat, megaesofagus and liver hypofunction (69 dogs, 6yrs 3months) - Skin and ear diseases including allergies and atopies (56 dogs, 4yrs 11months ) Also likely some of those with no cause of death listed have also died of health related reasons. Granted that is only one breed in one country but the sample size is large enough.

Santa Cruz County (California) charges $40 for spay or neuter. You must show tax returns to document that you are low income to get the subsidy. Funding comes through local government. If I remember right, barn cats (semi-feral) can be done for $20.

Longevity studies are hard to find for dogs. The most complete and credible seems to be reported in the following link: http://www.thekennel...org.uk/item/549 It is too detailed for summary . . . provides links to give you mortality and morbidity data for all breeds for which adequate data were reported. KC/BSAVA Purebred Dog Health Survey 2004 The Kennel Club/British Small Animal Veterinary Association Scientific Committee joined forces with scientists in the Epidemiology Unit at the Animal Health Trust to carry out a nationwide survey of UK purebred dogs and, with the help of owners, to identify important health conditions in UK dog breeds during 2004. The Kennel Club Charitable Trust committed substantial funds to support this project, which could only succeed with the help of owners. Questionnaires were sent to the numerically largest club of each breed, and secretaries were asked to send them out to their members. Only the largest club of each breed was selected to try and avoid duplication, and also to limit the vast number, and therefore cost, of the 70,000 forms needed. The questionnaire was divided in different sections, concentrating on different types of information. There were questions on the health of the owner's dogs, breeding, causes of death and birth defects in any puppies. Breed clubs have received detailed feedback on the results of this survey where breed response rate was at least 15%, which should greatly assist with the recognition and control of important conditions in specific breeds. Data gathered from this survey will provide baseline information against which the success of future control schemes can be measured.