The Saddest Thing About Purebred Dog Lovers

[inez]

Anyone interested can google osteochondrodysplasia in Scottish Fold cats. Every fold eared cat will develop this to some extent. The Cat Fancy of Great Britain excluded the breed in the '70s due to the health issues. Do we really need to breed for a painful genetic mutation?

Cavaliers are prone to developing syringomyelia. The cause is not known, and there is no cure. Basically the dog's head hurts all the time. So, there is no reason for not banning them which is what the Dutch parliament did.

2% of Cavaliers are affected in Aus, more overseas. Many other toy breeds develop SM too, but there is no publicity about that.

Edited to say - Unfortunately, Steve, AR divided the dog fancy 20 years ago so it would not be as strong, or as difficult to overcome. And of course we have our differences too. Once there was no shame attached to not showing. There was no shame in having 3 or 4 litters a year. The only criteria was that the dogs were well cared for. There were no puppy farms either and registered breeders tended to not worry about byb.

What isnt being mentioned syringomyelia occurs in many species including humans. Is a ban on homo sapien production comming anytime soon?

Every conception is a game of chance, breeders before ankc and shows came on the scene were selecting to not only type which created the breeds in the first place but soundness in both body and mind. A dog with an untrustworthy or trainable temprement was culled. Culled usually meant killed, it didnt get counselling or a behavourist trying to help it cope.

Unless the powers that be, decide only suitable proven, sound, long lived, healty, dogs/humans/whatever, be cloned, (the risk of breeding, even from from them still could produce an unsound result) there are no guarantees in conception.

Certainly not yet.

[inez]

Just looked up Peta's page, they are working on something, assuming after reading this: Animal Rights Uncompromised.

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/pets.aspx

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/responsible-breeders.aspx

" They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to."

Any toddler can tell "you this is my world" and even worse, they are forced to wear nappies and wait until its been noticed its soiled,and that continues until they can control themselves and use the loo.

Edited June 4, 2013 by inez

[corvus]

Bringing up Newkirk and other extreme PETA agendas is creating a straw man argument while real problems slip under the radar. I totally agree with Steve. If pedigree breeders don't start making significant inroads in self-regulation they will lose their chance at shaping their future. I expect sooner or later there will be a major paradigm shift about breeding. If it doesn't come from within it will be forced from without.

[Jed]

No Corvus, it is exactly on the point. It is the members of these organisations who are driving this legislation. No one else. They are doing the same thing in US and UK too. Ingrid Newkirk began it 30 odd years ago, and she has a lot of followers. Because you don't believe it doesn't make it incorrect.

I understand the man you work with at uni was keen to oversee the breeding of purebred dogs. And to make sure they were doing it his way. With Don Burke. Whether this is still the case or not I don't know but people usually don't change their ideology much. He was also studding his crossbred dog with no show or working ability out, because he was such a good dog. So I am inclined to put you into that basket.

And I ask you too - what exactly do you want done with the breeding of purebred dogs to make you happy?

[Panzer Attack]

I'm obviously not reading this correctly - but the way I see it, the Scottish Folds are banned (?) from being bred because they are guaranteed to be born with a genetic defect? And a law had to be put into place - the cat fancy couldn't see this for themselves?! This sounds horrifying to me. Why would anyone, ANYONE, be surprised or angry that the law had to be placed if the people that profess to love the animals so much keep breeding them despite this huge painful fault? If they're not banned from breeding something that will live in pain it's whole life on purpose, they should be. Disgusting.

We have 2 mains register dogs. We did not have trouble purchasing either of them. I know people IRL that show, they all developed relationships with breeders and got the dogs they wanted on mains.

I've also worked for a few vets now and not one of them would pressure someone with a undesexed show dog to desex ~just because~. When we took Arrow in to get his shots last week, we alerted the vet and he put a note on his file so we wouldn't be asked again in the future. We barely see show dogs anyway, it's usually Joe Blow that wants to put a poodle to his pet shop Cavalier and make $$$ - are you suggesting that vets stop recommending desexing just in case they offend someone with the right intentions one time?

If the PB dog world was even half as worried about it's public image as places like (insert puppy farm name here), we would have a much better chance at fighting against mass breeding. Ask anyone who has a CavxPoo, for example, from (biggest Vic puppy farm) and they will GUSH about the awesome "breeders" and how their friends recommended them and they were so nice and caring and the dogs run around in fields or whatever. Meanwhile a lot of people that go to breeders get the cold shoulder, or told the breed "isn't right for them", or that they haven't had enough experience or whatever.

Face it, today is a lot different when it comes to pet ownership - like everything else in the world, people want it and want it now. Breeders like the ones on this forum need to evolve and start to promote themselves and purebred dogs in general, or perish. I'm not saying stoop to the level of "here is a mass produced dog you can buy on the internet now with your credit card and have it in 3 days", but you've gotta do SOMETHING.

Corvus has two purebred dogs and works in the animal field, I don't see what attacking her (as usual) is going to do.

[Salukifan]

The day the purebred dog world embraces the breeding of "pets" as every bit as important as breeding show dogs, we'll get "pet" owners on our side.

Frankly the attitude of some dog breeders is alienating the very people we want lobbying for us.

"Pet" is NOT a dirty word. It's what the majority of purebred dogs are, including quite a few show dogs.

I whole heartedly agree with Corvus about the need to improve self regulation. If the purebred dog fancy won't grasp the nettle on that issue, we'll get what's coming to us - at quite a rate of knots now.

If we wanted to be treated as "special" or "different" then we need to prove we deserve that.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[inez]

The day the purebred dog world embraces the breeding of "pets" as every bit as important as breeding show dogs, we'll get "pet" owners on our side.

Frankly the attitude of some dog breeders is alienating the very people we want lobbying for us.

"Pet" is NOT a dirty word. It's what the majority of purebred dogs are, including quite a few show dogs.

I whole heartedly agree with Corvus about the need to improve self regulation. If the purebred dog fancy won't grasp the nettle on that issue, we'll get what's coming to us - at quite a rate of knots now.

If we wanted to be treated as "special" or "different" then we need to prove we deserve that.

Absolutly right.

[moosmum]

The day the purebred dog world embraces the breeding of "pets" as every bit as important as breeding show dogs, we'll get "pet" owners on our side.

Frankly the attitude of some dog breeders is alienating the very people we want lobbying for us.

"Pet" is NOT a dirty word. It's what the majority of purebred dogs are, including quite a few show dogs.

I whole heartedly agree with Corvus about the need to improve self regulation. If the purebred dog fancy won't grasp the nettle on that issue, we'll get what's coming to us - at quite a rate of knots now.

If we wanted to be treated as "special" or "different" then we need to prove we deserve that.

Yes!!

[tdierikx]

The day the purebred dog world embraces the breeding of "pets" as every bit as important as breeding show dogs, we'll get "pet" owners on our side.

Frankly the attitude of some dog breeders is alienating the very people we want lobbying for us.

"Pet" is NOT a dirty word. It's what the majority of purebred dogs are, including quite a few show dogs.

I whole heartedly agree with Corvus about the need to improve self regulation. If the purebred dog fancy won't grasp the nettle on that issue, we'll get what's coming to us - at quite a rate of knots now.

If we wanted to be treated as "special" or "different" then we need to prove we deserve that.

+3

T.

[Steve]

The day the purebred dog world embraces the breeding of "pets" as every bit as important as breeding show dogs, we'll get "pet" owners on our side.

Frankly the attitude of some dog breeders is alienating the very people we want lobbying for us.

"Pet" is NOT a dirty word. It's what the majority of purebred dogs are, including quite a few show dogs.

I whole heartedly agree with Corvus about the need to improve self regulation. If the purebred dog fancy won't grasp the nettle on that issue, we'll get what's coming to us - at quite a rate of knots now.

If we wanted to be treated as "special" or "different" then we need to prove we deserve that.

+3

T.

+ 4

[Jed]

The purebred dog world, pre AR, did embrace pet breeding, and were proud to do it. Now only registered backyarders sell "pets".

Will someone please explain to me exactly what kind of "self regulation" of the dog world they would like? "Everyone" says this is what they want, but although I ask, no one tells me. I am not being smart, I genuinely want to know. Does everyone except me understand what they mean?

HW is correct, it is too late.

This is the pick of my last litter. A lovely gold girl. A pet, doing what dogs do with their children. She could win anywhere. Her pedigree is full of imps and grchs, and famous dogs.

A friend has just sold a litter by the best dog in the world - going by his wins, including Crufts wins - all as pets.

We are happy to be backyarders. There comes a time (and an age maybe) when you really don't care any more.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Jed

[inez]

The 'self regulation' I and many others tend to see is a significant number of those that feel anyone in their breed that is not to their liking or self proclaimed standard (and that can include even simply 'I dont like him/her' or another I know copped it because she was beating somone who up until then had almost a monoply on winning. One victum couldnt believe when she discovered she was on the hit list, constantly sobbing, "but why, they ate my cakes, they let me work my butt off orgainising the shows and tropies and gathering donations for research?") gets reported repeatedly to the various animal welfare groups and council, until the humilation gets to them and they give up their dogs or give up breeding. Then Champers all round among the self proclaimed 'ethicals'.

Remarkably similar to the witchhunts of old, anyone you dont like, had a tiff with, has something you want, all the usual suspects reasons.

As for actually being proud of and breeding for sound pets??????????? :eek:

From whatI hear anyway, unless you only breed a very few solely for the next generation champion, (you are permitted the remainder sold on LR regardless of quality) and never let a soul that isnt already a member of your breed club have a main register puppy (I know many have NEVER released a MR puppy outside their kennel and proud of it) you have become the worse imaginable...

Tends to make it appear that new members and breed numbers have only one way to go.

Barring a miracle its self regulating itself out of existance anyway. :laugh:

Edited June 5, 2013 by inez

[tdierikx]

I'm of the firm opinion that there are far many "good" pet dog owners out there than "bad" ones... most people I know simply adore their pets and provide for them more than adequately.

The problem is that it doesn't make great newsworthy blurb to note that the majority of pet owners are NOT scum who just want to tie their dog up in the back yard and breed it to death - much more juicy stories about the few who do...

Owning a well bred pedigreed dog that you don't want to show or breed shouldn't be something so difficult to attain that you look at the other options to source your next best friend from.

Simply put, the more great pet dogs the responsible breeders put out there, the more likely Joe Public is going to notice them and want one too.

The "worth" of a great pedigreed dog should not only be dependent upon how many show ribbons or titles it can score.

T.

[inez]

There is a vet in Sydney who wanted to get all the other vets in Sydney to put together a recommendation list of breeders they had found to be producing predominately sound pups. To be handed out to any client looking for a new pup.

He said some kennels were producing a vets dream, in so far as mega dollars to be made treating all the problems they grew up with and never a chance at normal quality of life. I do know his wish list of kennels he would like to see dissapper off the map.

His idea fell in a heap because most of the other vets he spoke to about it, didnt want to risk comming on board in case they could be sued if a pup didnt turn out ok.

As it is I can see their point. Many people are being told to sue the breeder if their pup develops HD or Luxating Patella, regardless of the parents scores. The argument being a reputable breeder should guarantee the pups soundness and pay for all costs to rectify if it does develop large vet bill problems. Especially in the light of that experiment where diet was discovered to reduce the incidence by almost 50 percent in puppies whos over fed siblings recorded twice the incidence?

I well remember friends being told to contact a very famous breeder, recommended by Rob Zammit as producing extremly sound dogs. Yes that breeder does. But the catch is once that breeder retires there is no where anyone can access any dogs of that line to continue these great dogs. None are ever sold for breeding all are sold as pets on desexing contracts.

I was brought up that a 'breeder' not only was perserving the work of the countless breeders before them, but preserving their work to pass on for the future.

A disturbingly large number now have no such belief.

Edited June 5, 2013 by inez