Up For Some Breeder Bashing Today?

[shortstep]

I think a large part of the problem is the lack of definition for the groups of breeders.

For me I want the dogs and their offspring kept in good conditions, their lives enriched, their medical needs attended to, health tests done and dogs and bitches who fail those tests are not bred from, healthy sound puppies going to good homes.

Some breeders don't do the above so I would not buy a puppy from them.

I am not sure that I want to put anything else into the criteria except the welfare of the dogs so I really don;t care if the breeder doesn't show the dogs and I am conflicted about whether I require the breeder to belong to the ANKC.....I am still thinking this criteria through.

What I really am sure of is I want healthy puppies with great temperaments coming from happy healthy parents with great temperaments who have all been enriched during their lives.

So you are saying that as long as the parents are health tested and all the boxes are ticked re conditions both physical and emotional for all concerned it doesn't matter if the dogs are unregistered or even crossbred? Or have I misunderstood?

Ok now I am confused. Are you both saying that if the breeder ticks some boxes about emotional management and health testing they they will not be bashed? Is that it?

As far as heatlh testing who will be making the list of what heatlh tests must be done so the breeder does not get bashed? Who will be checking to see if the breeder actaully did the health tests, perhaps an open data bank for the other breeders to review prior to condemming?

Liz I believe you breed or have bred Cavs?

Can you go down this list of diseases that are listed on the now imfamose animal welfare abuse web site about Cavs and pick out the diseases you actually get a vet exam and document about, or DNA or scans or MRI or lab tests and also indiacte which ones you do not do any formal health tesing on? Or if you have not bred then the ones you would expect other breeders to be doing or they would be subject to condemnation.

Blood platelets

Brachycephalic

Breathing

Cardiac valve disease (CVC)

Cataracts

Cerebellar Infarct

Chiari malformation

Chronic Pancreatitis

Congestive heart failure

Corneal dystrophy

Curly coat syndrome

Cushings disease

Deafness

Diabetes mellitus

Distichiasis

Dry eye syndrome

Elongated soft palate

Endocardiosis

Entropion

Eosinophilic Stomatitis

Epilepsy

Episodic falling syndrome

Everted laryngeal saccules

Eye disorders

Fly catchers syndrome

Glue ear

Hearing disability

Heart disease

Hip dysplasia (HD)

Hydromyelia

Hydrosyringomyelia

Hyperadrenocorticism

Hypothyroidism

Infarcts

Keratitis sicca

Keratoconjunctivitis sicca (KCS)

Knee dislocation

Laryngeal collapse

Lock Jaw

Macrothrombocytosis

Masticatory Muscle Myositis

Microphthalmia

Middle Ear Effusion

Mitral valve disease

Muscle hypertonicity

MVD

Pancreas

Pancreatitis

Patellar luxation

Platelets

Primary secretory otitis media

Progressive hereditary deafness

Progressive retinal degeneration (PRD)

Progressive retinal atrophy

PSOM

Retinal dysplasia

Rough coat syndrome

SM

Stenotic nares

Stroke

Syncope

Syringomyelia

Syringohydromyelia (SHM)

Syrinx

Thrombocytopenia

Thyroid disorders

Thyroiditis

Vision disorders

BTW with so many listed health probems, are you using or recommending that breeders use EBV?

Also one question off topic, progressive hereditary deafness in Cavs, can you tell me about this?

Is this a dog that has normal hearing at birth and then gradually becomes deaf during young adulthood or thereafter? Is there also congenital deafness at birth?

I have a friend who is doing DNA research on adult onset deafness and is looking for other breeds that are affected. She may be close to having identified the gene in at least one breed. (When I am not being wondered about by Sheridan, I spend a lot of time investigating health disorders in dogs, support research and generally make a nuisance of myself with experts in the different fields of dog health).

Edited March 2, 2011 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I think Shortstep likes to stir up the Bee's nest and see what happens.

Maybe so, many would have tackled the same topic differently, but one thing's for sure, if I have understood it correctly, the points made in this article/thread are well worth considering. When I started reading this thread, I dismissed it as extremist. The more I read & think about it, the more valid I see the warnings to be.

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not.

I agree.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[shortstep]

I think Shortstep likes to stir up the Bee's nest and see what happens.

Maybe so, many would have tackled the same topic differently, but one thing's for sure, if I have understood it correctly, the points made in this article/thread are well worth considering. When I started reading this thread, I dismissed it as extremist. The more I read & think about it, the more valid I see the warnings to be.

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not.

I agree.

Many of the best recipes call for the pot to be stirred, it prevents everything settling to the bottom of the pot and setting up like concrete. Never hurts to stretch your comfort zone, at least for most people.

Edited March 2, 2011 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I think Shortstep likes to stir up the Bee's nest and see what happens.

Maybe so, many would have tackled the same topic differently, but one thing's for sure, if I have understood it correctly, the points made in this article/thread are well worth considering. When I started reading this thread, I dismissed it as extremist. The more I read & think about it, the more valid I see the warnings to be.

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not.

I agree.

Many of the best recipes call for the pot to be stirred, it prevents everything settling to the bottom of the pot and setting up like concrete. Never hurts to stretch your comfort zone, at least for most people.

I agree and my comfort zone was stretched when I saw ANKC breeders having a public go at other ANKC breeders when the other breeders had done nothing wrong according to the kennel clubs and the law.

So what I had to do was challenge my own assumptions and rethink what I believed was a good breeder.

There are still some areas that I don't have a firm opinion on but I am working through those

[MolassesLass]

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not.

I'm yet to see anyone who's missed the assumed point of the article; only people who think the point isn't valid or think it hasn't been made by that article.

[shortstep]

I think Shortstep likes to stir up the Bee's nest and see what happens.

Maybe so, many would have tackled the same topic differently, but one thing's for sure, if I have understood it correctly, the points made in this article/thread are well worth considering. When I started reading this thread, I dismissed it as extremist. The more I read & think about it, the more valid I see the warnings to be.

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not.

I agree.

Many of the best recipes call for the pot to be stirred, it prevents everything settling to the bottom of the pot and setting up like concrete. Never hurts to stretch your comfort zone, at least for most people.

I agree and my comfort zone was stretched when I saw ANKC breeders having a public go at other ANKC breeders when the other breeders had done nothing wrong according to the kennel clubs and the law.

So what I had to do was challenge my own assumptions and rethink what I believed was a good breeder.

There are still some areas that I don't have a firm opinion on but I am working through those

One unsolicted sugestion.

Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests.

Limting 'good breeding' to health testing is really sort of a cop out for the breeders. Most breeds only have a couple (if that) of tests that can be done. It is too easy for them to select dogs that are DNA clear for those few things and then present as if they are off the hook with health. When in fact it may have been far more advantages to the over all health of the pups to have used a carrier of one testable disease to capture other good genes (lets say a bullet proof immune system) in that dog which may be difficult to find in that that breed. There is just heaps that goes into it, so this is really very simplistic. but the point is 'health tested' does not mean anything more than those very few problems have been addressed (and only if there is DNA testing, other screening test do not indicate the pup wil not have the disease in most cases), nor does it indicate a breeder that is producing healthy dogs. Feel free to delete from brain..LOL

Edited March 2, 2011 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I think Shortstep likes to stir up the Bee's nest and see what happens.

Maybe so, many would have tackled the same topic differently, but one thing's for sure, if I have understood it correctly, the points made in this article/thread are well worth considering. When I started reading this thread, I dismissed it as extremist. The more I read & think about it, the more valid I see the warnings to be.

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not.

I agree.

Many of the best recipes call for the pot to be stirred, it prevents everything settling to the bottom of the pot and setting up like concrete. Never hurts to stretch your comfort zone, at least for most people.

I agree and my comfort zone was stretched when I saw ANKC breeders having a public go at other ANKC breeders when the other breeders had done nothing wrong according to the kennel clubs and the law.

So what I had to do was challenge my own assumptions and rethink what I believed was a good breeder.

There are still some areas that I don't have a firm opinion on but I am working through those

One unsolicted sugestion.

Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests.

Limting 'good breeding' to health testing is really sort of a cop out for the breeders. Most breeds only have a couple (if that) of tests that can be done. It is too easy for them to select dogs that are DNA clear for those few things and then present as if they are off the hook with health. When in fact it may have been far more advantages to the over all health of the pups to have used a carrier of one testable disease to capture other good genes (lets say a bullet proof immune system) in that dog which may be difficult to find in that that breed. There is just heaps that goes into it, so this is really very simplistic. but the point is 'health tested' does not mean anything more than those very few problems have been addressed (and only if there is DNA testing, other screening test do not indicate the pup wil not have the disease in most cases), nor does it indicate a breeder that is producing healthy dogs. Feel free to delete from brain..LOL

I can see where you are coming from. I will have a think about this but instinctively I think you may be right.

*off to ponder*

[poodlefan]

Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests.

Limting 'good breeding' to health testing is really sort of a cop out for the breeders. Most breeds only have a couple (if that) of tests that can be done. It is too easy for them to select dogs that are DNA clear for those few things and then present as if they are off the hook with health. When in fact it may have been far more advantages to the over all health of the pups to have used a carrier of one testable disease to capture other good genes (lets say a bullet proof immune system) in that dog which may be difficult to find in that that breed. There is just heaps that goes into it, so this is really very simplistic. but the point is 'health tested' does not mean anything more than those very few problems have been addressed (and only if there is DNA testing, other screening test do not indicate the pup wil not have the disease in most cases), nor does it indicate a breeder that is producing healthy dogs. Feel free to delete from brain..LOL

Sorry, but I'll take objective tests over lofty statements every time.

Health testing, as you suggest, is not the be all and end all of optimal breeding. However its measureable and provable. That matters to me as an indicator that the breeder is attempting to breed healthy dogs.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests.

Limting 'good breeding' to health testing is really sort of a cop out for the breeders. Most breeds only have a couple (if that) of tests that can be done. It is too easy for them to select dogs that are DNA clear for those few things and then present as if they are off the hook with health. When in fact it may have been far more advantages to the over all health of the pups to have used a carrier of one testable disease to capture other good genes (lets say a bullet proof immune system) in that dog which may be difficult to find in that that breed. There is just heaps that goes into it, so this is really very simplistic. but the point is 'health tested' does not mean anything more than those very few problems have been addressed (and only if there is DNA testing, other screening test do not indicate the pup wil not have the disease in most cases), nor does it indicate a breeder that is producing healthy dogs. Feel free to delete from brain..LOL

Sorry, but I'll take objective tests over lofty statements every time.

Health testing, as you suggest, is not the be all and end all of optimal breeding. However its measureable and provable. That matters to me as an indicator that the breeder is attempting to breed healthy dogs.

I agree with this as well.

*off to ponder this as well *

Gosh I will have a headache soon with all this thinking

[OSoSwift]

Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests.

Limting 'good breeding' to health testing is really sort of a cop out for the breeders. Most breeds only have a couple (if that) of tests that can be done. It is too easy for them to select dogs that are DNA clear for those few things and then present as if they are off the hook with health. When in fact it may have been far more advantages to the over all health of the pups to have used a carrier of one testable disease to capture other good genes (lets say a bullet proof immune system) in that dog which may be difficult to find in that that breed. There is just heaps that goes into it, so this is really very simplistic. but the point is 'health tested' does not mean anything more than those very few problems have been addressed (and only if there is DNA testing, other screening test do not indicate the pup wil not have the disease in most cases), nor does it indicate a breeder that is producing healthy dogs. Feel free to delete from brain..LOL

Sorry, but I'll take objective tests over lofty statements every time.

Health testing, as you suggest, is not the be all and end all of optimal breeding. However its measureable and provable. That matters to me as an indicator that the breeder is attempting to breed healthy dogs.

I agree I have had a dog from a breeder who was in their opinion breeding to optimize their puppies chances for good health. My dog died at 8 and a half from a hereditary disease. Now whilst I understand that not all diseases are as simple as a yes or no answer and the answer can be it is okay for now, but could show up later, I will still go for the breeder that has done the testing as to me they have a big head start in trying to do the best thing with the info they have at hand.

[shortstep]

Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests.

Limting 'good breeding' to health testing is really sort of a cop out for the breeders. Most breeds only have a couple (if that) of tests that can be done. It is too easy for them to select dogs that are DNA clear for those few things and then present as if they are off the hook with health. When in fact it may have been far more advantages to the over all health of the pups to have used a carrier of one testable disease to capture other good genes (lets say a bullet proof immune system) in that dog which may be difficult to find in that that breed. There is just heaps that goes into it, so this is really very simplistic. but the point is 'health tested' does not mean anything more than those very few problems have been addressed (and only if there is DNA testing, other screening test do not indicate the pup wil not have the disease in most cases), nor does it indicate a breeder that is producing healthy dogs. Feel free to delete from brain..LOL

Sorry, but I'll take objective tests over lofty statements every time.

Health testing, as you suggest, is not the be all and end all of optimal breeding. However its measureable and provable. That matters to me as an indicator that the breeder is attempting to breed healthy dogs.

You know...I never said not to do health testing, please read it again.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests.

Limting 'good breeding' to health testing is really sort of a cop out for the breeders. Most breeds only have a couple (if that) of tests that can be done. It is too easy for them to select dogs that are DNA clear for those few things and then present as if they are off the hook with health. When in fact it may have been far more advantages to the over all health of the pups to have used a carrier of one testable disease to capture other good genes (lets say a bullet proof immune system) in that dog which may be difficult to find in that that breed. There is just heaps that goes into it, so this is really very simplistic. but the point is 'health tested' does not mean anything more than those very few problems have been addressed (and only if there is DNA testing, other screening test do not indicate the pup wil not have the disease in most cases), nor does it indicate a breeder that is producing healthy dogs. Feel free to delete from brain..LOL

Sorry, but I'll take objective tests over lofty statements every time.

Health testing, as you suggest, is not the be all and end all of optimal breeding. However its measureable and provable. That matters to me as an indicator that the breeder is attempting to breed healthy dogs.

You know...I never said not to do health testing, please read it again.

so are you saying that breeders should health test and also use their experience with the breed to determine whether the breeding plan they have will result in healthy dogs?

In other words a carrier of a genetic disease could be bred to a non-carrier of that disease if this would contribute positively to the health of the offspring and not result in the genetic disease showing up in the offspring?

[Sheridan]

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not.

I'm yet to see anyone who's missed the assumed point of the article; only people who think the point isn't valid or think it hasn't been made by that article.

I think some people who have accused others of missing the point are missing the point.

I am particularly sad for those who are openly supporting bad breeders.

[Dory the Doted One]

Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests.

In my mind this statement would have room to include health testing. Doesn't optimizing chances of good health mean..."I've done all that I can". Which would mean..."I have health tested"?

Or is that just me?

It's all getting way too complicated for me.

I read the article to mean people of equal values, bagging on others of equal values. ie. Registered Breeders doing the right thing, bagging on other registered breeders doing the right thing. It never entered my head to include puppy mills into the mix.

But then I've had personal experiences of breeders who are all doing the right things, slagging off another breeder/dog based on heresy or personal opinion. And not on the facts of the matter.

Very interesting knowing two breeders at loggerheads, both doing the right thing, but neither one willing to concede it.

So I would assume that is way my head went that way with the article.

And I would have to agree. Breeders really need to start standing on a united front. Not telling anyone who stands still long enough what the other breeder is doing all wrong.

Educate the public on the right way of doing things without using other breeders as test cases. And then let them make up their minds who they are comfortable buying a dog from.

[shortstep]

Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests.

In my mind this statement would have room to include health testing. Doesn't optimizing chances of good health mean..."I've done all that I can". Which would mean..."I have health tested"?

Or is that just me?

It's all getting way too complicated for me.

I read the article to mean people of equal values, bagging on others of equal values. ie. Registered Breeders doing the right thing, bagging on other registered breeders doing the right thing. It never entered my head to include puppy mills into the mix.

But then I've had personal experiences of breeders who are all doing the right things, slagging off another breeder/dog based on heresy or personal opinion. And not on the facts of the matter.

Very interesting knowing two breeders at loggerheads, both doing the right thing, but neither one willing to concede it.

So I would assume that is way my head went that way with the article.

And I would have to agree. Breeders really need to start standing on a united front. Not telling anyone who stands still long enough what the other breeder is doing all wrong.

Educate the public on the right way of doing things without using other breeders as test cases. And then let them make up their minds who they are comfortable buying a dog from.

!, no where did I say not to do recommend health testing, what I said was that was ot enough, meaning there was more that should be done. I am not going to talk about this now as have to go somewhere.

2, What is more important is how what I said was used and I mean used. There was no reason to assume I meant to not do health testing, but if you had to assume anything, why would you assume that? Why not assume I meant to do health testing as well as other things and calrifiy that thought.

But no, the assumption is always to the negative, always to make the other person look bad and and always meant to bash the other while building yourself up.

What kind of way is this for breeders to be treating each and for not justafiable reason.

Exactly a perfect example of what this thread it about.

Now your move, bash some more eh? I am sure you can think of something.

[Florise]

In other words a carrier of a genetic disease could be bred to a non-carrier of that disease if this would contribute positively to the health of the offspring and not result in the genetic disease showing up in the offspring?

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups.

Edited March 2, 2011 by KaseyC

[Dory the Doted One]

Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests.

In my mind this statement would have room to include health testing. Doesn't optimizing chances of good health mean..."I've done all that I can". Which would mean..."I have health tested"?

Or is that just me?

It's all getting way too complicated for me.

I read the article to mean people of equal values, bagging on others of equal values. ie. Registered Breeders doing the right thing, bagging on other registered breeders doing the right thing. It never entered my head to include puppy mills into the mix.

But then I've had personal experiences of breeders who are all doing the right things, slagging off another breeder/dog based on heresy or personal opinion. And not on the facts of the matter.

Very interesting knowing two breeders at loggerheads, both doing the right thing, but neither one willing to concede it.

So I would assume that is way my head went that way with the article.

And I would have to agree. Breeders really need to start standing on a united front. Not telling anyone who stands still long enough what the other breeder is doing all wrong.

Educate the public on the right way of doing things without using other breeders as test cases. And then let them make up their minds who they are comfortable buying a dog from.

!, no where did I say not to do recommend health testing, what I said was that was ot enough, meaning there was more that should be done. I am not going to talk about this now as have to go somewhere.

2, What is more important is how what I said was used and I mean used. There was no reason to assume I meant to not do health testing, but if you had to assume anything, why would you assume that? Why not assume I meant to do health testing as well as other things and calrifiy that thought.

But no, the assumption is always to the negative, always to make the other person look bad and and always meant to bash the other while building yourself up.

What kind of way is this for breeders to be treating each and for not justafiable reason.

Exactly a perfect example of what this thread it about.

Now your move, bash some more eh? I am sure you can think of something.

Ummmm....I wasn't seeing your statement in the negative Shortstep. I actually thought your statement had the intent of including health testing. Sorry if it came off wrong, but I had no actual problem with the highlighted statement. I just couldn't understand why other people couldn't see it had room to include health testing.

The rest was just all my own random rantings about the article, and not anything you had particularly said through out the thread.

Cos to be perfectly honest, I haven't read all of the responses. It was starting to make my head hurt.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

In other words a carrier of a genetic disease could be bred to a non-carrier of that disease if this would contribute positively to the health of the offspring and not result in the genetic disease showing up in the offspring?

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups.

yes that is what I meant ty

[Sheridan]

In other words a carrier of a genetic disease could be bred to a non-carrier of that disease if this would contribute positively to the health of the offspring and not result in the genetic disease showing up in the offspring?

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups.

Incorrect. It depends on the mode of inheritance and this is unknown in many diseases.

[Sheridan]

Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests.

In my mind this statement would have room to include health testing. Doesn't optimizing chances of good health mean..."I've done all that I can". Which would mean..."I have health tested"?

Or is that just me?

It's all getting way too complicated for me.

I read the article to mean people of equal values, bagging on others of equal values. ie. Registered Breeders doing the right thing, bagging on other registered breeders doing the right thing. It never entered my head to include puppy mills into the mix.

But then I've had personal experiences of breeders who are all doing the right things, slagging off another breeder/dog based on heresy or personal opinion. And not on the facts of the matter.

Very interesting knowing two breeders at loggerheads, both doing the right thing, but neither one willing to concede it.

So I would assume that is way my head went that way with the article.

And I would have to agree. Breeders really need to start standing on a united front. Not telling anyone who stands still long enough what the other breeder is doing all wrong.

Educate the public on the right way of doing things without using other breeders as test cases. And then let them make up their minds who they are comfortable buying a dog from.

Which breeders? All breeders? Including the unethical registered breeders and the puppyfarmers who keep their dogs in deplorable conditions and BYBs who don't health test? Do you want to be in a united front with these people?