Pedigree Dog Segment On The 7pm Project

[OSoSwift]

Yes.

Any dog of any breed, sex or desexing status will starve if not fed, or feed to lesser amounts of calories.

Some breeds, sexes may be more predisposed to putting on weight or requiring less calories to maintain adequate bodyweight. However dogs will only get fat if feed to may calories for them. Each dog is an individual.

If Labs are just going to be fat regardless how is it that there are some wonderful fit lean examples??? how is that working Labs are balls of muscle. They may require less calories than a breed of similar size and body shape to maintain weight, but to blame the fact they are Labs, they just get fat because they are Labs is a cop out. Fed correctly Labs can be as lean as the next dog.

[toy dog]

Yes.

Any dog of any breed, sex or desexing status will starve if not fed, or feed to lesser amounts of calories.

Some breeds, sexes may be more predisposed to putting on weight or requiring less calories to maintain adequate bodyweight. However dogs will only get fat if feed to may calories for them. Each dog is an individual.

If Labs are just going to be fat regardless how is it that there are some wonderful fit lean examples??? how is that working Labs are balls of muscle. They may require less calories than a breed of similar size and body shape to maintain weight, but to blame the fact they are Labs, they just get fat because they are Labs is a cop out. Fed correctly Labs can be as lean as the next dog.

aren't labs and goldens the breeds that are prone to eating to the cows come home they never stop? i remember reading this somewhere. So its up to the owner to make sure they only eat what they need. my brother has GR's and they would keep on eating if he let them.

[Steve]

Yes I have a tendency to agree, but I dont know enough about labs to take on the two people I know who have been breeding them for over 30 years each - both of whom are professors - who tell me that there may be some work to be done. If they want to have a closer look and develop a plan I dont see much harm in letting them have a go. But I dont see having a go as just opening the stud books.

[Steve]

Yes.

Any dog of any breed, sex or desexing status will starve if not fed, or feed to lesser amounts of calories.

Some breeds, sexes may be more predisposed to putting on weight or requiring less calories to maintain adequate bodyweight. However dogs will only get fat if feed to may calories for them. Each dog is an individual.

If Labs are just going to be fat regardless how is it that there are some wonderful fit lean examples??? how is that working Labs are balls of muscle. They may require less calories than a breed of similar size and body shape to maintain weight, but to blame the fact they are Labs, they just get fat because they are Labs is a cop out. Fed correctly Labs can be as lean as the next dog.

aren't labs and goldens the breeds that are prone to eating to the cows come home they never stop? i remember reading this somewhere. So its up to the owner to make sure they only eat what they need. my brother has GR's and they would keep on eating if he let them.

There are some breeds which are known to be genetically predisposed to being over weight and yes I agree its up to the owner but if some breeders want to select for dogs which are less likely to be over weight - I cant see any more harm in that than slecting for better hips or elbows etc .

[Steve]

For all we know we may be selecting for less fat genes when we select for better hip scores - we know fat dogs are more prone to crook hips.

[Marion 01]

The way I see it from reading all the posts( and it's only my observation btw), for this, against this, and in between, each has their beliefs as to what is best. Seems like this argument is going to be a never ending story right up until it's too late, and then what?

[OSoSwift]

Yes I have a tendency to agree, but I dont know enough about labs to take on the two people I know who have been breeding them for over 30 years each - both of whom are professors - who tell me that there may be some work to be done. If they want to have a closer look and develop a plan I dont see much harm in letting them have a go. But I dont see having a go as just opening the stud books.

I do not see any harm in letting them try either, Opening studbooks makes me go as well! I do see though that if that was shared through the general public even more people than do it already will say " Oh but they are Labs they just get fat, there is nothing we can do" I do not breed Labs or have owned one, however I have seen MANY during my years in vet hospitals and there has been a mix of overweight and perfect weight ones, and some overweight ones that became perfect weight dogs.

The main things they had in common were people who thought they were hungry therefore needed to be fed, thought they were only happy when eating, couldn't resist puppy dog eyes or couldn't bring themselves to cut their food back as the dog wouldn't like them any more.

If you got owners who were commited and knew their Labs would literally eat anything all of the time, they lost weight and maintained it. It guess it is also a side effect of taking a working dog and sticking it in a back yard without enough exercise and work and then feeding them like they were working all day.

People get very suprised at times when you refer to their Lab as a working dog - shame isn't it.

I guess after so long dealing with overweight dogs (of all breeds) and their owners I get my back up rather quickly as many would argue until they were blue in the face that it is not their fault and they feed the dog hardly anything. Then you find out they have dry food down all day, get a piece of toast at breakfast, biscuits, whatever. Or even that they just feed way more dog food than a dog of that breed size requires.

Sometimes I just wanted to slap sense into them

Edited July 7, 2011 by OSoSwift

[OSoSwift]

For all we know we may be selecting for less fat genes when we select for better hip scores - we know fat dogs are more prone to crook hips.

ANd that may well be the case, if it is great

[toy dog]

The way I see it from reading all the posts( and it's only my observation btw), for this, against this, and in between, each has their beliefs as to what is best. Seems like this argument is going to be a never ending story right up until it's too late, and then what?

as i see it at the end of the day we still have a choice. I mean UK have agreed to open the books and all, but i see it if it does come here and by what others are saying its only a matter of time anyway , then i as a breeder have a choice whether i want to have those dogs in my pedigrees or not and which dogs i select etc.. as others have said its all up to selection anyway how we've always done things as breeders.

they are going to identify F1, F2 and F3 generations anyway so after that it will be many years later and still it will be all up to selection still.

[toy dog]

Yes I have a tendency to agree, but I dont know enough about labs to take on the two people I know who have been breeding them for over 30 years each - both of whom are professors - who tell me that there may be some work to be done. If they want to have a closer look and develop a plan I dont see much harm in letting them have a go. But I dont see having a go as just opening the stud books.

I do not see any harm in letting them try either, Opening studbooks makes me go as well! I do see though that if that was shared through the general public even more people than do it already will say " Oh but they are Labs they just get fat, there is nothing we can do" I do not breed Labs or have owned one, however I have seen MANY during my years in vet hospitals and there has been a mix of overweight and perfect weight ones, and some overweight ones that became perfect weight dogs.

The main things they had in common were people who thought they were hungry therefore needed to be fed, thought they were only happy when eating, couldn't resist puppy dog eyes or couldn't bring themselves to cut their food back as the dog wouldn't like them any more.

If you got owners who were commited and knew their Labs would literally eat anything all of the time, they lost weight and maintained it. It guess it is also a side effect of taking a working dog and sticking it in a back yard without enough exercise and work and then feeding them like they were working all day.

People get very suprised at times when you refer to their Lab as a working dog - shame isn't it.

I guess after so long dealing with overweight dogs (of all breeds) and their owners I get my back up rather quickly as many would argue until they were blue in the face that it is not their fault and they feed the dog hardly anything. Then you find out they have dry food down all day, get a piece of toast at breakfast, biscuits, whatever. Or even that they just feed way more dog food than a dog of that breed size requires.

Sometimes I just wanted to slap sense into them

its not only labs that have this big problem, but other breeds too, we sold a little chi girl to an elderly lady and as some of our people do, bring them back if they go on hols. this girl came back 3 times the size so my mother told the lady she has to go on a strict diet (dog i mean not the lady ) but we found out the lady was giving her biscuits, not dog biscuits but our biscuits of a morning and heaps of snacks inbetween because she couldn't resist the big pleading eyes wanting more food. but the dog was sent home with a diet sheet and also instructions on how not to feed the dog

[Sheridan]

So you would modify the Lab to suit lazy owners.

I don't know what you guys on on about. Breeds are constantly being modified, as long as you can still make out the breed, what is the problem?

Here is an example of modified breed I saw this morning.LOL

http://www.ibelieveinadv.com/2009/06/lifebuoy-handwash-dog/

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/07/pug-loaf.html

Forget that, I would like you to respond to my previous posts regarding bringing in heritable diseases if stud books are opened. Why won't you respond to it?

[Steve]

The way I see it from reading all the posts( and it's only my observation btw), for this, against this, and in between, each has their beliefs as to what is best. Seems like this argument is going to be a never ending story right up until it's too late, and then what?

as i see it at the end of the day we still have a choice. I mean UK have agreed to open the books and all, but i see it if it does come here and by what others are saying its only a matter of time anyway , then i as a breeder have a choice whether i want to have those dogs in my pedigrees or not and which dogs i select etc.. as others have said its all up to selection anyway how we've always done things as breeders.

they are going to identify F1, F2 and F3 generations anyway so after that it will be many years later and still it will be all up to selection still.

Except - the critism of purebred dog breeders stems from the fact that we have selected dogs based on how the dog looks. By opening the stud books and allowing the criteria for a dog to be accepted that it closely resembles the breed seems to me to tell the world that what they think is true. All we care about is how the dog looks. Its like saying here are 10 beautiful looking men for you to choose from who will no doubt make beautiful babies but one has HIV . You need better reasons than just the way the dog looks and thats not what Im seeing.

As those F3's get further down the pedigree you wont see them as the generations move them off the page but the genes they bring in will have mixed throughout the entire breed. Some will say thats a good thing and if there are bad genes in that dog that there is less chance for the recessives to show up and have affected dogs - I cant see the point because unless we all just breed one generation of generic dogs sooner or later we end up right where we are now .

If however, they were opening the stud books and the people who wanted a particular dog to have acceptance had viable reasons as to why this dog is best suited and it entailed more than just that the dog closely resembeled the breed standard Im all for it .

Now some purebred dog breeders still dont get it and they defend the indefensible - breeding to how the dog looks without taking into account what else is going on - including the impact of breeding to extremes of the breed standard .

In my opinion opening stud books based on how the dog looks without needing to consider anything else perpetuates this .Talking about the perils of in breeding without discussing how negatives of inbreeding are caused by selection no no's doesnt educate anyone and doesnt help any dog from suffering. Nor does it help our PR or ensure our breeds have a future. It doesnt take into account the uniqueness of each breed and what will be required to ensure their future progeny is having a great life without suffering because of the decsions we make.

[shortstep]

As those F3's get further down the pedigree you wont see them as the generations move them off the page but the genes they bring in will have mixed throughout the entire breed. Some will say thats a good thing and if there are bad genes in that dog that there is less chance for the recessives to show up and have affected dogs - I cant see the point because unless we all just breed one generation of generic dogs sooner or later we end up right where we are now .

Only if everyone keep on inbreeding on the same dogs. If popular sire was controlled and breeders avoided inbreeding and there was a constant flow of new blood, then there is no reason to assume that you would end up where we are now. At least that is how I understand it. But if everyone goes back to constant inbreeding, allowing popular sires to inflitrate the whole stud book in no time and as you say select for the wrong reasons, then yes nothing will be achieved. Read the rules again, it says 'only if they are used' which I saw that as sort of a warning.

Agree with you about selection for extremes, but that is a seperate issue which I understand is going to be delt with in other ways. Even inbreeding I think will be delt with differently as we are already seeing with KC inbreeding restrictions and maybe goverenment laws. I think we will see a lot of new rules if not laws, and if these rules/laws are going to be put into place, then they have to have systems set up first which will allow breeders the ability to function within the new rules/laws. Right?

So, as I said before, I see opening the stud book as not being done as a fix for any certain issues in any breed. (though certainly if the breeders wanted to it could be used for that). I think it was done to put into place the tools needed to allow those who want (or will want) to use them to breed dogs differently.

Edited July 7, 2011 by shortstep

[toy dog]

As those F3's get further down the pedigree you wont see them as the generations move them off the page but the genes they bring in will have mixed throughout the entire breed. Some will say thats a good thing and if there are bad genes in that dog that there is less chance for the recessives to show up and have affected dogs - I cant see the point because unless we all just breed one generation of generic dogs sooner or later we end up right where we are now .

Only if everyone keep on inbreeding on the same dogs. If popular sire was controlled and breeders avoided inbreeding and there was a constant flow of new blood, then there is no reason to assume that you would end up where we are now. At least that is how I understand it. But if everyone goes back to constant inbreeding, allowing popular sires to inflitrate the whole stud book in no time and as you say select for the wrong reasons, then yes nothing will be achieved. Read the rules again, it says 'only if they are used' which I saw that as sort of a warning.

Agree with you about selection for extremes, but that is a seperate issue which I understand is going to be delt with in other ways. Even inbreeding I think will be delt with differently as we are already seeing with KC inbreeding restrictions and maybe goverenment laws. I think we will see a lot of new rules if not laws, and if these rules/laws are going to be put into place, then they have to have systems set up first which will allow breeders the ability to function within the new rules/laws. Right?

So, as I said before, I see opening the stud book as not being done as a fix for any certain issues in any breed. (though certainly if the breeders wanted to it could be used for that). I think it was done to put into place the tools needed to allow those who want (or will want) to use them to breed dogs differently.

sometimes using a popular sire can be a good thing, for instance we've always had this in our breed, when i first started (1985) there was a dog that was used quite a bit and he was a sound example and threw beautiful sound puppies, he was born in about 1978, he was still siring at age 17. Now there is a new dog these days who is a good example and has thrown some lovely sound puppies and he is a popular sire. not to say that his bloodlines are the only around, there are still plenty of other bloodlines around for diversity.

to open the stud books to breed dogs differently i see it as a way to mess things up major in re: to recessive traits is my humble opinion on the whole thing.

we can still do all those things you mention within a breed itself. in our breed we certainly can without bringing in new unknown dogs into the gene pool that may or may not have any record of their history attached introducing god knows what to the gene pool .

[Steve]

Not much difference between using a popular sire because he "looks good and breeds sound puppies" than using a popular sire because he isnt related to any of the bitches in the first generation. Even if no one inbreeds for 5 generations what are the ods that one of these new dog's genes wont be bubbling around somewhere ? Oh wait - will we also be restricted in how many bitches a male dog can service? Perhaps how many puppies we should be able to put out with breeding papers in case one bitch and one male make too many ?

Some breeds only breed less than 50 puppies a year ,breeders limit what can be bred with and more and more dogs are desexed so even if one might look good it doesnt have the equipment and if we want to have purebred dogs that entails keeping the breed pure - you know - inbreeding.

[toy dog]

at the end of the day they restrict this they restrict that, ban this ban that and still we will have the exact same problems because its not straight inbreeding that is causing all of the genetic problems in pedigree dogs, there's other factors too. like you said selection.

so we do all this bow to the pressure from animal groups, RSPCA because they saw a program in the UK, and then they find out 10 20 years later that we still have the same problems so what are they going to decide to do then?

oh i know, ban the pedigree dog because they are all unhealthy.

and hugh wirth from RSPCA i was wandering around in Big W the other day, and i came across his bio so i picked up the book and read the first few pages intro'ing him and did you know that his father bred i think pedigree dalmations and they also showed their dogs, then he bred i think pedigree cockers.

so if he was involved in the dog world he should know better as well as a vet what gives dogs genetic problems instead of spouting off that all pedigree dogs are inbred thats why they ALL have problems.

gahhhh... i wish i could get into a time machine and go back to my aunties era she bred pekes from 1960 to 1980 a time when the pedigree dog was more valued no DD's around.

ETA: if you ask people at work for instance not really right into dogs but may have a pet dog or whatever, what they think about pedigrees its usually, pedigree dogs all have health problems a cross breed is more healthier. i try and explain it depends on the dogs genes whether it is cross or pedigree doesnt' really matter. but most of the time they just have an answer, you guys are scared of the competition. stop trying to push pedigrees.

its a losing battle, all this just makes me incredibly sad, sad for the wide spread ignorance and sad for the pedigree dog.

Edited July 7, 2011 by toy dog

[Marion 01]

If pedigree dogs were being bred for pets or to do what they were intended to do, as in working dogs, herding dogs etc and not being shown, there would not have been any need to change many of the breeds to conform to the show ring. I would much rather see some breeds as they were 30 or 40 years ago, as against some of the specimens of today.

[Steve]

If pedigree dogs were being bred for pets or to do what they were intended to do, as in working dogs, herding dogs etc and not being shown, there would not have been any need to change many of the breeds to conform to the show ring. I would much rather see some breeds as they were 30 or 40 years ago, as against some of the specimens of today.

This over simplifies the issue as well. 30 or 40 years ago there were still dog shows.

Lets look at how we breed less and less each year - and why.

Lets look at even though we breed less and less we allow less and less of them to go out with breeding papers and why.

Lets look at why some breeds cant reproduce any more without our intervention - and why.

Who is saying working dogs or herding dogs are any healthier than any other dog?

lets look at how we make it so hard for someone to simply breed a litter of purebred puppies and why

There are about 500 other things which are in the mix here.

[Crisovar]

Yes I have a tendency to agree, but I dont know enough about labs to take on the two people I know who have been breeding them for over 30 years each - both of whom are professors - who tell me that there may be some work to be done. If they want to have a closer look and develop a plan I dont see much harm in letting them have a go. But I dont see having a go as just opening the stud books.

Work to be done on what exactly? What do they think is wrong with the Labrador as a breed today. I am really interested in their take on this. The Labs I rub shoulders with still work, compete in dog sports, are excellent family dogs and sometimes grace the show ring. I don't from where I sit see any great need to alter much.

What I would change is the people that own the ones I see through my work, a different mob of dogs altogether, that often seem to end up in homes that tend to over feed under exercise and expect a super family dog with no training. Mostly overweight and soundness issues arising from that, and often skin complaints due to poor diet. How does one group get it so right and another so wrong? Genetic influence or demographic?

[Steve]

Yes I have a tendency to agree, but I dont know enough about labs to take on the two people I know who have been breeding them for over 30 years each - both of whom are professors - who tell me that there may be some work to be done. If they want to have a closer look and develop a plan I dont see much harm in letting them have a go. But I dont see having a go as just opening the stud books.

Work to be done on what exactly? What do they think is wrong with the Labrador as a breed today. I am really interested in their take on this. The Labs I rub shoulders with still work, compete in dog sports, are excellent family dogs and sometimes grace the show ring. I don't from where I sit see any great need to alter much.

What I would change is the people that own the ones I see through my work, a different mob of dogs altogether, that often seem to end up in homes that tend to over feed under exercise and expect a super family dog with no training. Mostly overweight and soundness issues arising from that, and often skin complaints due to poor diet. How does one group get it so right and another so wrong? Genetic influence or demographic?

Some breeders are saying they feel at least some of it may be genetic and I dont have enough knowledge to dispute that.

According to many sources some dog breeds are genetically prone to obesity and labs are one of them.

I have a tendency to respect that breeders with decades of experience and with PHD's in science related fields may know what they are talking about before I dismiss it .

I would expect they make their judgements based on what they know of the lines and the pedigrees and they see patterns which may be able to be worked on.

Where is the harm if they can or they want to give it a go?