Martin Clunes: Life With Dogs

[Gayle.]

But I think we'd be hard pressed to find a purebreed that doesn't have problems in its breed? I think it would be close to truth to say that most purebred breeds have some sort of health problem within that breed.

And this is where the mis-interpretion lies, I believe....the one between health issues in purebreds as opposed to cross-breds. People assume purebreds have health issues because they are purebred, and this is true....it's the early inbreeding and linebreeding that set the features but also set the heritable diseases. So they assume that crossbreeds don't have the same issues....but this isn't true because crossbreeds are the product of purebreds, although not the same type, and the heritable diseases are still there and still happening.

[Jed]

I didn't think there was much negativity against purebreds at all. He just spoke the truth You can't deny humans have created the problems that we see in our purebreds today. I only heard him mention HD, which is no secret in many breeds, SM in Cavs - again something which has been shown to be very widespread in the breed and the mention of Bulldogs needing C-Sections atleast 50% of the time - again, isn't this common knowledge? These problems aren't going to go away whilst we deny they exist.

Great series and an absolute credit to him.

I thought it was a good program but I wished he had researched what he said more carefully - but I guess it is only an hours entertainment on a Saturday night and didn't matter much.

"Common knowledge" is the problem - sorry to pick on you stormie. SM is widespread in Cavaliers. The incidence in Aus is believed to be less than 1%. How widespread is that? Bulldogs need caesarians 50% of the time ..... has anyone ever seen any hard figures for that? I can't find any, and I've been looking. Bulldogs had problems 30 years ago, but apparently breeders bred away from them -- that's all I can find.

It's like BSL - something was on TV, in the news and now everyone believes it, so it becomes fact.

Sorry to keep beating a tired horse here, but all this stuff will and IS affecting the future of purebred dogs.

All dogs bite, but now people believe pit bulls bite a lot more than other dogs.

All dogs have health problems, but now people believe only purebred dogs have health problems.

Remember the damage Don Burke did with the rubbish he sprouted on TV - because people believed him.

[stormie]

Thats ok Jed, I don't see it as picking on me. A good discussion about the health of our breeds is never a bad thing!

With regards to the SM thing, I would have to disagree with you. Georgina Childs (Neuro) did a study just in Feb this year in conjunction with the NSW Cav Club. Out of the 60 ASYMPTOMATIC dogs which were planned to be bred with, 50% had SM syrinxes.

In May 2005, Dr. Rusbridge and Susan P. (Penny) Knowler, BSc (Hons), who have been studying the disease in several hundreds of Cavaliers, reported that a conservative estimate is that at least 50% of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels have a degree of Chiari-like malformation, although not all are so severely affected as to have syringomyelia. In February 2010, Dr. Georgina Child, board certified veterinary neurologist in Australia, reported that of 60 asymptomatic Cavaliers scanned as potential breeding stock, 50% had SM syrinxes.

4February 2010: MRI scans of Australian CKCS breeding stock shows 50% with SM. Dr. Georgina Child, board certified veterinary neurologist at the Small Animal Specialist Hospital in North Ryde, NSW, Australia, spoke to the CKCS Club of NSW about syringomyelia this month and reported that of 60 Cavaliers which have been MRI scanned under the SM breeding protocol, 50% have been found to have syrinxes on their MRIs. None of these scanned dogs had any symptoms of SM, and all were potential breeding stock. Their syrinxes ranged from 2 mm to over 5 mm in size.

I'm not saying xbreds don't have problems, but that's not the issue here. We're dealing about the future of our Purebreds and whilst there are the health problems that exist, people are going to hear about them.

Isn't this the reason we educate people to go to registered breeders who health test? Because we know the problems exist and do our best to avoid them? I just get so frustrated when people (and I'm not picking on anyone in particular here at all) get annoyed when people, vets, etc talk about the problems in purebred dogs like they don't exist. They do exist and are certainly a problem, IMO. But whilst we ignore it and just stick our heads in the sand pretending it's all lies, it's not going to get any better.

I think the main problem is not that these shows say that purebreds have problems, but they they don't mention that xbreds are thus prone to exactly the same problems that purebreds are, if those breeds are used in the cross.

Edited September 19, 2010 by stormie

[stormie]

But I think we'd be hard pressed to find a purebreed that doesn't have problems in its breed? I think it would be close to truth to say that most purebred breeds have some sort of health problem within that breed.

And this is where the mis-interpretion lies, I believe....the one between health issues in purebreds as opposed to cross-breds. People assume purebreds have health issues because they are purebred, and this is true....it's the early inbreeding and linebreeding that set the features but also set the heritable diseases. So they assume that crossbreeds don't have the same issues....but this isn't true because crossbreeds are the product of purebreds, although not the same type, and the heritable diseases are still there and still happening.

exactly

[mita]

I thought it was a good program but I wished he had researched what he said more carefully - but I guess it is only an hours entertainment on a Saturday night and didn't matter much.

"Common knowledge" is the problem - sorry to pick on you stormie. SM is widespread in Cavaliers. The incidence in Aus is believed to be less than 1%. How widespread is that? Bulldogs need caesarians 50% of the time ..... has anyone ever seen any hard figures for that? I can't find any, and I've been looking. Bulldogs had problems 30 years ago, but apparently breeders bred away from them -- that's all I can find.

It's like BSL - something was on TV, in the news and now everyone believes it, so it becomes fact.

Sorry to keep beating a tired horse here, but all this stuff will and IS affecting the future of purebred dogs.

All dogs bite, but now people believe pit bulls bite a lot more than other dogs.

All dogs have health problems, but now people believe only purebred dogs have health problems.

Couldn't agree more. The same 'thing' has been said so many times now, on TV programs that reach the Australian public, that it's turned into 'fact'... purebred dogs inevitably carry both health problems and uncomfortable muscular-skeletal forms.

Each time, UK stats about one breed, in particular, Cavs, are repeated. Also the big heads of bulldogs are pointed to. And hip problems are pulled in, too, fingers pointing at the nearest breed, Labs or Cockers, will do.

The same programs are never followed with in-depth information which questions this 'sound bite'. All purebred dogs are shonky because they are purebred. The underlying message being... Mixed-breed dogs are not shonky because they're not purebred.

What really is shonky, is the logic.

What should be said:

Stats selected relate to breeds in another country...the UK. They are NOT Australian.

And they're NOT northern European, either, where comparisons between purebreds & mixed breeds resulted in a bunch of pure breeds coming out on top re longevity.

In the Martin Clunes program, it was said that poodles are one of the 'raddled' breeds in the UK, with high incidence of epilepsy. Funny that, because over the North Sea, in Scandanavia, poodles emerged as in the top sturdy group. Doesn't that say that bloodlines, plus decisions made by breeders, might be different there? So might this not be the same in Australia?

What is bred, depends on the decisions made by those who breed. That means there won't be a common outcome for every single dog of a certain breed, in every country on god's earth. It also means that decisions made, on the whole, by Australian breeders, may be very different from those made by breeders in the UK. And this may especially apply to certain specific breeds.

Surely if there were overwhelming presence of problems here, the 'customers' & treating vets would've revolted long ago. That, apparently, is what brought things to a head in the UK.

Strangely, this matter when it comes up in Australia, keeps going round and round about UK issues as if we're part of the United Kingdom. And all that happens there.

No one is arguing that breeds & specific bloodlines within breeds can need attention re genetic health & functioning issues.

But purebred dog breeding is, in fact, the one area which lends itself to making corrections, because the registering of pedigrees allows both breadth & depth tracking of dogs with problems. That's also left out of the 'sound bite', all purebreds are shonky.

Edited September 19, 2010 by mita

[griff]

Love the program

But the normal Joe Blow Hangs on to "high profile persons" words

and again will pick up that Purebreds are all inbred and maybe

not the way to go when adding a dog to the family .

[ravenau1]

Arrrgghhh! I forgot about it and went out to dinner! Will have to track down the dvd

[Jed]

UK Cavalier Club

The diagnosis of syringomyelia is easily confirmed by MRI but neurologists have yet to define what is meant by the term 'clear' given that most cavaliers have a degree of skull malformation. The late onset of clinical signs and the number of asymptomatic dogs adds to the complexity of the condition. Not enough is known about long term progression to ascertain the optimum age young dogs should be screened for the disease

And the recommendation if the dog is over 2.5, CM is present, but the dog is asymptomatic, to breed to a dog of A status.

Mita

The same programs are never followed with in-depth information which questions this 'sound bite'. All purebred dogs are shonky because they are purebred. The underlying message being... Mixed-breed dogs are not shonky because they're not purebred.

What really is shonky, is the logic.

Exactly. And the only people who believe it Mita, are those who do more research than is presented to them on popular TV programs

There is NO future for purebred dogs. Not because people don't want them - they do - but because breeders are walking away, and will continue to walk away.

And the breeding of some breeds will be banned, for health reasons, as the ownership of pitbulls is banned for the safety of the public.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Jed

[mita]

There is NO future for purebred dogs. Not because people don't want them - they do - but because breeders are walking away, and will continue to walk away.

I can understand why. Even tho' the evidence is that the majority of registered purebred breeders do a damn good job. And the majority of pet owners who get puppies from those registered breeders would support that.

That's what gets to me. This purebred always equals shonky stuff is not coming from the 'customers' in Australia. It's being pipelined across the distance from the UK, where there's different bloodlines and different breeding decisions made by different people.

At the same time, there's a huge reaction building against puppy farming, in Australia. With all sorts of possible remedies thrown around. One of them, rarely mentioned, should be to highlight and support (not hinder) the work of the sound registered breeders. Everything they already do, cuts across what would constitute puppy farming.

[jacqui835]

I think the sentence that made the show's presentation wobble a bit for me regarding pure breeds was the voiceover while we were looking at a chi at a show; something like 'If human brothers and sisters have sex it's illegal and they're arrested. When dog brothers and sisters breed we call it pedigree and the best ones win a prize.'

Well it's the truth... Not all breeders choose to breed close relatives now, though some do, but all breeds were created by breeding individuals from the same litters or back to their parents - the evidence of which can be seen when you examine the genetic diversity between two supposedly non-related members of the same breed. They have next to none. This is fine if the individuals only have good characteristics to pass on to begin with, but of course, that just wasn't the case and even today it's still impossible to test for every negative gene. And additionally, the purpose for which they were intentionally bred does not necessarily bode well for the dog. Anyone who looks at a pug or bull dog or daschund or other breed with extreme characteristics and tries to claim otherwise is kidding themselves. But Martin didn't just talk about the detrimental effects, he also explained the roles and justifications for this kind of breeding. I like pure breds simply because I like having a better idea of what to expect and hence being able to match myself up with a more suitable breed that has a better chance of fitting in with my lifestyle.

I thought it was an excellent program. Demonstrated what dogs were capable of when selectively bred for specific traits but didn't hide from the negative side of it either. Didn't seem to lie, exagerate or only show half the story. Seemed very balanced to me and thoroughly enjoyable to boot .

EDIT: If mixed breed dogs have diseases and inherit genetic issues, they don't have them because they're mixed breeds or from their wolf descendents, they have them because we have selectively bred them in a such a way that we have reduced their natural genetic diversity and resistance to disease etc as we bred for other characteristics, and they happened to inherit the same susceptibilities from both of their parents. Dingoes and wolves typically live a lot longer in captivity (up to 20 years with constant food and worming facilities etc) than most of our domestic purebred dogs do, especially for a large dog - there are of course exceptions but these are notably exceptions. So today, health testing should be carried out on all dogs - mixed or pure - they're all so closely related anyway.

Edited September 19, 2010 by jacqui835

[huski]

Regarding SM in Cavaliers, I've heard that it IS a lot more common in than the stats show because it often goes undiagnosed or misdiagnosed.

[Jed]

Not sure about that one Huski, many who do not have SM are diagosed with it. A few have been diagnosed at 10 - 12 weeks which is impossible.

I personally think the incidence of both SM and MVD is increasing due to puppy farms and registered BYB who haven't done their homework.

I think, now there is more awareness of Sm, breeders will be careful. Unfortunately, the breeders who WOULD be careful don't breed any more.

[sas]

I enjoyed it.

I did wonder if people would mis-interpret what he said as it sounded like he was saying all Pedigrees were inbred and being inbred is what makes a Pedigree and therefore it's the inbreeding that causes all the health problems.

In the end....dogs are what we made them.

But all pedigree dogs ARE inbred, not necessarily by current breeders but almost certainly by the early caretakers of the breeds , and that IS what caused a lot of the health problems.

I'm not sure you really get what I'm saying. Say for example you take one dog and breed it to an unrelated dog then that isn't classed as inbreeding or even line breeding (that specific mating and on the inbreeding calculator wouldn't score very high at all).

Humans are as inbred as animals if you're talking about the creation of animals.

I totally get that the problems breeds have is because of of early inbreeding. What I am saying, is that I worried people may have mis-interpeted what he said....for example you're Joe Blow and you just learned that Inbreeding creates problems so you go to your Breeder and you say ok, I'll have a pup from you because you don't inbreed and then think you're safe.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Breeders at all, I have a dog with a whole host of problems, some of which could have been avoided in the genetics side of things.

Edited September 19, 2010 by sas

[sas]

Not sure about that one Huski, many who do not have SM are diagosed with it. A few have been diagnosed at 10 - 12 weeks which is impossible.

I personally think the incidence of both SM and MVD is increasing due to puppy farms and registered BYB who haven't done their homework.

I think, now there is more awareness of Sm, breeders will be careful. Unfortunately, the breeders who WOULD be careful don't breed any more.

BUT.....How many CAV breeders are doing the test for it? It's a $2,000 scan isn't it?

You can't take someones word for it that everything is ok in the line.

[shortstep]

I totally get that the problems breeds have is because of of early inbreeding. What I am saying, is that I worried people may have mis-interpeted what he said....for example you're Joe Blow and you just learned that Inbreeding creates problems so you go to your Breeder and you say ok, I'll have a pup from you because you don't inbreed and then think you're safe.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Breeders at all, I have a dog with a whole host of problems, some of which could have been avoided in the genetics side of things.

Oh no you are being very clear.

You also would never be taken for defending breedrs do don't worry about that.

We need to all be very careful to never give the impression that we would defend ANKC breeders.

[sas]

I totally get that the problems breeds have is because of of early inbreeding. What I am saying, is that I worried people may have mis-interpeted what he said....for example you're Joe Blow and you just learned that Inbreeding creates problems so you go to your Breeder and you say ok, I'll have a pup from you because you don't inbreed and then think you're safe.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Breeders at all, I have a dog with a whole host of problems, some of which could have been avoided in the genetics side of things.

Oh no you are being very clear.

You also would never be taken for defending breedrs do don't worry about that.

We need to all be very careful to never give the impression that we would defend ANKC breeders.

Was that Sarcasm at it's best?

My next dog will be a Pedigree so I fully support Pedigree dogs but also know that some Pedigree Breeders don't do the right thing - that's not great revalation.

It's not even important what I personaly feel about Pedigree's, my whole comment was about how I was comcerned that the general public would mis-interpet the hosts comments on Inbreeding and Health problems.

Reading your previous posts in other threads it seems you are quite disheartened at the drop off of Breeders and worry for the future of Breeders - and I understand that, however I do believe you mis-interpreted due to this.

Edited September 19, 2010 by sas

[shortstep]

I totally get that the problems breeds have is because of of early inbreeding. What I am saying, is that I worried people may have mis-interpeted what he said....for example you're Joe Blow and you just learned that Inbreeding creates problems so you go to your Breeder and you say ok, I'll have a pup from you because you don't inbreed and then think you're safe.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Breeders at all, I have a dog with a whole host of problems, some of which could have been avoided in the genetics side of things.

Oh no you are being very clear.

You also would never be taken for defending breedrs do don't worry about that.

We need to all be very careful to never give the impression that we would defend ANKC breeders.

Was that Sarcasm at it's best?

My next dog will be a Pedigree so I fully support Pedigree dogs but also know that some Pedigree Breeders don't do the right thing - that's not great revalation.

It's not even important what I personaly feel about Pedigree's, my whole comment was about how I was comcerned that the general public would mis-interpet the hosts comments on Inbreeding and Health problems.

Reading your previous posts in other threads it seems you are quite disheartened at the drop off of Breeders and worry for the future of Breeders - and I understand that, however I do believe you mis-interpreted due to this.

Sarcasm at it's worse.

You should try getting a dog instead of a pedigree (that is humor at it's worse).

It really has reached a time, where it would be best for people to breed their own dogs. Then you do not have to worry about what "breeders" may be getting up to. Nor do you need to worry about giving the impression you would defend dog breeders. There is nothing more effective to elicit change than to lead by example.

For example; instead of using the tired old rhetoric of yesterday, warning people to look for a breeder that has done hips on the parents. Be truely modern, explain that this does not adequately address or prevent dogs with HD and would not guide some away from buying a puppy with HD.

Instead, you can show how you are an expert on dog breeding, inherited disease, the effects of inbreeding and where 'dog breeders' have gone wrong. You can show how to breed correctly for good hips.

Show how you have done lateral breeding/pedigrees for HD for X number of generations. Show the scores of AVA, PENN and Cornell on every pup you have bred, parents and all of their siblings for as many generations as possible, give the % of affected and normal pups, over each generation with an average of hip scores broken down by the 10 AVA scoreing areas, highlighting any movement in scores over the generations towards improved structure. Have EBV done for the parents, grand parents and the litter. COI for the parents and the litter, compared to the breed average world wide and in Australia. Follow this with a document that explains in detail that any dog you breed can still get HD due to what all the 'bad' breeders behind you have done wrong in the pedigree of your dogs. Be a truly cutting edge dog breeder, show everyone how it is to be done correctly.

But most important, take full responsibility for your own next dog and breed it yourself. Not sarcasm.

Edited September 19, 2010 by shortstep

[sas]

I totally get that the problems breeds have is because of of early inbreeding. What I am saying, is that I worried people may have mis-interpeted what he said....for example you're Joe Blow and you just learned that Inbreeding creates problems so you go to your Breeder and you say ok, I'll have a pup from you because you don't inbreed and then think you're safe.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Breeders at all, I have a dog with a whole host of problems, some of which could have been avoided in the genetics side of things.

Oh no you are being very clear.

You also would never be taken for defending breedrs do don't worry about that.

We need to all be very careful to never give the impression that we would defend ANKC breeders.

Was that Sarcasm at it's best?

My next dog will be a Pedigree so I fully support Pedigree dogs but also know that some Pedigree Breeders don't do the right thing - that's not great revalation.

It's not even important what I personaly feel about Pedigree's, my whole comment was about how I was comcerned that the general public would mis-interpet the hosts comments on Inbreeding and Health problems.

Reading your previous posts in other threads it seems you are quite disheartened at the drop off of Breeders and worry for the future of Breeders - and I understand that, however I do believe you mis-interpreted due to this.

Sarcasm at it's worse.

You should try getting a dog instead of a pedigree (that is humor at it's worse).

It really has reached a time, where it would be best for people to breed their own dogs. Then you do not have to worry about what "breeders" may be getting up to. Nor do you need to worry about giving the impression you would defend dog breeders. There is nothing more effective to elicit change than to lead by example.

For example; instead of using the tired old rhetoric of yesterday, warning people to look for a breeder that has done hips on the parents. Be truely modern, explain that this does not adequately address or prevent dogs with HD and would not guide some away from buying a puppy with HD.

Instead, you can show how you are an expert on dog breeding, inherited disease, the effects of inbreeding and where 'dog breeders' have gone wrong. You can show how to breed correctly for good hips.

Show how you have done lateral breeding/pedigrees for HD for X number of generations. Show the scores of AVA, PENN and Cornell on every pup you have bred, parents and all of their siblings for as many generations as possible, give the % of affected and normal pups, over each generation with an average of hip scores broken down by the 10 AVA scoreing areas, highlighting any movement in scores over the generations towards improved structure. Have EBV done for the parents, grand parents and the litter. COI for the parents and the litter, compared to the breed average world wide and in Australia. Follow this with a document that explains in detail that any dog you breed can still get HD due to what all the 'bad' breeders behind you have done wrong in the pedigree of your dogs. Be a truly cutting edge dog breeder, show everyone how it is to be done correctly.

But most important, take full responsibility for your own next dog and breed it yourself. Not sarcasm.

It's obviously a very passionate subject for you, but still, you have mis-interpreted what I said.

I'll try and be a little clearer: I was worried that the general public would think that if a Breeder said they didn't inbred dogs that they would be safe from health problems - therefore thinking that x-breeding is ok or your average BYB is ok.

Wasn't actually anything against Breeders, however I stated I wasn't defending Breeders not to bash but to try and give a clear understanding what I was saying was not being I was a breeder myself trying to defend my practices.

There are some wonderful breeders doing awesome things for their choosen breeds - but even this has nothing to do with what my initial comment was.

Edited September 19, 2010 by sas

[shortstep]

I totally get that the problems breeds have is because of of early inbreeding. What I am saying, is that I worried people may have mis-interpeted what he said....for example you're Joe Blow and you just learned that Inbreeding creates problems so you go to your Breeder and you say ok, I'll have a pup from you because you don't inbreed and then think you're safe.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Breeders at all, I have a dog with a whole host of problems, some of which could have been avoided in the genetics side of things.

Oh no you are being very clear.

You also would never be taken for defending breedrs do don't worry about that.

We need to all be very careful to never give the impression that we would defend ANKC breeders.

Was that Sarcasm at it's best?

My next dog will be a Pedigree so I fully support Pedigree dogs but also know that some Pedigree Breeders don't do the right thing - that's not great revalation.

It's not even important what I personaly feel about Pedigree's, my whole comment was about how I was comcerned that the general public would mis-interpet the hosts comments on Inbreeding and Health problems.

Reading your previous posts in other threads it seems you are quite disheartened at the drop off of Breeders and worry for the future of Breeders - and I understand that, however I do believe you mis-interpreted due to this.

Sarcasm at it's worse.

You should try getting a dog instead of a pedigree (that is humor at it's worse).

It really has reached a time, where it would be best for people to breed their own dogs. Then you do not have to worry about what "breeders" may be getting up to. Nor do you need to worry about giving the impression you would defend dog breeders. There is nothing more effective to elicit change than to lead by example.

For example; instead of using the tired old rhetoric of yesterday, warning people to look for a breeder that has done hips on the parents. Be truely modern, explain that this does not adequately address or prevent dogs with HD and would not guide some away from buying a puppy with HD.

Instead, you can show how you are an expert on dog breeding, inherited disease, the effects of inbreeding and where 'dog breeders' have gone wrong. You can show how to breed correctly for good hips.

Show how you have done lateral breeding/pedigrees for HD for X number of generations. Show the scores of AVA, PENN and Cornell on every pup you have bred, parents and all of their siblings for as many generations as possible, give the % of affected and normal pups, over each generation with an average of hip scores broken down by the 10 AVA scoreing areas, highlighting any movement in scores over the generations towards improved structure. Have EBV done for the parents, grand parents and the litter. COI for the parents and the litter, compared to the breed average world wide and in Australia. Follow this with a document that explains in detail that any dog you breed can still get HD due to what all the 'bad' breeders behind you have done wrong in the pedigree of your dogs. Be a truly cutting edge dog breeder, show everyone how it is to be done correctly.

But most important, take full responsibility for your own next dog and breed it yourself. Not sarcasm.

It's obviously a very passionate subject for you, but still, you have mis-interpreted what I said.

I'll try and be a little clearer: I was worried that the general public would think that if a Breeder said they didn't inbred dogs that they would be safe from health problems - therefore thinking that x-breeding is ok or your average BYB is ok.

Wasn't actually anything against Breeders, however I stated I wasn't defending Breeders not to bash but to try and give a clear understanding what I was saying was not being I was a breeder myself trying to defend my practices.

There are some wonderful breeders doing awesome things for their choosen breeds - but even this has nothing to do with what my initial comment was.

You said

'Say for example you take one dog and breed it to an unrelated dog then that isn't classed as inbreeding or even line breeding (that specific mating and on the inbreeding calculator wouldn't score very high at all).'

I totally get that the problems breeds have is because of of early inbreeding. What I am saying, is that I worried people may have mis-interpeted what he said....for example you're Joe Blow and you just learned that Inbreeding creates problems so you go to your Breeder and you say ok, I'll have a pup from you because you don't inbreed and then think you're safe.

'Just to be clear, I'm not defending Breeders at all, I have a dog with a whole host of problems, some of which could have been avoided in the genetics side of things.'

Ok we get it. All purebred dogs are inbred. Even if a breeder breeds towards reducing the COI to that of 0%, the dog will still have the negative (disease) effects of inbreeding done in the past. Your dog is sick due to a poor breeder that could have avoided the genetic problems.

I say, take full responsibility and breed your own next dog.

[sas]

Short Step, I'm really sorry you're not understanding where I am coming from, in all honesty, I believe your passion for the cause is not alowing you to.

I'm not interested in a conflict with you so I'll let it lie.