Don Burke Just Accused Rspca Of Cruelty

[GeckoTree]

He may have inhaled some bad compost.

[dancinbcs]

Nobody takes the gardener seriously.

Unfortunately the general public that know as little about dogs as the Gardener, do take him very seriously. He is the main reason we now have all these DD puppy farms in Australia. He promoted the whole idea after back stabbing the purebred breeders, who had supported his show by providing dogs for the roadtests, for so many years.

He seems to believe that dogs are better bred as livestock for profit, rather than in the loving homes of dedicated breeders, who devote their lives to the betterment of their breeds.

[Tapferhund]

Just think about it......Don the Jerk Burke is p*ssed off because recently the RSPCA actually "came out" (lol) and stated puppy farms must be closed down and that puppies should be bought from reputable registered breeders........and guess WHO , in the past , has ALWAYS supported "designer" dogs...even going as far as recommending certain puppy farms like that B-awful Croydon/Longford mob as the best place for people to get their new pup/s from ?....DON BL**DY BURKE !!!

Sooo ...does Don Burke have monetary interests in these farms??? I would say YES!!!!

I once told him he should stick to what he knows best.........WEEDS!

Edited August 21, 2010 by Tapferhund

[Linda K]

So lemme get this straight...

Responsible breeders that breed say, pugs, are cruel because they're continuing those unhealthy characteristics.

And Responsible breeders who breed, maybe cavaliers, are also cruel, because of the problems that breed has.

But if you breed a cavalier and a pug together, you're magically healing all these issues and deserve a gold medal?

Got it in one

[Pointees]

Nobody takes the gardener seriously.

[koalathebear]

jacqui835: I really hope you don't get annihilated because although I am aware that this forum should be focussing on discussions of purebreds and should not be promoting crossbreeds/DDs and that sort of thing, I would have though that a discussion forum dedicated to purebred discussions should also be very upfront and frank about talking about health issues in detail so that people buying a purebred go in with their eyes wide open. If purebreed breeders and those who love purebreeds truly believe in their principles, then they shouldn't be afraid of robust debate, scrutiny and criticism. I don't think that criticising certain aspects of the way breeding of purebreeds is done necessarily equates bashing purebreeds or promoting crossbreeds.

Given how expensive some purebreds are, I think it's absolutely critical for a puppy buyer to know everything they can about their potential dog - the pluses and especially the minuses of their breed. For instance, I usually need to look to places other than DOL for a frank "warts and all" discussion of certain purebreds and what to worry about. Some to be comparatively healthy in the scheme of things - kelpies, border collies, aussies blah blah. Then I read about some dogs that seem quite troubled. For instance, the doberman - beautiful dog but even the young dogs are frequently plagued by a wealth of genetic illnesses. The French Bulldog - absolutely adorable and apparently one of the healthier of the bull breeds but most litters need to be delivered by caesarean section and apparently many French bulldog stud dogs are incapable of naturally breeding - doesn't this say that there are things that need to be studied further? I won't enter into the pug debate. We have a gorgeous Bernese Mountain Dog puppy at our dog school which made me look up the breed because it was soooooooo cute and I'd never heard of it before. I found out that it's a relatively short-lived breed compared to breeds of similar size and purebred dogs in general - apparently they have a median longevity of 7 years in USA/Canada whereas breeds of similar size have median longevities of 10 to 11 years. That would definitely be a consideration for me when picking out a dog - not just that the dog might die after 7 years, but it might die in horrible pain.

I think it's easy to get defensive and this frequently shuts down and/or stymies debates that should take place. It's really easy to throw out the baby with the bathwater and dismiss a whole argument/critique just because it comes from an unattractive and possibly revolting source but that doesn't mean that there isn't a single kernel of validity or something worth thinking about in there.

The fact that I want to know if my cute little dog is likely to suffer HD, go blind or have a short lifespan does not mean I want to go out and get a puppy farm dog or that I am against purebreeds in general. No breed is perfect. They all have good and bad. I just want to know exactly what the pluses and minuses are so that I will know if these are minuses that I can live with and will suit MY lifestyle and circumstances.

Also, I realise that this is not the right thread to be having the discussion on but I really would love (one day) to read one consolidated thread in which the pluses and minuses of the various breeds are discussed - from a purely health perspective so that it doesn't disintegrate into Breed Wars. The only thread I've ever seen seemed to devolve into a critique of pugs which wasn't very productive and had little general usefulness.

Edited August 21, 2010 by koalathebear

[RallyValley]

koala the bear try the various breed 101 threads where genetic issues/general breed health are discussed. Please don't try to imply that some of the awesome breeders on here hide genetic problems in thier breeds. Also if you are really interested in a breed talk to some breeders about health issues, good ones will be entirely honest.

[koalathebear]

koala the bear try the various breed 101 threads where genetic issues/general breed health are discussed. Please don't try to imply that some of the awesome breeders on here hide genetic problems in thier breeds. Also if you are really interested in a breed talk to some breeders about health issues, good ones will be entirely honest.

Breeds 101 is certainly a very helpful sub-forum but it's basically providing responses to a template by breeders/owners of a pedigree dog and isn't supposed to be a place for detailed discussion as such. Also, in response to the "Are there any common hereditary problems a puppy buyer should be aware of?", while the problems are mentioned, it's difficult to get a sense of exactly how common they are. For instance, the 101 Fact sheets state that HD can take place in lots of different breeds of dogs but really how likely is it in a certain breed is it almost a dead certainty or you'd have to REALLY unlucky for it to happen to your dog of that breed. The breed sub-forums are wonderful and filled with gorgeous photographs - but very long. I'm still wading through the 50 page kelpie sub-forum (up to page 44 of 50 and that's small by comparison to others. There are always the "what sort of dog should I get" threads which are also helpful but the quality of the info being provided can vary.

Also, I have always been extremely polite on this forum and have nothing but respect for reputable breeders so any underhanded implication is being made by you vis-à-vis my motives rather than me vis-à-vis the motives of others I'll just assume that your conclusion about my comments was simply because you don't know me. Really, I am just trying to say that: (1) it shouldn't be a problem just because someone takes a pot shot at pedigrees; (2) it shouldn't be a problem to have frank and open debates about health problems that plague dogs (regardless of breed); and (3) it's a shame that potentially useful/informative debates always seem to get get shut down or hijacked here. Then again, that's probably just the nature of the beast so I shall let the matter rest in case my plaintive wish for open and rational discussion gets wrongfully mistaken as partisanship for the enemy - I have no desire to sow further discord. Fin.

Edited August 21, 2010 by koalathebear

[raineth]

koalathebear, I completely understand what you are saying, and Jacqui835.

There are wonderful breeders out there, no doubt about that. But there are also a lot of dodgy things happening with the registered breeding of dogs. It will get better if it can be talked about more openly.

I do find it interesting that breedings that have so much effort and thought put into them, don't always result in a dog that is more sound in body and more sound in mind, than their non-pedigree counterparts.

I love pedigrees, and admire so much those breeders that do things properly. I just think that there is such variance among pedigree breeders and the not-so-good ones 'let the whole team down', so to speak.

[RallyValley]

If someone was to come into the Chessie breed 101 forum (no wading there, it about 2 pages max) and say " I was thinking of this breed what are the health issues?" I would be happy to link them to the American Chesapeake Club's breed health surveys, talk them through vertical pedigrees and OFA. I am fairly certain the only limit to discussion in breed 101 is breaching forum rules (i.e talking breed/judge poltics or naming and shaming).

I am also fairly certain someone started a thread about "What health issues are in your breed?" and quite a few people replied but it died out fairly quick because it's not a very interesting discussion to have across such a broad cross section of breeds who all have such completely different issues and concerns. Also one can not say for e.g 'Labs are very likely to get HD' as it very much depends on lines, and even then I have heard of several litters where parents had hip scores that were well below breed average and managed to throw dysplatic pups. I think I would be unlucky to have Lincoln dysplaytic, I know certain Chessie lines in the states that are less careful that I would be lucky to get a non dysplatic pup.

Sorry to get off topic everyone!

[oakway]

Burke by name burke by nature.

[Evolving]

You never know it may be the best thing to happen for a lot of people on here.

If the massive ego's on both sides get into a big fight over it both sides may come out looking bad and everyone will see the dark side of them.

[moosmum]

When members of the general public do the right thing in researching their chosen breed to be sure it will fit into their life style and look around for a breeder,most will assume that the breeders are regulated in such a way as to be constantly improving the dog.In all ways.

A dog with some times centuries of selective breeding behind should be a very clearly superior specimen to a dog with accidental breeding in its whole back ground. After all,a breeder has chosen to be a custodian for their breed.

When these people unfamiliar with the real dog world bring home a puppy with health or temerament issues,or simply does not fit their expectations of the breed standard as they understood it Then find they have no recourse from a breeder who proves to be less than ethical, it does nothing to improve the situation breeders are facing more and more.

Its all very well saying"you didn't do your research".That does nothing to make it better.Especialy if they chose their pup from the most decorated of lines.

This must realy get up the truely ethical breeders noses some thing bad!

While breeders allow those unethical members to conitnue,there will always be people wanting to criticise who have grounds to do so.

Maybe a constructive thread on what action is expected of the controlling registries to over come the problems, and become as near as possible,beyond reproach.

[oakway]

You never know it may be the best thing to happen for a lot of people on here.

If the massive ego's on both sides get into a big fight over it both sides may come out looking bad and everyone will see the dark side of them.

Could we be so lucky.

[Red Fox]

Breeds 101 is certainly a very helpful sub-forum but it's basically providing responses to a template by breeders/owners of a pedigree dog and isn't supposed to be a place for detailed discussion as such. Also, in response to the "Are there any common hereditary problems a puppy buyer should be aware of?", while the problems are mentioned, it's difficult to get a sense of exactly how common they are. For instance, the 101 Fact sheets state that HD can take place in lots of different breeds of dogs but really how likely is it in a certain breed is it almost a dead certainty or you'd have to REALLY unlucky for it to happen to your dog of that breed. The breed sub-forums are wonderful and filled with gorgeous photographs - but very long. I'm still wading through the 50 page kelpie sub-forum (up to page 44 of 50 and that's small by comparison to others. There are always the "what sort of dog should I get" threads which are also helpful but the quality of the info being provided can vary.

In the case of HD you would need to look at the breed average to determine how common it is, and what is acceptable in that particular breed. A breed with a low average would have less chance of developing HD than a breed with a high average.

Finding out more about breed related problems and how common they are is not really that difficult. Google the breed, google the health issues that may arise in/are common in that breed, google the averages, (and if looking at a puppy) ask the breeder about the problems, ask to see certificates/results. If you've already done your research you will know roughly what the results mean and if they are acceptable. You would also want to look at the health of other dogs of the some line or breeding - so parents/grandparents/siblings of each/other offspring from those parents...

But when it comes to buying a cross breed puppy this all changes.. the breed related health problems might be completely different, so instead of having say 3 common hereditary issues to worry about there may be 6 or 7, or you might be doubling up on a breed that shares the same issue - say high risk of PRA. Not to mention that the conformation of some breeds being crossed to create DD is so entirely different that it becomes a problem in itself..

In some cases your average mutt may well be healthier, but in the case of DDs being produced by PFs for the pet market that's normally not the case at all.

At least with pedigree dogs you are able to trace back health problems and have some idea of what you may be getting

[jacqui835]

So lemme get this straight...

Responsible breeders that breed say, pugs, are cruel because they're continuing those unhealthy characteristics.

And Responsible breeders who breed, maybe cavaliers, are also cruel, because of the problems that breed has.

But if you breed a cavalier and a pug together, you're magically healing all these issues and deserve a gold medal?

Got it in one

Well I certainly don't agree with that. I tried to make it clear that I did think that pure breeds deserve to be preserved and I certainly don't condone puppy farmers for several reasons which I've already stated. I was instead concerned more with the deliberate trend if you like to accentuate and exaggerate certain characteristics in breeds - such as breeding to make the faces shorter, backs more er slopey etc and the fact that although the breed standards have existed for many years, some breeds have continued to change quite dramatically and there seem to be many cases where this has unfortunately been predominantly to their detriment. This forum presents an opportunity for me (as merely someone who is curious and a dog adorer) to learn more about the attitudes of the pure breed community to these sorts of issues and trends. My current view is that it is cruel to breed to maintain or increase what would appear to be detrimental features in dogs, and again, I want to state that I don't think everyone is doing this or that it takes place intentionally in all breeds. I am always interested to learn more and hear other opinions - I'm only 23 and I've owned only a handful of breeds - the bucket is hardly full.

Health testing is certainly advisable, but when you elect to buy a pure breed, it seems to become essentially mandatory because the dogs seem to have a much higher inbreeding coefficient and so genetic problems are more likely to arise. That said, you breed two breeds together that both have the same problems, well, 1+1 is never going to equal 0. Hybrid vigour is certainly not guaranteed, but it does exist and there are dog breeds that carry separate conditions that can hence potentially benefit from out crossing.

Don Burke has probably led to more dogs ending up in shelters in Australia than, well, just about anyone else for the simple reason that if you watch his road tests, he offers guarantees about certain breeds and crosses. He presents himself as a knowledgeable authority and then basically describes dogs as though they are inorganic, non-reactive organisms - that if you buy a particular breed, you will have this, or buy a cross breed and the only option is the best of both. And he doesn't say it's a possibility, just says it is. How many dogs end up in pounds every year because people say they didn't know the dog would be like it is? Because they didn't know that in order to be the dog they wanted, it needed more than food and water?

[RallyValley]

Also koalathebear google OFA they have average statistics for most breeds and a table comparing them. However they are American and in some breeds some statistics are skewed (eg. PRA for Chessies many dogs have been known A clear or several generations with only A to A matings happening so only dogs that are suspected carriers or effected are tested, making it seem like a very high persentage of the breed has or carries PRA when the reality is a very large percentage of the breed is A clear so no testing is done.

[Adza]

I thought his shows were just about gardens! when did he become a specialist in dogs?

What a fool

How can he sit there and blame the RSPCA? why didn't he get off his botanic behind and take it further if his so concerned??

[HeavyPaws]

My mum met him at at botanic gardens morning tea a few years ago and told him he was a bumbling moron and chewed him out for some particulars she'd been holding onto for years.

He used to have these books, not sure if anyone remembered them, that came with some of the older issues of the magazine, that described a few species of plants, a few of birds, and a few animal breeds.

She held a grudge for most of my teenage years about his recommendation that cockatoos were perfect kid's pets, and how lettuce is good for rabbits, and also something about some palm tree or something. I kindof tuned out, a la teenage girl.

Whenever he'd come on tv she'd snort and go "Huh, that Don Burke, if I ever met him, oh I'd..."

And one day, she got her eternal wish.

Lock them in a room together for an hour and he'd take back everything he ever said to offend her. Tongue of flame, that one

[*Bones*]

Burke has hated the ANKC for a couple of decades, and does whatever he can to rubbish purebred dogs and their breeders.

All he has ever done is ensured lots of nice families bought unhealthy dogs and that dogs continued to suffer in puppy farms.

Well done, Mr. Burke.

Any and all dogs can suffer from hereditary problems, not just registered dogs. By purchasing a dog from someone who took some care with hereditary problems, as well as neonatal health, the buyer has more chance of obtaining a healthy pet.