Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Sequel

[Steve]

JH has already been here and nothing anyone said made not one iota of difference.

Please run a logic checker. You've got a double negative above [nothing . . . made not one iota] that blunts, if not turns around your argument. But responding to what I think you meant, as opposed to what you said . . .

How do you know? Positions, especially positions with a poor factual basis (or that defy the laws of physics), are often undermined by long sustained pressure. Immediate responses are often superficial. Think of the many people who, as youths, thought one way, and as mature adults, have changed their attitudes. KEEP UP THE PRESSURE!!!!! Maybe I'm a hopeless idealist, but I still believe in force of reason. Btw, what was the quality of the things people said? In particular, how strong was the element of denial?

When you have a debate with two sides parading half truths, improvement is possible when both sides increase their quotient of truth. May be gradual. WTF. It's taken a long time for things to degenerate. It'll take a long time for them to improve.

If I may be so vain as to use my response (posted on PDE blog) as an example . . . I think things like this need to be said, over and over and over again. No doubt others can say it better than I. I do believe the unbalanced stance of PDE can be turned. . . and the grotesque aspects of show-directed breeding can be reversed to put function before cosmetic form. I think moderation and balance are as important in argument as in dog breeding. Here's my entry to the PDE blog . . . which includes many, many interesting entries:

Please put finger on the problem. The problem is showing as a basis for selection . . . NOT PEDIGREE DOGS. The pedigree provides a solid basis for selecting for health, temperament, and working ability. Problem is, it has been misused to select for extreme conformation, particularly in some breeds.

I sympathize with much of PDE stuff. I just wish it didn't have the effect of turning dog lovers away from the good things in the pedigree world, making life harder for breeders who put health and temperament first, and encouraging the scum who produce DD cross breeds from dogs with no traceable health records and no tested temperament as a way to make money.

JH has owned danes, Labbies, and now owns a flat coat. Wouldn't surprise me if she has experienced the sorrow of a sweet and beautiful, but unsound, dog (so common with danes). I'd guess she's as vulnerable to the marvels of a good working dog as I am,

Correct - its not in breeding or anything else it is 100% about what we have selected for and that means we can fix it.

[shortstep]

I think you are incorrect on the health question. Labradors have a reputation for HD and all quality breeders pay attention to both HD and OCD. The reputation for HD is not justified by the statistics: Australian Labrador HD average score (sum of both sides), at 12, is the same as SBT and below the KC Cavalier, Goldies, GSD's, and Airdales, to name a few. Of course, there is room for improvement . . . but Lab breeders take hip scores seriously and there should be further gradual improvement over time. I have never found statistics comparing breed average elbow scores, and would appreciate pointers to them, but given the emphasis that even show people put on looking for 0,0 elbows, I would guess OCD is fairly low and declining. Of course, there are Labrador breeders who compromise the breed by breeding their lines close and putting conformation above health and temperament.. . and these are concentrated in the show ring (and unfortunately, are rewarded by many judges).

Shoulder OCD numbers are almost impossible to find, however labs are listed as one the breeds that commonly get OCD. Shoulder OCD has a strong structural component, along with rapid grown and large bone, so it is a disease where structure selection can have a real affect on the outcome.

In OFA labs

Elbow ranked 28th worse breed of 104 screened, with 10.8% affected of the dogs screened and reported

Hips ranked 85th worse out of 160 breeds, with 11.9% affected of the dogs screened and reported .

Patella is ranked 15th worse breed of 99 screened with 8.2 % affected of the dogs screened and reported.

All reporting is voluntary and OFA states they feel the numbers of affected dogs is far higher then is reported.

Here is the link to OFA stats. Look down on this page as you can also look at just your breed. There is a dog by name of number search too on a different page.

http://www.offa.org/stats.html

Now I do not think these numbers are terrible and surely many breeds have far worse than this. All I am saying is size and structure do impose some if not a lot of risk for most of these problems. If labs are not physically fit to run, play and bound about enjoying life then we have failed them and this is the only acceptable bottom line. Moderate is the key word I agree. I know you agree with this.

Edited June 10, 2011 by shortstep

[Are You Serious Jo]

I was having a bad brain day yesterday and had just woken from a nap so ignore my double negative and read it as I intended, she doesn't care what registered breeders say if it contradicts her position. She isn't interested in balance.

[shortstep]

I was having a bad brain day yesterday and had just woken from a nap so ignore my double negative and read it as I intended, she doesn't care what registered breeders say if it contradicts her position. She isn't interested in balance.

Well your way ahead of me, I have a bad brain day almost everyday...LOL

[Tapua]

I am just weighing in here because I wonder about some of the generalisations about 'show dogs' and who is responsible for the breed I find a bit obtuse. Surely if I choose to breed pure breds then I am responsible for what comes from my kennel. Surely I set the standard for the puppies, dams and sires that I have bred or run in my back yard.

Currently I breed Labradors and have every intention of staying with the breed however prior to settling with Labs I bred working dogs, Bench Kelpies, Border Collies, GSD's. Primarily Kelpies. You will find behind a number of the to winning show Kelpies in NSW ATM the prefix Mimbil - thats my old prefix however my Kelpies have also worked as assitance dogs. If you want to start the working vs bench arguement talk to working dog people. However let me also explain that with the working ability comes a high drive temperament that needs to be entertained. So unless your market for breeding ( for want of a better term) is primarliy working/agility/obedience options then there will be complaints from people who buy a working dog as a pet.

Now onto Labradors - in past as I understand the 'job' for the Labs was to retrieve in the fishing nets and be a loyal companion later they were developed to retrieve birds and retain that loyal companion trait, then as guide dogs in preference to GSD's because Labs are more tractable to the handler than the GSD (the original guide dog breed). Currently Labs are used as service dogs for the blind and disabled - guide & disabled, service dogs for tracking & sniffer detection - search and rescue, bomb detection, customs work & drug detectioin. Plus of course the much loved safe family companion. As well as the working hunting dog.

I currently have Labs who are trained guide dogs, assistance dogs, family companion dogs for children with intellectual disabilities and much loved family companions. They have a valued job to do and I am approached by the training organisations for my pups - two from my currently litter are going to Guide Dogs NSW. Just the other week I was approached to breed Labs for a trainer who trains Labs for the Army & Customs here and overseas.

But this is my problem - the Army/Customs trainer does not want show lines because like most, he assumes show lines cant do the job. They want all the other ducks lined up though, hips/elbows/EIC/PRA. I have a kennels of clear bitches with good hips and elbows - now I am looking for a male puppy for stud work in my kennel. I want a puppy because I need to monitor and develop/test his retrieval skill as he grows to ensure he is suitable to go to my girls. I cannot tell you how hard it is to find a suitable line.

Because for me the drive and retrieval ability of the sire must be high it also means the sire is probably a pain in the butt to live with and show and very very few people want to live with a high drive dog. So I come back to issue with 'working' or high drive lines. They are a pain in the butt to live with - which is why high drive dogs get found in the shelters and pounds around the country.

Yes I feel the 'show' people need to raise their standard and do all the hip/elbow & DNA testing necessary and I feel they need to prove they have done so prior to breeding - currently only hips & elbows are mandatory. I also feel a catagory for dogs which have a working title as well as show title at Royal's may also encourage people to look at the ability of the dogs as well as the conformation. I like showing - not alot - I am not a weekend warrior for the show ring but I dont mind showing a good example in the ring. I dont believe that show dogs are inept for ability as some have suggested however there is little avenue to showcase ability with conformation and unless it is mandated I doubt it will happen.

Having said all that I am the one who sets the standards for the dogs in my kennel and I am the one accountable for what comes into and is produced by my bitches from my kennels first and formost. I see that the buck a stops with me - I cannot do everything perfectly but I can surely establish and maintain a standard I am satified with.

[sandgrubber]

I'd love to see a working dog competition that involved bringing in fishing nets in the Bay of Fundy :D.

With Labs, I think you can have it both ways. The English working Lab's unofficial role, during the formative years of the breed, was gentleman's companion in a repressive society in which many upper class people were deprived of touch (ie, they were therapy dogs, even though saying so would be unthinkable). I would guess that much early selection in the breed was done for dogs who were responsive and easy to live with. There were people who kenneled their dogs and took hunting very seriously . . . but I've also read accounts, which quite surprised me, of muddy dog prints in the bed after hunting expeditions. You can find dogs with 'on' 'off' temperament, who are high drive when working, but relaxed when not doing so. And you find many breeders aiming for 'dual purpose' Labs, with titles in both retrieving and conformation.

I think all the many roles of the Lab are wonderful . . .well, maybe not bomb detection cause it so often kills them. If I were still in Australia and were self-confident as a breeder, I'd aim for multi-purpose dogs with calm temperaments . . . and back off the traditional coat, which is too heavy for the Australian climate, challenges vacuum cleaners in the home, and is more appropriate to the role Labs no longer fill . . . bringing in fishing nets. (I'm in a cool temperature part of the US and coat does not interfere with working here). It may be heresy, but I think conformation should be allowed to change when the dog's function changes.

By the way, when people say 'form follows function' . .. I wonder what guidance that gives those with lap dogs ;).

I am just weighing in here because I wonder about some of the generalisations about 'show dogs' and who is responsible for the breed I find a bit obtuse. Surely if I choose to breed pure breds then I am responsible for what comes from my kennel. Surely I set the standard for the puppies, dams and sires that I have bred or run in my back yard.

Currently I breed Labradors and have every intention of staying with the breed however prior to settling with Labs I bred working dogs, Bench Kelpies, Border Collies, GSD's. Primarily Kelpies. You will find behind a number of the to winning show Kelpies in NSW ATM the prefix Mimbil - thats my old prefix however my Kelpies have also worked as assitance dogs. If you want to start the working vs bench arguement talk to working dog people. However let me also explain that with the working ability comes a high drive temperament that needs to be entertained. So unless your market for breeding ( for want of a better term) is primarliy working/agility/obedience options then there will be complaints from people who buy a working dog as a pet.

Now onto Labradors - in past as I understand the 'job' for the Labs was to retrieve in the fishing nets and be a loyal companion later they were developed to retrieve birds and retain that loyal companion trait, then as guide dogs in preference to GSD's because Labs are more tractable to the handler than the GSD (the original guide dog breed). Currently Labs are used as service dogs for the blind and disabled - guide & disabled, service dogs for tracking & sniffer detection - search and rescue, bomb detection, customs work & drug detectioin. Plus of course the much loved safe family companion. As well as the working hunting dog.

I currently have Labs who are trained guide dogs, assistance dogs, family companion dogs for children with intellectual disabilities and much loved family companions. They have a valued job to do and I am approached by the training organisations for my pups - two from my currently litter are going to Guide Dogs NSW. Just the other week I was approached to breed Labs for a trainer who trains Labs for the Army & Customs here and overseas.

But this is my problem - the Army/Customs trainer does not want show lines because like most, he assumes show lines cant do the job. They want all the other ducks lined up though, hips/elbows/EIC/PRA. I have a kennels of clear bitches with good hips and elbows - now I am looking for a male puppy for stud work in my kennel. I want a puppy because I need to monitor and develop/test his retrieval skill as he grows to ensure he is suitable to go to my girls. I cannot tell you how hard it is to find a suitable line.

Because for me the drive and retrieval ability of the sire must be high it also means the sire is probably a pain in the butt to live with and show and very very few people want to live with a high drive dog. So I come back to issue with 'working' or high drive lines. They are a pain in the butt to live with - which is why high drive dogs get found in the shelters and pounds around the country.

Yes I feel the 'show' people need to raise their standard and do all the hip/elbow & DNA testing necessary and I feel they need to prove they have done so prior to breeding - currently only hips & elbows are mandatory. I also feel a catagory for dogs which have a working title as well as show title at Royal's may also encourage people to look at the ability of the dogs as well as the conformation. I like showing - not alot - I am not a weekend warrior for the show ring but I dont mind showing a good example in the ring. I dont believe that show dogs are inept for ability as some have suggested however there is little avenue to showcase ability with conformation and unless it is mandated I doubt it will happen.

Having said all that I am the one who sets the standards for the dogs in my kennel and I am the one accountable for what comes into and is produced by my bitches from my kennels first and formost. I see that the buck a stops with me - I cannot do everything perfectly but I can surely establish and maintain a standard I am satified with.

Edited June 11, 2011 by sandgrubber

[sandgrubber]

Thanks for the links . . .guess the bottom line for Labs is 'not awful, but with plenty of room for improvement'. Should note that 10.8 and 11.9% affected includes Class I, which are often radiometric dysplasia, but not clinical . . . or if clinical, show up as old age arthritis. The numbers look much better if you look only at Class 2 and Class 3. The real numbers are probably worse than the OFA numbers (for all breeds) cause people with bad X-rays often avoid going on to get scored and marginal breeders may avoid scoring altogether.

Btw, if you look at the sum of Grade II and Grade III OCD, (I'd say III is at least twice as bad as II, so did a sum of percent affected in II + III *2) you get the following breeds get scores greater than 5. The bolded breeds are over 10. Bolded and underlined, over 15. Pug and chow chow are over 40!!!!

PUG CHOW CHOW CHINESE SHAR-PEI ROTTWEILER BERNESE MOUNTAIN DOG NEWFOUNDLAND BLACK RUSSIAN TERRIER AMERICAN BULLDOG DOGUE DE BORDEAUX FILA BRASILEIRO GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG MASTIFF ENGLISH SETTER BULLMASTIFF IRISH WATER SPANIEL ST. BERNARD AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER BLOODHOUND CANE CORSO TIBETAN MASTIFF STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER SHILOH SHEPHERD GORDON SETTER

Shoulder OCD numbers are almost impossible to find, however labs are listed as one the breeds that commonly get OCD. Shoulder OCD has a strong structural component, along with rapid grown and large bone, so it is a disease where structure selection can have a real affect on the outcome.

In OFA labs

Elbow ranked 28th worse breed of 104 screened, with 10.8% affected of the dogs screened and reported

Hips ranked 85th worse out of 160 breeds, with 11.9% affected of the dogs screened and reported .

Patella is ranked 15th worse breed of 99 screened with 8.2 % affected of the dogs screened and reported.

All reporting is voluntary and OFA states they feel the numbers of affected dogs is far higher then is reported.

Here is the link to OFA stats. Look down on this page as you can also look at just your breed. There is a dog by name of number search too on a different page.

http://www.offa.org/stats.html

Now I do not think these numbers are terrible and surely many breeds have far worse than this. All I am saying is size and structure do impose some if not a lot of risk for most of these problems. If labs are not physically fit to run, play and bound about enjoying life then we have failed them and this is the only acceptable bottom line. Moderate is the key word I agree. I know you agree with this.

Edited June 11, 2011 by sandgrubber

[shortstep]

Thanks for the links . . .guess the bottom line for Labs is 'not awful, but with plenty of room for improvement'. Should note that 10.8 and 11.9% affected includes Class I, which are often radiometric dysplasia, but not clinical . . . or if clinical, show up as old age arthritis. The numbers look much better if you look only at Class 2 and Class 3. The real numbers are probably worse than the OFA numbers (for all breeds) cause people with bad X-rays often avoid going on to get scored and marginal breeders may avoid scoring altogether.

Btw, if you look at the sum of Grade II and Grade III OCD, (I'd say III is at least twice as bad as II, so did a sum of percent affected in II + III *2) you get the following breeds get scores greater than 5. The bolded breeds are over 10. Bolded and underlined, over 15. Pug and chow chow are over 40!!!!

Ok on the elbows 10.8% affected, they do count all affected grades, including grade 1. I know in a some breeds grade 1 is routinely used, but it is not considered normal elbows (Grade 0). In these breeds there is a large part of the population with grade 1 or worse. I suppose the thought is that it would worse for the breed to loose all the grade 1 dogs from the gene pool then it is to breed some of them carefully. I do not know if lab breeders use grade 1 elbows, but if so I hope it is more of an exception than the rule. I am not as versed on elbows as my breed is not affected. I have never looked to see how breeding a grade 1 to a normal affects the scores of the offspring, in hips it dramatically increases the % of affected pups. However I would suppose that if grade 1 was not a concern, then it would have just been included as part of grade 0. I have read many times that Elbow HD is considered much more genetically inherited and less related to risk factors than HD. That would also make me think that breeding grades 1 should be done with great caution if at all.

On the hips 11.9% affected, this would be the same as AVA score of 26 and higher as the range counted as affected. That is the OFA groups Mild, Moderate, Severe HD. Notice they do not count Borderline which is AVA 19-25 or included in international grade B. I think this is just right and I certainly would not want mild HD AVA 26-35 counted as normal hips. Are lab breeders using dogs with hips scores above 25?

Now on both of these, the use of affected dogs that are not clinically lame as you suggested, that is just not information that is collected on the rating system. I also think that dogs with hip scores of 25 (having arthritis) or worse that are not lame, still have HD and their pups will have a much higher chance of getting HD. The risk of using any affected elbow dogs (grades 1-2-3), even if not lame would have even a more likely increased risk of poor elbows in their pups. But I am not up on ED as it does not really occur in my breed. I might also add, that we also do not see grade 1 with or without lameness, almost all dogs are 0-0.

If it was the case, that using affected dogs (that had disease on x-ray) but showed no lameness were fine to breed, then we do not need to do x-rays at all. That would be returning to the time thinking it was Ok to breed any dog that appeared sound in movement, and to not consider that some dogs can have very severe HD and not show lameness. Yikes, I personally would not like to go back there again!

You lost me on OCD comments, unless you are talking about elbow HD? If so, yes a lot of breeds have high numbers of the population as affected dogs. The HD data is the same with some breeds having as many as 2 out of 3 dogs in the population affected. And even more disturbing is most of these breeds have no mandatory screening or mandatory breeding directives to address the problem (which brings us right back on topic of this thread and yet another topic for pedigree dogs exposed, left wide open for public ridicule of the KC's and breeders).

I have never found any data records for OCD shoulder on OFA. However most of the recent information I have seen about OCD shoulder states that in some breeds (not all breeds), it is less thought to be a genetic disease and is more thought to be a disease of trauma and indirect and direct risk factors.

Direct risk factors being, rapid growth, large bone size, heavy weight, and male (bigger then females) and the indirect risk factor being reckless behavior, excess exercise, hard ground (cement kennels or house floors) and repetitive trauma or direct injury.

BTW Cornell now has at least some 'type' of genes related to HD. They hope to put out a test one of these years, that can be used on pups to indicate their risk.

Edited June 11, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

By the way, when people say 'form follows function' . .. I wonder what guidance that gives those with lap dogs ;).

Easy!

Dogs that can see and do not go blind, have their eye fall out or have any diseases of the eye.

Dogs that can breath and do not have structural defects that cause them discomfort or limits their lives in any way.

Dogs that can run and play free of physical defects that limit their mobility.

Dogs that have nice coats, free of defective wrinkle genes, skin allergies and other defects.

Dogs with normal brains and neuro systems so they can live a normal healthy life free of pain or fits.

Dogs with normal mouths, free of dental defects, deformed pallets and so forth.

I can go on, but in simple terms, the lap dogs function is to be a companion and that requires a normal healthy form of both body and mind.

Edited June 11, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

Should note that 10.8 and 11.9% affected includes Class I, which are often radiometric dysplasia, but not clinical . . . or if clinical, show up as old age arthritis.

Just found this which I should have read first..LOL but it does answer the questions I was asking.

From the OFA web site http://www.offa.org/ed_faqs.html

The OFA does not participate in the decision process whether or not to breed an animal. However, the OFA strongly believes it is extremely important that breeders know and disclose the status of dogs' elbows regardless of whether the final decision is to breed or not. Only through complete and openly discussed knowledge of disease status will breeders have the information they need to make good breeding decisions.

There are many factors to consider when evaluating the progress of countries that permit breeding Grade I elbows. There may indeed be reasons to consider using Grade I elbows in breeding programs for the purpose of maintaining a broader gene pool, especially in countries where the breed specific rate of ED is approximately 25% or higher (as appears to be the case in some European countries). One must balance the potential consequences as they pertain both to the entire gene pool, and to elbow disease as a part of the gene pool. With a lower rate of ED in many breeds in the U.S., the genetic pressures to include Grade I ED's in most US breeding programs may not be the same as in other countries. Below are two sets of data which may help provide a basis for making a more informed decision whether to breed a dog affected with Grade I ED.

Example 1:

Examination of the OFA database reveals the following mating probability results for 13,151 breeding pairs of dogs with known elbow status:

Normal Elbows x Normal Elbows = 12.2% offspring affected with ED

Normal Elbows x Dysplastic Elbows = 26.1% - 31.3% offspring affected with ED

Dysplastic Elbows x Dysplastic Elbows = 41.5% offspring affected with ED

In this very large breeding study (primarily Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, Rottweilers, and German Shepherd Dogs), the rate of ED more than doubled when one parent was affected, and more than tripled when both parents were affected. In any breed where the overall percentage of affected dogs is already lower than the percentage that can be expected when a dog affected with ED is bred to a normal dog (26.1% - 31.3%), one would find few circumstances in which progress can be made by breeding a dog affected with ED.

Example 2:

Below are some comparative elbow statistics on Golden Retrievers from the BVA (UK) scheme and the OFA.

Of the total of 577 Golden Retrievers evaluated by the BVA (through 2003):

434 are normal (75%)

87 are Grade I (15%)

40 are Grade II (7%)

16 are Grade III (3%)

Total of 143 affected (25%)

Of the total of 9630 Golden Retrievers evaluated by the OFA (through 2003):

8484 are normal (88.1%)

856 are Grade I (8.9%)

187 are Grade II (1.9%)

72 are Grade III (0.7%)

Total of 1115 affected (11.6%)

Comparing that data, it would appear that when the overall percentage of ED in the breed is higher, so also is the overall percentage of Grade II's and Grade III's – the potentially clinically affected dogs. It is also possible that this percentage may increase even more rapidly than the overall breed percentage. Note that while the total percentage of Goldens affected with ED in the UK is approximately double that of the US (25% compared to 11.6%), the percentage of higher grades in the UK is more than triple that of the US (10% compared to 2.6%). Although it is not certain that US Goldens would follow this exact trend if the percentage of ED began to increase, the data is compelling enough to warrant close vigilance and caution regarding potentially breeding dogs with Grade I ED.

And this http://www.offa.org/ed_grades.html

For elbow evaluations, there are no grades for a radiographically normal elbow. The only grades involved are for abnormal elbows with radiographic changes associated with secondary degenerative joint disease. Like the hip certification, the OFA will not certify a normal elbow until the dog is 2 years of age. The OFA also accepts preliminary elbow radiographs. To date, there are no long term studies for preliminary elbow examinations like there are for hips, however, preliminary screening for elbows along with hips can also provide valuable information to the breeder.

Grade I Elbow Dysplasia: Minimal bone change along anconeal process of ulna (less than 3mm).

Grade II Elbow Dysplasia: Additional bone proliferation along anconeal process (3-5 mm) and subchondral bone changes (trochlear notch sclerosis).

Grade III Elbow Dysplasia: Well developed degenerative joint disease with bone proliferation along anconeal process being greater than than 5 mm.

[Tapua]

I'd love to see a working dog competition that involved bringing in fishing nets in the Bay of Fundy :D.

With Labs, I think you can have it both ways. The English working Lab's unofficial role, during the formative years of the breed, was gentleman's companion in a repressive society in which many upper class people were deprived of touch (ie, they were therapy dogs, even though saying so would be unthinkable). I would guess that much early selection in the breed was done for dogs who were responsive and easy to live with. There were people who kenneled their dogs and took hunting very seriously . . . but I've also read accounts, which quite surprised me, of muddy dog prints in the bed after hunting expeditions. You can find dogs with 'on' 'off' temperament, who are high drive when working, but relaxed when not doing so. And you find many breeders aiming for 'dual purpose' Labs, with titles in both retrieving and conformation.

I think all the many roles of the Lab are wonderful . . .well, maybe not bomb detection cause it so often kills them. If I were still in Australia and were self-confident as a breeder, I'd aim for multi-purpose dogs with calm temperaments . . . and back off the traditional coat, which is too heavy for the Australian climate, challenges vacuum cleaners in the home, and is more appropriate to the role Labs no longer fill . . . bringing in fishing nets. (I'm in a cool temperature part of the US and coat does not interfere with working here). It may be heresy, but I think conformation should be allowed to change when the dog's function changes.

By the way, when people say 'form follows function' . .. I wonder what guidance that gives those with lap dogs ;).

mmmm cant see the net retrieval happening and I guess there are retrieval/obediece and show classes at show I just would like to see in the show line a class where the dogs obedience or retrieval titles are recognised and then the dog is judged in a separate class to the showies. Cant see it happening here in OZ.

[MalteseLuna]

I just had to say... I'm a member of PETA if...PETA = People for Eating Tasty Animals My dad has a shirt with that on it - should have seen the glares from the healthfood staff when he walked in one day forgetting what he was wearing!

On topic - the first PDE was lacking in any scientific validity. The "experts" were rubbish and not CANINE geneticists (as far as I can remember).

There was also an obvious bias and editing was heavily used.

I cringe to think of the backlash - especially when petshops and DD breeders are getting "smarter" i.e. all the signs in pet shops now which read "Our puppies don't come from puppy mills/farms"... It fools most people. But anyone who thinks about it logically realises that pet shops MUST deal with large volume breeders (puppy farms) in order to have litters ready and in the window when they "need them".

Stonewalling won't help but then neither will being involved in the shooting and then having JH edit the footage to show exactly what she wants - damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[bryan_mannix]

On topic - the first PDE was lacking in any scientific validity. The "experts" were rubbish and not CANINE geneticists (as far as I can remember).

I don't mean to be cranky but I just shudder when I read stuff like this. This really undermines the pure bred dog world

This is the kind of nonsense statement that gives ammunition to those whose views you oppose. Do you work as a scientist? and are you qualified as one? It is OK to present a rational argument supported by data to refute the claims in the show but to claim that say Professor Steve Jones is "rubbish" will just get people giggling about you and by association the purebred dog world.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Some experts are rubbish, putting a Dr or Prof.in front of your name doesn't mean you are always right or even right half the time. Before you ask yes I am a scientist and qualified as one. Have you ever read some responses to papers in some journals, the above is like a paw pat from a 5 week old kitten

[bryan_mannix]

Some experts are rubbish, putting a Dr or Prof.in front of your name doesn't mean you are always right or even right half the time. Before you ask yes I am a scientist and qualified as one. Have you ever read some responses to papers in some journals, the above is like a paw pat from a 5 week old kitten

Rev Jo I know you are one as am I.... and yes I try to educate with kindness rather than getting peoples backs up. You would know Steve Jones? Perhaps the greatest living geneticist.... people outside the dog world will latch on to some purebred advocate calling him "rubbish" and amongst the fits of laughter use this innacuracy to discount everything else that the purebred dog world says. There could not be a more qualified expert.

I am just so dissappointed by the response of many in the dog world to PDE. She set out to expose a problem in the dog show world where breeding for appearance is elevated beyond health and function. Does every breeder do this? No. But does it happen? Yes. Are there some breeds whose health, form and function have suffered because of it. Yes? The vitriolic and ignorant denial of a very vocal minority paints the responsible minority in such a bad light that it gives those who would like to close the pure bred dog world down plenty of ammunition.

How much better if a breeder stepped up and said "PDE exposed some truly horrible practices...THankfully those extreme examples don't apply to my kennel or more generally to my breed as we do x y z " So much better than ...."experts rubbish". "burn the witch" etc etc

The 4 corners programme exposed some horrible practices in the Cattle World. Should we level personal attacks on those documentary makers? Should we level personal attacks because they are not long term cattle breeders? Where are the complaints that they only showed bad examples and didn't dedicate most of the show to showing the majority of abattoirs in Indonesia that do the right thing? Should we complain because they didn't spend most of the show looking at mad cows disease because it "is the real problem". Should we complain because the show didn't look at killing practices in Colombia because that is worse than in Indonesia. Should we believe wild conspiracy theoreys that some of the cattle weren't really stressed but had in fcct been denied there medication for a week before filming?

The show set out to expose a problem. It cant be everything and wasn't designed to be a puff piece about some really great kennels.

Edited June 15, 2011 by bryan_mannix

[Tapua]

I am not a scientist I work in welfare and if there is one thing I know about my clients is the rational windows shut and the 'yes but they did this and everyone else is to blame for my situation' emotional windows open when they are confronted. Subsiquently the individuals ability to look at what they are doing to make the current situation better or worse is lost because all their energy is waisted on defending or justifying their position.

The PDE definately exposed the Pure-bred Dogworld to the rest of humanity that there are problems. Of course it allowes people to assume that genetic/conformation/behavioural problems were in the majority of kennels in the UK - Ipso Facto therefore in our Aussie kennels too. Assumptions of course are not always right - mind you they often contain an element of truth to exist in the first place.

So we as registered breeders we get on our high horse and say NOOOO! Not in my back yard! Well sorry folks - the fact that detrimental genetic/health/conformation conditions are created by the matings we choose to put together is irrefutable. I do not control how the bottle is shook up after the contents are placed in the bottle. I can only make a judgement about the value of the contents when its out. Plus as a breeder whether any given mating should be repeated given the results.

Its is easier to dismiss the premise of PDE in a rush of defensive rightous indignation missing the point that some pure bred dogs in some cases are suffering and or atleast unessicarily uncomfortable due to breeding practices.

My responsibility is to look at my kennels and ask myself am I contributing to these problems in my breeding practices, selection of mates, screening for health issues etc. I am responsible for what comes from my kennels

Edited June 14, 2011 by Tapua

[Steve]

Yep and the more we deny it rather than accept the critism and at least say we know its happeneing in some areas and we will have a go at fixing it when its as plain as the nose on your face the more they will feel the need to legislate against us.

Beating up the messenger simply makes fools of us.

[poodlefan]

I am just so dissappointed by the response of many in the dog world to PDE. She set out to expose a problem in the dog show world where breeding for appearance is elevated beyond health and function. Does every breeder do this? No. But does it happen? Yes.

Lets focus for a minute on what we're denying. Is the suggestion that all purebred dogs are walking genetic disaster areas an accurate one? Far from it. Is that the view expressed by this show? Nope.

The reason the show pissed me off so greatly was its lack of balance and the way it played so well into the hands of the 'pets are slaves' zombies.

Are there breeds where selection for certain characteristics has led to health and welfare issues? Of course there are. And by those breeds and breeders we are all judged.

But "the sky is falling" style of journalism doesn't help anyone and certainly harms those breeds without issues and breeders who ARE doing the right thing.

Sadly, I'm pretty confident the next installment of this show won't be any more balanced than the last one.

Edited June 14, 2011 by poodlefan

[Are You Serious Jo]

A huge difference between 4 corners and PDE, I would have thought that it was obvious that this was a poor comparison. There are bad apples and areas that can be improved in any hobby/sport, but PDE was just scaremongering and sensationalistic because it caused more damage than good. People I know in the animal health industry swallowed it all hook line and sinker, while they were breeding their BYB mutts and treating crossbreds for the same problems that they denigrate purebreds for. The answer is in research and education, not gutter media.

[sandgrubber]

I'd agree that 4 Corners is more balanced than PDE. JH has some bad habits, like using one photo to castigate an entire breed; rarely giving credit to breeders who are doing the right thing; and missing some obvious facts: eg, her 'pug' expose misses the absolutely horrid ratings for HD and OCD that the pug gets on OFA stats. Conversely, I'd agree with B_M that attacking Steve Jones as a "rubbish" expert has less credibility than attacking David Attenborough. Jones, in genetics, has a broad support from the science community, both as an expert, and as a communicator.

In the case of dog breeding, I'd say the 'few bad apples' have been in the bin for many decades, perhaps a century and the result is a bit whiffy. The 'bad apples' have already, gone a long way to spoiling the bin for some breeds, and it will require careful breeding to return to production of a healthy crop.

My mother, born in 1923, was vocal about show-breeding ruining temperament and intelligent when I was a kid (say the 1950's to early 60s). She was mostly on about the evolution of the American Cocker spaniel from little working gundogs that she grew up with, the evolution of the 'Lassie dog' [rough collie] to a narrow headed non-working breed, and the US version of the Irish setter, which, in general has unstable temperament and is unsuited to work as a gun dog. The list of breeds that have been altered in this fashion is long . . . and I'd say all breeds are threatened.

Personally, I'd much rather have muck raking journalism than a century of silence. Sometimes it takes some well leveraged, off balance effort to make a dent on a structure that has taken many centuries to build and is governed by people, many of whom are self-righteous and set in their ways.

A huge difference between 4 corners and PDE, I would have thought that it was obvious that this was a poor comparison. There are bad apples and areas that can be improved in any hobby/sport, but PDE was just scaremongering and sensationalistic because it caused more damage than good. People I know in the animal health industry swallowed it all hook line and sinker, while they were breeding their BYB mutts and treating crossbreds for the same problems that they denigrate purebreds for. The answer is in research and education, not gutter media.

edited for clarity

Edited June 16, 2011 by sandgrubber