Rspca Uk Warns Against Purebred Dogs

[Shazzapug]

You keep telling us that. Like I said, anyone who believes this does not apply in OZ is sadly mistaken. I think you know that too.

Who's 'us'? And what is 'that'? What is 'this' that it's a mistake not to believe in Australia? And why do you believe you have mind-reading skills?

Us = people who read your post.

That= that huge push to shut down purebred dog showing and even breeding if that is what takes to drive change which you are denying is happeing here in OZ

Mind read = not hardly needed, anyone looking from can see it, more a smack in the head with a bat.

Anyone who thinks that the vet checking a few breeds once a year at Crufts is going to make this all go away is blind. Blind to what they want, which is a total shift in how dogs in the kennel club are bred and the end of dog shows, which they believe drives the problems.

Of course its happening in Oz....breeding will go underground and you will only be able to get a Brachy breed on the Black Market...and docking will be done by the breeder again, saves spending thousands sending their dogs to another country for Dogs sake....and when there is hardly any dogs left they (the government) will see a huge loss of income and will look at what else they can slap an extra fee or tax on....we will have no fresh fruit or veges or milk as they will already have killed off all primrary producers and we will be forced to eat toxic food from China (those that arent self sufficient that is)....yes it will all happen and they aint a thing you can do about it cos ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!

[mita]

Us = people who read your post.

That= that huge push to shut down purebred dog showing and even breeding if that is what takes to drive change which you are dening is happeing here in OZ

Mind read = not hardly needed, anyone looking from can see it, more a smack in the head with a bat.

You said I 'keep telling us that'. Then, when questioned, go on to reply 'that' is a huge push to shut down purebred dog showing and even breeding... etc. I was not talking about that. What I said was... what is lacking in Australia is PR to bring attention to the best of the pure-bred dog breeding world here. To counterbalance this stuff that pours into a PR vacuum. Being proactive, that is.

I find a deal of what you post to be irrational & reactionary. I'm putting you on ignore.

Edited March 10, 2011 by mita

[Boxerheart]

The main worry for Australian purebreds is that our ANKC has an agreement to automatically accept anything that comes from the UK. Therefore if the UK is driven to start cross breeding their purebreds..guess what comes to Australia.

Anyone watch the Bionic vet that was on TV recently...plenty of very unhealthy crossbreds with major issues shown on that in the UK recently too.

[Jed]

After reading that, can anyone assume that there will be any purebred dogs in 20 years? Of course there wont be.

The UKKC is certainly not doing anything effective to counter this - although they abhor it.

Not much different to here then.

No. Slow learners, aren't they? Wish they would listen to the members!!

[periannath]

I would like to know the ratio of purebred to crossbreds the RSPCA is trying to rehome.Is it possible like using the PDE as a marketing tactic to convince the GP to get a Xbred so a RSPCA dog gets the home instead of the breeders puppy?

"The main worry for Australian purebreds is that our ANKC has an agreement to automatically accept anything that comes from the UK. Therefore if the UK is driven to start cross breeding their purebreds..guess what comes to Australia"

I really hope not!.I was in the UK for speciality shows recently and was talking to a pretty highly ranked KC person.The latest catch cry is genetic diversity. Not only do they want us to outcross(that's fine but when we decide it is the best mating) but to continually outcross.They quote 14 %COI as a maximum COI.This is supposedly for our own individual benefit as breeders in case a random bad gene should be thrown up, so our own kennels will not be decimated. Where is the data to back this theory of this being the correct path for all breeds of dogs or in fact any?

I got the feeling this was thrown at us to test the water.It didn't go down well with any of the breeders present..The KC will soon have the software similar to breedmate, where breeders can submit planned matings and they will give the COI as a service, so soon they will have all the information about ALL our matings regardless.The next step surely will be to lay the law down about COI"s when we don't all conform to their 'recommended' COI. Kiss your linebred dogs goodbye,regardless of how healthy they are or how long they live or how close to the breed standard they are.Am I paranoid? Maybe.In fact I hope so.

Regardless of what the KC or their 'experts' think, it is possible to breed healthy,long lived, beautiful linebred dogs.Maybe the problem is that none of the people that are making the decisions know enough about dogs to realise this and not being breeders it doesn't effect them anyway?

Apologies for the rant.

[shortstep]

I would like to know the ratio of purebred to crossbreds the RSPCA is trying to rehome.Is it possible like using the PDE as a marketing tactic to convince the GP to get a Xbred so a RSPCA dog gets the home instead of the breeders puppy?

"The main worry for Australian purebreds is that our ANKC has an agreement to automatically accept anything that comes from the UK. Therefore if the UK is driven to start cross breeding their purebreds..guess what comes to Australia"

I really hope not!.I was in the UK for speciality shows recently and was talking to a pretty highly ranked KC person.The latest catch cry is genetic diversity. Not only do they want us to outcross(that's fine but when we decide it is the best mating) but to continually outcross.They quote 14 %COI as a maximum COI.This is supposedly for our own individual benefit as breeders in case a random bad gene should be thrown up, so our own kennels will not be decimated. Where is the data to back this theory of this being the correct path for all breeds of dogs or in fact any?

I got the feeling this was thrown at us to test the water.It didn't go down well with any of the breeders present..The KC will soon have the software similar to breedmate, where breeders can submit planned matings and they will give the COI as a service, so soon they will have all the information about ALL our matings regardless.The next step surely will be to lay the law down about COI"s when we don't all conform to their 'recommended' COI. Kiss your linebred dogs goodbye,regardless of how healthy they are or how long they live or how close to the breed standard they are.Am I paranoid? Maybe.In fact I hope so.

Regardless of what the KC or their 'experts' think, it is possible to breed healthy, long lived, beautiful linebred dogs.Maybe the problem is that none of the people that are making the decisions know enough about dogs to realise this and not being breeders it doesn't effect them anyway?

Apologies for the rant.

When talking COI it is very important to list the number of generations, there is no standard number so it cannot be assumed.

Now first hand in Australia from the Uni of Sydney, I was told that a COI-6 of 0.4% (in 6 generations) was not sufficent, that only 0% COI was acceptable but they never responded to my question of '0 % in how many generations'. I think they used 3 generation for their study of ANKC stud book COI for all the breeds (which BTW was this information ever released?). Now if they mean make a law about COI limits, then maybe that number would be higher than 0. I would think removing inbreeding to the level of daughter to grandfather or half brother to half sister or maybe even a little more than that, around 12% would be their starting point, but I an sure over time they would look to reduce that to around 2% max in 6 generations.

Back to what you were told, 14% I am assuming that is in 3 or 4 generations is still pretty high. If it was 14% for the total life span of the breed, ( usually back to the early 1900's) that is still considered a high level of inbreeding by most experts in diveristy today. Usually they say about 6-7% for breed total COI and less than 1.5%-2% in 6 generations as being low inbreeding and what is called outcross (meaning in in purebreds).

Edited Just wanted to add, in the KC that are now regulating COI, they usually look at each breeds total over all COI and then start from there to build a reduction plan. It may not be possible to restrict the COI too severely is a breed that is already highly inbreed. However that is when they move to ideas about cross breeding to get the level back to what is considered acceptable. In most breeds they set a limit, which is below the breed average and then every few generations try to lower that number again. They will also ban across the board high level inbreedings, usually meaning around grandsire to daughter level.

The Uni here in OZ has sugested that COI be part of the EBV in the 10 point plan at the uni of sydney. Yes you would submit your planned breeding (hpefully several choices of studs) and they would run it though the EBV for that breed. It might set breeding values on any disease with out a DNA test or any of the multigene diseases such as hips elbows, heart disease, epi or any of the brain diseases and so forth. It might also track longevity. It would also look at COI and I suppose we are not far from needing maditory genetic diversity tests on all mateings. There is also talk of being able to take the health information from the Vets, tracked by microchip number and filter that for putting into EBV programs. For example say a dog had several pups that ended up needing treatment for skin allergies, then EBV could look for sire that have a very low incidence of producing pups with skin allergies. Or it could look for a dog that had the most possible genetic diversity in the immune section of a genetic diversity test. This is years away right now, but it could be possible if the government madates every dog have a chip, and if there is a feed of pedigrees by chip number from the ANKC to the uni and that every vet has a feed from their electronic records to the Uni using Dx codes for each vet visit, all the tecnology is here to do this it is a matter of having the system set up.

Also just in case some do not know. Uni of Sydney has been assisiting the RSPCA UK, they are very much a part of the process going on in the UK.

To your opening sugestion that perhaps this had more to do with promoting RSPCA dogs. Not a chance. This is a animal rights issue top to bottom, there is strong belief that purebred dogs, by their very nature of being purebred are an welfare issue. However more prominate right now, is the very very very strong belief that showing dogs is the crux of the most pressing animal welfare issues in pruebred dogs today and that showing dogs is driving and promoting animal cruelty in breeding practices in the kennel clubs.

Edited March 10, 2011 by shortstep

[HugL]

The sad thing is that as long as animal "welfare" organisations churn out this crap, DD craze will continue and GP will keep supporting these BYB and PF through pet shops and actually think they are doing the "right" thing.

I talk to many GP about dogs and explain as much as I can but the message isn't getting across. They still impulse buy the pup in the window and end up with massive vet bills or pay hundreds for a DD or "purebred" that would be cheaper thru a registered breeder.

How can we with more knowledge get info to them so they make informed decisions?

RSPCA - pls help instead of crucifying us because we made an informed choice and researched before getting a registered dog.

(WE as in those in the purebred community - hope not to offend anyone)

[Rebanne]

There is no way I would allow a Uni or the RSPCA to tell me what I could or couldn't breed. I'd give it up first.

As for submitting a list of sires, pity the rare breed person who would be struggling to find one suitable dog in the country let alone several.

[SparkyTansy]

*crufts* is an event... which follows the general way in which dog shows are run. They have, however, selected specific breeds which will be tested for general good health before awarding their BOBs, this year. I know it's off the back of PDE,but it shows they are doing something.

By saying *crufts* doesn't care, you are putting every exhibitor in the same category of not caring. What of those that breed for the breed standard AND health?

In saying that, a healthy dog also has good health from sound structure. What of these breeders, who breed two unrelated specimins (maybe of different breeds), who have general good health and even good scores (if we go that far)... but structurally they are poor which increases their chances of being in poor health at an early age? Poor bites, poor ear structure causing bad infections, bad eyes from breeding with a specimen with lose eyelids? Soft toplines, dropped croups, long loins? I'd love to know if these breeders who think that breeding to a standard is not necessary have a basic knowledge and understanding of anatomy and basic structure.

Well you keep telling the RSPCA that and the Uni of Sydney. Still waiting for that line of response to work and for them all to see it your way.

I was simply pointing out that they are doing something, regardless of why it's done. At the end of the day purebreeds will always be in the public eye and portrayed as bad because we are the only ones in the public eye...

I was simply trying to say that we DO care and I'm not sure about your response... I was responding to someone else...

[Jed]

It is not about improving the lot of purebred dogs. It is about stopping pure bred dogs being bred.

"They" make assertions about the unhealthyness of purebred dogs.

Where is the proof?

UKKC and CCs are jumping around like snakes on a bbq and doing a lot of brown nosing. What they should be doing is making "them" produce proof. And they should be going to the media - if possible - with their side of it.

That they are not is disgraceful.

You can't fix something which is not broken. If it is broken, show us the proof? They have failed to do that --- yes, they are saying that Cavs have problems, but they have overstated them, I don't know about pugs. Yep, there are some less than healthy dogs, as there are some less than healthy mutts, cats, rabbits, horses, camels and people. Unhealthiness is not endemic in purebred dogs.

Older, more experienced (and dare I say "better") breeders are setting up to stop breeding. Importing sperm from top dogs world wide, using sperm they had saved for years, buying and iimporting top dogs at huge expense.

They will have their fun, before it is all over, and because they couldn't give a rat's rectum about COI or EBV, which most of them think is bovine excreta anyhow, they will walk away. The younger breeders and those who don't mind being told what to do by someone not interested in dog breeding will stay, but they will be discouraged and disheartened after a few years, and they will walk too.

It's been coming for years.

Shortstep, don't blame purebred breeders unless you have unequivocal proof that they are doing something wrong per se. It is simply that purebred dogs are visible. If they picked on working dogs, the AFF would have them - and I suppose there is an equivalent in UK, but they will get to working dogs ..... with the same untruths and publicity.

Actually, Crufts doesn't care much about health and welfare, as long as the dog meets the breed standard then it's all good and that's the most important thing. I think that doesn't promote healthy breeding at all, and it's more important to breed for health that for breed standard looks.

Doesn't apply to all breeds of course.

Actually, you couldn't even qualify an unhealthy dog for Crufts. You are another one, with the RSPCA, assuming that the breed standards are about looks. Looks are only important in that they allow the dog to do the job he was bred for. Temperament and health are part of the standard. Go and look at your local show - it's not crufts by any means - and see if you can see an unhealthy dog?

Exactly the same thing is happening with purebred dog, as happened with BSL and tail docking. Run an extensive media campaign, make the public concerned, then bring in the bans, safe in the knowledge that the public will not complain, because, due to what they read in the media, they will believe "it is all for the best".

The only bodies which can stop this are the registering bodies. UKKC has made some concessions -- now they need to say they have fixed it all, and the RSPCA can put up the proof, or nick off.

Instead of pandering to animal rights (because that is what it is), our CCs should be doing the same thing. They think BSL, tail docking and mandatory desexing legislation is fine, and while they are in the seat of power, any and every restricting regulation animal rights wants will be brought in.

And the CCs will not be able to continue to function, because the membership will decreased so much there will be insufficient income to continue.

A lot of breeders will either lie about their pedigrees, or simply stop registering, keeping their own records. And why not? Half the time unregistered or mutts bring more money than registered purebreds, without the expense of annual membership and puppy registrations.

JMHO - and has been for about 10 years.

Mita

RSPCA Qld nominates the dogs churned out from awful puppy farms, as the biggest challenge facing dog welfare in Australia.

They, in fact, advise people looking for a purebred dog to go to a Canine Association registered breeder, only (Imprint).

I'd prefer energy to put on some decent PR re the best of the purebred dog world here in our own country...Australia.

Presently, any such PR is practically non-existent. Leaving a vacuum into which this 'stuff' from the UK rushes in to fill. Yet it has nothing to do with the Australian context.

I don't believe the RSPCA Q will have any say. We have already had some of the "rules" pushed by animal rights and the RSPCA UK pushed onto us here - the banning of first degree matings is one, and the accredited breeders scheme is another. No one is going to ban anything. The majority of breeders will walk away, rather than have someone with little knowledge tell them what to do .... and that is where it is heading.

And obviously I agree with you about truthful and positive PR in this country. But it is not happening. Sadly.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Jed

[Christina]

We are heading towards a world where we will be told who we can breed with next, probably by some agency of child services.

Imagine. You may not reproduce if you have any family history of allergy, eczema, hay fever, dermatitous, diabetes, epilepsy,

heart, skin, kidney, thyroid problems, any mental health issue including being a bit nervy or shy or too bold in your personality

Your ancestors must not have had any dementia, arthritis, loss of sight, muscular illnesses or immune based health problems in their old age.

You must not be too tall, too short, too fat, too thin, too muscular or too light boned. You have to have the exact right colour of hair, skin & eyes for your race.

Sounds insane. Shades of Hitler. I believe we will be next, really.

Their concern is supposed to be about the care, & prevention of neglect & cruelty to animals.

[Crisovar]

We are heading towards a world where we will be told who we can breed with next, probably by some agency of child services.

Imagine. You may not reproduce if you have any family history of allergy, eczema, hay fever, dermatitous, diabetes, epilepsy,

heart, skin, kidney, thyroid problems, any mental health issue including being a bit nervy or shy or too bold in your personality

Your ancestors must not have had any dementia, arthritis, loss of sight, muscular illnesses or immune based health problems in their old age.

You must not be too tall, too short, too fat, too thin, too muscular or too light boned. You have to have the exact right colour of hair, skin & eyes for your race.

Sounds insane. Shades of Hitler. I believe we will be next, really.

Their concern is supposed to be about the care, & prevention of neglect & cruelty to animals.

I'd vote for that, why not, after all it is the future of the human race.

If it is good enough to place the often unrealistic restrictions and expectations of perfection upon those who breed dogs, then bring it on for humans.

[Akayla]

I agree with Jed and I would consider myself a "new" breeder. The point in breeding is to improve the breed and if you cant do that then whats the point? Going to be hard when someone else is telling you what choices you have to make, especially someone who doesnt know your animals.

I can tell you from experience it doesnt matter how carefully you breed (or how reckless if you are a BYB or xbred) there will always be a pup here and there that has issues. Not always the breeders fault some times its the puppy owner. Not just in pure bred dogs but in every single species. Id like them to name one species that doesnt have examples of "bad breeding". The difference is in nature the sickly are quickly killed off. Breeders who make it their job to be honest about any issues leave themselves as the targets.

Ive had plenty of experience with xbred dogs too and just as many have health issues. What are they going to do about that?