Uk Charity Limits Care To 1 Pedigree Pet Per Family

[RallyValley]

It seems to me if a 'group' of breeders want to hold themselves out as 'different' from the crowd of breeders you are blaming for the problems, then they are the ones that have to do something that defines them as 'different'.

Unfortunatly the folks you want to highlight your group as being 'different', can not see this clear cut distinction between the 'differents' and the not differents. Perhaps this is because the 'differents' are not the sort of 'different' they are actually looking for? Just a thought.

And a rather confusing thought. I hate this "all pure breeds have issues" crap. And it IS crap.

What inheritable conditions do Whippets have? Where are the legions of this breed that suffer from inherited health problems and cost their owners a motza in health bills?? Beats the hell out of me.

Why ARE poodles so long lived if they are plagued by health issues???

I hate generalisations when they are inaccurate. The idea that all breeders should "own up" to the notion that the dogs they breed are walking congenital disaster areas is a nonsense.

And the sooner people stop lumping all breeds together on this issue, the better.

Ok, well you tell them to not do that, to leave the poodles and the whippets in the kennel club alone. Certainly we can say 'Not in my breed'. We will see if that helps to solve the problem.

I see both viewpoints. If everyone says 'not my breed' and points the finger we are divided and not as strong.

However as poodlefan says there are many breeds out there with relatively few genetic issues in comparison to what other breeds face, some breeds do need to be made accountable for what they have done to exaggerate or change features so much. I can bet that the original creators of these breeds never wanted that as the outcome. So why should breeders of the healthier breeds cop the flack for this too?

[poodlefan]

I see both viewpoints. If everyone says 'not my breed' and points the finger we are divided and not as strong.However as poodlefan says there are many breeds out there with relatively few genetic issues in comparison to what other breeds face, some breeds do need to be made accountable for what they have done to exaggerate or change features so much. I can bet that the original creators of these breeds never wanted that as the outcome. So why should breeders of the healthier breeds cop the flack for this too?

Everyone can't say "not my breed". But facts are that the notion that a dog, by virtue of its purebred status alone, is automatically prone to inherited health issues is simply untrue.

And anyone who doesn't resist that notion plays right into the hands of those who'd see purebred dogs become extinct.

Edited June 30, 2011 by poodlefan

[RallyValley]

I see both viewpoints. If everyone says 'not my breed' and points the finger we are divided and not as strong.However as poodlefan says there are many breeds out there with relatively few genetic issues in comparison to what other breeds face, some breeds do need to be made accountable for what they have done to exaggerate or change features so much. I can bet that the original creators of these breeds never wanted that as the outcome. So why should breeders of the healthier breeds cop the flack for this too?

Everyone can't say "not my breed". But facts are that the notion that a dog, by virtue of its purebred status alone, is automatically prone to inherited health issues is simply untrue.

And anyone who doesn't resist that notion plays right into the hands of those who'd see purebred dogs become extinct.

Ok I see the point you are making and agree 100% (I misunderstood before). I would say it is less likely on the whole for a purebred to have health issues given most breeders think about sire and dam combinations, health test, don't breed from bad examples of the breed ect. Whereas a dog of unknown heritage could be a father daughter mating from HD and PRA effected dogs and you would never know because you have no idea of the dogs background.

I offer as evidence my old bitch that was so mongrel a BITSA test couldn't even make upidentify one breed that was PTS aged 12 because of her HD that got proressively worse as she aged. I also have a Kelpie x with an very timid temprament and allergies.

[Loraine]

I shall only comment on the PDSA. They have been around in the UK for dozens of years. Way back you could get your animals treated for whatever you could afford and they really help a lot of people. They are lesser known that the RSPCA insofar as they don't get as much press (good or bad). I can understand why they have to cut back in some way on the pets that they can care for. They saved our old cat with medications and treatment that would have cost thousands.

[fuzzy82]

The pedigree breeding system in the UK is different to Australia. You don't have to be 'registered' as you are here, from what I understand.

I don't know about UK, but I am from Europe, and while I don't know the specific rules, I know in my country it's easy to get a pedigree dog from a BYB, and pretty much every purebred dog is registered and has a pedigree, despite irresponsible breeding.

Edited June 30, 2011 by fuzzy82

[shortstep]

Everyone can't say "not my breed". But facts are that the notion that a dog, by virtue of its purebred status alone, is automatically prone to inherited health issues is simply untrue.

And anyone who doesn't resist that notion plays right into the hands of those who'd see purebred dogs become extinct.

Look all I am saying is we, almost all kennel club members of almost all breeds, refuse to address the concerns. So far that approch has gotten us no where and I would say it has even taken us further in the wrong direction.

But it may take the banning a few breeds or some of the kennel clubs to get shut down before we realize that what we have to do, I do mean have to do, is respond in a constructive and meaingful way to the concerns.

Edited June 30, 2011 by shortstep

[poodlefan]

Look all I am saying is we, almost all kennel club members of almost all breeds, refuse to address the concerns. So far that approch has gotten us no where and I would say it has even taken us further in the wrong direction.

But it may take the banning a few breeds or some of the kennel clubs to get shut down before we realize that what we have to do, I do mean have to do, is respond in a constructive and meaingful way to the concerns.

What can the breeder or owner of a responsibly bred dog that has had all available health tests or that has no identified inheritable issues do about other breeders or breeds? How do breed bans or kennel club shut downs impact on the myriad of people who breed without health tests or don't bother to register with kennel clubs. And why should breeds and breeders who aren't part of the problem suffer because of issues outside their own breed.

This issue needs to be addressed one health issue prone breed and one irresponsible breeder at a time. The people in the best position to that are those WITHIN a breed.

In the meantime, we need to stop perpetuating the myth that all purebred dogs have health issues. As I see it, that's what you're suggesting.

Edited June 30, 2011 by poodlefan

[WreckitWhippet]

Look all I am saying is we, almost all kennel club members of almost all breeds, refuse to address the concerns. So far that approch has gotten us no where and I would say it has even taken us further in the wrong direction.

But it may take the banning a few breeds or some of the kennel clubs to get shut down before we realize that what we have to do, I do mean have to do, is respond in a constructive and meaingful way to the concerns.

What can the breeder or owner of a responsibly bred dog that has had all available health tests or that has no identified inheritable issues do about other breeders or breeds? How do breed bans or kennel club shut downs impact on the myriad of people who breed without health tests or don't bother to register with kennel clubs. And why should breeds and breeders who aren't part of the problem suffer because of issues outside their own breed.

This issue needs to be addressed one health issue prone breed and one irresponsible breeder at a time. The people in the best position to that are those WITHIN a breed.

In the meantime, we need to stop perpetuating the myth that all purebred dogs have health issues. As I see it, that's what you're suggesting.

Finally some sense

[shortstep]

In the meantime, we need to stop perpetuating the myth that all purebred dogs have health issues. As I see it, that's what you're suggesting.

Ok I get it. A total ban on all the whole issue. No problem, I have to go now to see the TV show on inbreeding and kennel club dogs, opps there I go talking about those things we are not to perpetuate.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Shortstep, why do you think that if someone is saying not ALL purebreds have health issues they are really saying NO purebreds have health problems? Go back and read the thread again, no one has said there aren't some problems, but you seem to think that all purebreds are sickly and in urgent need of intervention. There are some breeds that are doing just fine, you've even been given examples but you seem to have a thing against purebreds, don't forget this is a site to promote purebreds ;)

[poodlefan]

In the meantime, we need to stop perpetuating the myth that all purebred dogs have health issues. As I see it, that's what you're suggesting.

Ok I get it. A total ban on all the whole issue. No problem, I have to go now to see the TV show on inbreeding and kennel club dogs, opps there I go talking about those things we are not to perpetuate.

Geeze, over reaction much.

I hope you can grasp the difference between "some" and "all" at some point.

No one's denying there are issues. No one's suggesting a ban on discussion of them. But your constant assertion that the sky is falling for the health of all purebred dogs is simply untrue. I think these issues do need to be discussed but it would be nice to lose the hysteria and misinformation perpetrated by shows such as the one you're referring to and actually focus on the facts.

Here's one to absorb.. there is no data gathering that I know of on the health issues of CROSSBRED DOGs. Yet, strangely, most of the dogs I know with HD, with patella issues ARE crossbred. Strangely this issues are rarely attributed to their genes. Go figure.

With the exception of a handful of poodle cross labrador breeders, I've yet to here of any crossbred dogs having health tested parents, Why is that issue never discussed.

Edited June 30, 2011 by poodlefan

[shortstep]

In the meantime, we need to stop perpetuating the myth that all purebred dogs have health issues. As I see it, that's what you're suggesting.

Ok I get it. A total ban on all the whole issue. No problem, I have to go now to see the TV show on inbreeding and kennel club dogs, opps there I go talking about those things we are not to perpetuate.

Geeze, over reaction much.

I hope you can grasp the difference between "some" and "all" at some point.

No one's denying there are issues. No one's suggesting a ban on discussion of them. But your constant assertion that the sky is falling for the health of all purebred dogs is simply untrue. I think these issues do need to be discussed but it would be nice to lose the hysteria and misinformation perpetrated by shows such as the one you're referring to and actually focus on the facts.

Here's one to absorb.. there is no data gathering that I know of on the health issues of CROSSBRED DOGs. Yet, strangely, most of the dogs I know with HD, with patella issues ARE crossbred. Strangely this issues are rarely attributed to their genes. Go figure.

With the exception of a handful of poodle cross labrador breeders, I've yet to here of any crossbred dogs having health tested parents, Why is that issue never discussed.

Poodlefan,

I have nothing to do with the charity that is limiting their help to only one pedigree dogs per home due to the pedigree dogs needing too much $$. Tell them why they are wrong and that pedigree dogs are not costing them more money to treat than they spend on mix breeds.

I am not the person who put the gardener on the radio to attack the pedigree dog 'industry' this week, tell the producers why they are off base with that topic and should not promote cross breeds.

I am not the person who decided inbreeding for pedigree dogs was a good topic for the TV tonight, so please tell the producer that the topic is of no concern, inbreeding is perfectly fine when done with dogs and does not increase the odds of defective genes lining up.

The 'not my breed' 'not in Australia' 'not in our kc' 'no proof' 'inbreeding is good' 'it is those other breeders' 'why don't they praise us?' are totally unproductive responses. Just more fiddleing while Rome burns.

However what I see The Kennel Club doing now, after the Bateson report and all the rest of the governments and RASPCA movements direct at them, is to be compliant. It would appear they are responding and in a real way.

I thought opening all, ALL, the stud books to dogs of unknown pedigree was the biggest change in the kennel club system since it very formation. Closed stud books have been the very foundation, even the very definition of pedigree dogs.

Of course that is a 'not in our kennel club' response, at least for the moment.

Edited June 30, 2011 by shortstep

[becks]

The pedigree breeding system in the UK is different to Australia. You don't have to be 'registered' as you are here, from what I understand.

passing an easy open book test to become registered doesn't prevent any of the 'breeding issues' that are shared with the UK.

This topic is about pedigree/pure bred dogs, not necessarily those who are registered with a kennel club and as ever it is often (not always) those who are produced by people who don't care or don't know what they are doing that cause the fall out for the rest of us to deal with

[shortstep]

The pedigree breeding system in the UK is different to Australia. You don't have to be 'registered' as you are here, from what I understand.

passing an easy open book test to become registered doesn't prevent any of the 'breeding issues' that are shared with the UK.

This topic is about pedigree/pure bred dogs, not necessarily those who are registered with a kennel club and as ever it is often (not always) those who are produced by people who don't care or don't know what they are doing that cause the fall out for the rest of us to deal with

Of course, this has nothing to do 'registered' breeders and 'registered' breeders have nothing to do with any of the welfare problems facing purebred dogs world wide. It is all 'those other breeders fault'.

However, I would still like to see some mandatory health testing on many breeds which are bred by 'registered' breeders. Since 'registered' breeders would already be doing those health tests they would support this.

I would like to see some breeds bred by 'registered' breeders taken out of the show ring until they can modify some of the structural extremes that disfigure and cause discomfort, especially if those extreme traits are linked directly to disease, such as the fevers, genetic dentition defects, eye disorders and so forth. All 'registered breeder would support the removal of extreme structure defects.

I would like to see more controlled cross breedings done by 'registered' breeders to remove some genes that have a severe negative effect on the breed, like the Dalmatian project. All 'registered breeders would want disease controlled.

I would like to see ANKC follow the Uk's lead and open the stud books for all breeds to allow 'registered' breeders the opportunity to increase genetic diversity and increase population numbers, which 'registered breeders' would support to promote current and long term health and vitality in their breeds.

I would then like to see real limits put on inbreeding, which should not affect 'registered' breeders as they are experts at producing great dogs and would not need to resort to incest to produce the traits they want to see, they would never put aside what is best for their dog just to see greater uniformity of genes in all of their dogs, 'registered' breeders know the value of genetic diversity for the long term survival of their breeds.

There is so much I would like to see the 'registered breeding doing to address the welfare issues in their breeds, even if they are sure it is not 'registered breeders who are breeding the dogs with structural extremes, genetic defects or genetic disease that are showing up in this clinic and driving up their care cost to the point they have to limit the number is pedigree dogs they can treat.

Then registered breeders could clearly show that it really is not them and it 'is the all those other breeders faults'.

Edited June 30, 2011 by shortstep

[Crisovar]

I would like to see some breeds bred by 'registered' breeders taken out of the show ring until they can modify some of the structural extremes that disfigure and cause discomfort, especially if those extreme traits are linked directly to disease, such as the fevers, genetic dentition defects, eye disorders and so forth. All 'registered breeder would support the removal of extreme structure defects.

So you are claiming that there are breeds that have no sound healthy animals,

or you just wish to toss everything out because SOME may not be.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Crisovar

[Sheridan]

It seems to me if a 'group' of breeders want to hold themselves out as 'different' from the crowd of breeders you are blaming for the problems, then they are the ones that have to do something that defines them as 'different'.

Unfortunatly the folks you want to highlight your group as being 'different', can not see this clear cut distinction between the 'differents' and the not differents. Perhaps this is because the 'differents' are not the sort of 'different' they are actually looking for? Just a thought.

And a rather confusing thought. I hate this "all pure breeds have issues" crap. And it IS crap.

What inheritable conditions do Whippets have? Where are the legions of this breed that suffer from inherited health problems and cost their owners a motza in health bills?? Beats the hell out of me.

Why ARE poodles so long lived if they are plagued by health issues???

I hate generalisations when they are inaccurate. The idea that all breeders should "own up" to the notion that the dogs they breed are walking congenital disaster areas is a nonsense.

And the sooner people stop lumping all breeds together on this issue, the better.

Ok, well you tell them to not do that, to leave the poodles and the whippets in the kennel club alone. Certainly we can say 'Not in my breed'. We will see if that helps to solve the problem.

Except that Kennel Club members are actually few and far between. Pedigree dogs in the UK may be many but few of their owners and breeders belong to the KC.

I shall only comment on the PDSA. They have been around in the UK for dozens of years. Way back you could get your animals treated for whatever you could afford and they really help a lot of people. They are lesser known that the RSPCA insofar as they don't get as much press (good or bad). I can understand why they have to cut back in some way on the pets that they can care for. They saved our old cat with medications and treatment that would have cost thousands.

And it would have been far more logical to make it a money issue with means testing people's incomes rather than an animal issue.

Ok I get it. A total ban on all the whole issue. No problem, I have to go now to see the TV show on inbreeding and kennel club dogs, opps there I go talking about those things we are not to perpetuate.

Geeze, over reaction much.

I hope you can grasp the difference between "some" and "all" at some point.

No one's denying there are issues. No one's suggesting a ban on discussion of them. But your constant assertion that the sky is falling for the health of all purebred dogs is simply untrue. I think these issues do need to be discussed but it would be nice to lose the hysteria and misinformation perpetrated by shows such as the one you're referring to and actually focus on the facts.

And on this point, recently, the sky became rather more blue for wheaten terriers because all the money wheaten owners, breeders, and the AKC, etc, have poured into research has borne fruit (to mix my metaphors). The researchers have found a genetic 'hotspot' for the protein wasting diseases wheatens can get. It's very exciting news and will lead eventually, hopefully, to a real genetic marker test. No falling skies for wheatens! My apologies if this non-falling sky news sticks in Shortstep's craw.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Sheridan

[poodlefan]

I am not the person who put the gardener on the radio to attack the pedigree dog 'industry' this week, tell the producers why they are off base with that topic and should not promote cross breeds.

And yet you ARE the person who seems to have embraced the Gardener's politically motivated attack without question and you trot it out here often enough.

I am not the person who decided inbreeding for pedigree dogs was a good topic for the TV tonight, so please tell the producer that the topic is of no concern, inbreeding is perfectly fine when done with dogs and does not increase the odds of defective genes lining up.

I'd never suggest for a moment the issue is of no concern (a point that you seem completely unable to grasp) but I'd certainly suggest some balanced, factual reporting wouldn't go astray.

The 'not my breed' 'not in Australia' 'not in our kc' 'no proof' 'inbreeding is good' 'it is those other breeders' 'why don't they praise us?' are totally unproductive responses. Just more fiddleing while Rome burns.

Once again I"ll make the point. Rome isn't burning. A few house fires, even a few suburbs on fire is not a city. Less hysteria and more facts would do more to tackle the issue that wide sweeps of hands and ill founded statements about widespread genetic health issues in purebred dogs.

Closed stud books have been the very foundation, even the very definition of pedigree dogs.

And every other pedigreed animal by the way. Every Thoroughbred racehorse in the world is descended from one of three (or is it 4) sires. Don Burke must wonder how the poor things stand up, let alone run. ;)

The issue is NOT limited gene pools for most breeds but breeding for exaggerated characteristics and the identification of genetic conditions are are ONLY identifiable in a limited gene pool.

If you want to talk about the problem, identify what the issues are for particular breeds and stop suggesting that a dog, by virtue of its purebred status, must inevitably suffer from health issues. That view is what's prompted the charity's policy and that view is fundamentally wrong.

Right now all I see from you is generalised breed bashing and not a lot of substance. If you want to talk specific issues in specific breeds, I'll happily join in the discourse.

In the meantime, please explain to me how opening the stud books of a breed with tens of thousands of animals world wide, when it has few, if any identified health issues, will benefit the animals. What would you cross Whippets with to "improve" them?

And while we're at it, you might want to talk to the Saluki people about their dogs, who while being the oldest recognised purebred with the longest closed gene pool are among the healthiest purebred dogs around. Lets see Mr Burke explain that too.

Edited June 30, 2011 by poodlefan

[shortstep]

And while we're at it, you might want to talk to the Saluki people about their dogs, who while being the oldest recognised purebred with the longest closed gene pool are among the healthiest purebred dogs around. Lets see Mr Burke explain that too.

Join the Orgcangen Genetics list where there are several Phd's in sceince who also breed native sighthounds and make your comments. Let them discuss it with you in detail, they are experts on the breeds, their heritage and use and their breeding history and they strongly oppose the current inbreeding pratices in kennel club purebred dogs.

Have a chat with this fellow on inbreeding in salukies, Dr John Burchard, considered one the worlds experts on salukies, health and dog breeding. Look up some of his talks or work on breeding sight hounds and on inbreeding and kennel club breeding. I listen very carefully to this fellow BTW.

http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/

http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm

http://homepage.mac.com/puggiq/V11N2/V11,N2Gentrification.html

His work on diversitiy was even mentioned in some work being done on poodles in the same area of concern

http://www.standardpoodleproject.com/Notes%20on%20Viability%20of%20Breeds.pdf

Edited June 30, 2011 by shortstep

[poodlefan]

And while we're at it, you might want to talk to the Saluki people about their dogs, who while being the oldest recognised purebred with the longest closed gene pool are among the healthiest purebred dogs around. Lets see Mr Burke explain that too.

Join the Orgcangen Genetics list where there are several Phd's in sceince who also breed native sighthounds and make your comments. Let them discuss it with you in detail, they are experts on the breeds, their heritage and use and their breeding history and they strongly oppose the current inbreeding pratices in kennel club purebred dogs.

Have a chat with this fellow on inbreeding in salukies, Dr John Burchard, considered won the worlds experts on salukies , health and dog breeding. Look up some of his talks or work on breeding sight hounds and inbreeding. I listen very carefully to this fellow BTW.

http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/

http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm

http://homepage.mac.com/puggiq/V11N2/V11,N2Gentrification.html

His work on diversitiy was even mentioned in some work being done on poodles in the same area of concern

http://www.standardpoodleproject.com/Notes%20on%20Viability%20of%20Breeds.pdf

You're now narrowing the scope of the discussion to "inbreeding practices". The topic of this thread was the fact that purebred dogs are unhealthy by definition of their pedigree status alone.

Are you telling me that all knowledgeable Saluki people want to crossbreed their dogs? I'd have thought most would regard that proposal as heresy. Advocacy of lowering COI's is not the same as advocating crossbreeding.

Edited June 30, 2011 by poodlefan

[Sheridan]

You're now narrowing the scope of the discussion to "inbreeding practices". The topic of this thread was the fact that purebred dogs are unhealthy by definition of their pedigree status alone.

Are you telling me that all knowledgeable Saluki people want to crossbreed their dogs? I'd have thought most would regard that proposal as heresy. Advocacy of lowering COI's is not the same as advocating crossbreeding.

The aim of the cangen list is to save purebred dogs.