Vets Report Increase In Disease Amongst Brachycephalic Dogs

[Katdogs]

Just a dog park point of view, but today I met a couple of pugs. Both 5yo. One is going in for surgery in a couple of weeks to have its nostrils 'carved' and palate 'cut shorter'. The noise from this dog was awful - puffing and wheezing, you'd think it was an 80yo human emphysemic patient.

The other one was the healthy one - it doesn't need surgery, according to the vets and SASH. But it sounded horrible too with its panting. The owners stopped him running in case he got too hot - but it was a cool day!

I asked. Both are pedigreed as in they came from a registered ANKC breeder as pets, but from show parents.

[asal]

...so how do you prevent 'carrier to carrier mating' without testing?....if I would be breeder, and would choose sperm from oversee just to find out that - bad luck - my own bitch and the sperm donator are carriers I would be pretty upset...and pretty stupid if I had the chance for a test and didn't use it.

You can with somethings that show up at birth or soon after but for things that a really horrible such as PRA , Degenerative Myelopathy etc if you don't test by the time you find out you have a carrier is when you get an affected - in the mean time the dogs have been used for years for breeding and spreading the good news all around. This is only about recessives anyway. Lots in this day and age have DNA tests available but you have to know what to test for and you have to be prepared to do test matings to identify carriers for things that don't have a DNA ID.

I dont know any breeders who would balk at breeding carriers to clears so not sure what we are talking about with limiting gene pools in this way. Gene pools are limited much more by selection for conformation.

when SCIDS finally had a test, (and before, for any that produced a scids foal) hundreds if not thousands went to the doggers, I know, I saw whole pens full of them during the panic days, few understood, or cared to learn, a taint was a taint no one would touch, a carrier was perfectly healthy and put to non carriers would never produce a scids affected foal

PRA is a weird one, before I knew there was a dna test I unknowingly put carrier to carrier and discovers one is a C, definitely will develop PRA I was going to have him put down but to my surprise my vet told me "don't, he is more likely to die of old age or other causes before he develops PRA". I was skeptical but a friends girl died of old age just a week before she did her eyes began to go a odd look and was diagnosed as developing PRA she was almost 16. A friend has oscar and he is 10 and eyesight perfect so far. annoyingly he is a magnificent dog. such a waste sometimes i think should I put one of my A girls to him and then change my mind.

hey, hadnt shown mine since 1984 when misty took out best in show at singleton and 2 nd at sydney royal. took three a while back for two 1 sts and a second and brought home challenge dog, best puppy in show and best minor in show. only ever work to preserve what Hilton started me out with in 82 so was pretty astonished. pleased too the breed hasnt morphed too much in 33 years, like others have

Edited April 30, 2016 by asal

[Jed]

It's all academic really - they will be banned before too long.

[asal]

It's all academic really - they will be banned before too long.

yes

that seems to be the intention

[Steve]

Being able to test for recessive carriers and breed away from any animals in the gene pool ever being affected by them is a completely different issue to what the OP is about.

Breeding dogs which have brachy heads is about selection for the way the dog looks and if breeders don't get that and start selecting for dogs with muzzles which are moderately short rather than acutely short they will only have themselves to blame.

I said earlier that I didn't think the breed standards were the problem and it was more about interpretation which I still believe is the case in many but then I had a better look at this current breed standard. and clearly I was wrong and the breed standard extension is just as bad .

You can't seriously tell me this is O.K. and that you cant see that dogs bred like this wont have health problems .You can't seriously tell me that a dog bred to this standard and this breed standard extension is not going to have welfare issues due to its conformation,be able to whelp etc!

This was only amended in 2015 !

My link

The skull should be very large - the larger the better - and in circumference should measure (round in front of the ears) at least the height of the dog at the shoulders. Viewed from the front it should appear very high from the corner of the lower jaw to the apex of the skull, and also very broad and square. The cheeks should be well rounded and extended sideways beyond the eyes. Viewed at the side, the head should appear very high, and very short from its back to the point of the nose. The forehead should be flat, neither prominent nor overhanging the face; the skin upon it and about the head very loose and well wrinkled. The projections of the frontal bones should be very prominent, broad, square and high, causing a deep and wide indentation between the eyes termed the "stop". From the "stop" a furrow both broad and deep should extend up to the middle of the skull, being traceable to the apex. The face, measured from the front of the cheek-bone to the nose, should be as short as possible, and its skin should be deeply and closely wrinkled. The muzzle should be short, broad, turned upwards and very deep from the corner of the eye to the corner of the mouth. The nose should be large, broad and black, and under no circumstances should it be liver coloured or brown; its top should be deeply set back almost between the eyes. The distance from the inner corner of the eye (or from the centre of the stop between the eyes) to the extreme tip of the nose should not exceed the length from the tip of the nose to the edge of the under lip. The nostrils should be large, wide and black, with a well-defined vertical straight line between them. The flews, called the "chop" should be thick, broad, pendant, and very deep, hanging completely over the lower jaw at the sides (not in front). They should join the under lip in front and quite cover the teeth. The jaws should be broad, massive and square, the lower jaw should project considerably in front of the upper and turn up. Viewed from the front, the various properties of the face must be equally balanced on either side of an imaginary line down the centre of the face.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Steve

[moosmum]

It's all academic really - they will be banned before too long.

yes

that seems to be the intention

But I don't think it WAS the intention, to begin with. Just asking for changes to meet community and welfare expectations. That has not happened, and can not happen fast enough. There has been at least one generation of breeders since PDE, as far as average ( human) breeder span. Show ring awarded examples of poor practice are still rife and in some cases, for some breeds, going backwards. Internationaly if not nationaly. It seems international trends trickle down universaly too.

Peta and the like, yeah, no pretense there on their intentions.

Thing is though, So far, People still want DOGS enough that these extreme animal rights types wouldn't have a hope in hell of banning dogs. While the majority of people find value and purpose in keeping them, they haven't a hope of banning that. They are NOT the threat as long as that holds true.

Poor breeding ( and husbandry) practices ARE a threat. One that gives Peta and the like any clout they have.

Poor practices don't meet needs or expectations. There is no value or purpose in a poorly bred dog. Unless of course its being rewarded in the show ring, or a pet living in a home with such lowered expectations of dogs its only asked to be quiet.

Diseased, crippled, unable to breathe, move freely, short lived or not bred for an ACTIVE role in Mans communities = a dog with little purpose but human vanity. Status. A cause for animal rights activists.

While these types of dogs are PROMOTED in show ring results as prime examples of quality breeding they are forming expectations of the acceptable and desirable in any who don't already expect better and more.

Edited May 1, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

Being able to test for recessive carriers and breed away from any animals in the gene pool ever being affected by them is a completely different issue to what the OP is about.

Breeding dogs which have brachy heads is about selection for the way the dog looks and if breeders don't get that and start selecting for dogs with muzzles which are moderately short rather than acutely short they will only have themselves to blame.

I said earlier that I didn't think the breed standards were the problem and it was more about interpretation which I still believe is the case in many but then I had a better look at this current breed standard. and clearly I was wrong and the breed standard extension is just as bad .

You can't seriously tell me this is O.K. and that you cant see that dogs bred like this wont have health problems .You can't seriously tell me that a dog bred to this standard and this breed standard extension is not going to have welfare issues due to its conformation,be able to whelp etc!

This was only amended in 2015 !

My link

The skull should be very large - the larger the better - and in circumference should measure (round in front of the ears) at least the height of the dog at the shoulders. Viewed from the front it should appear very high from the corner of the lower jaw to the apex of the skull, and also very broad and square. The cheeks should be well rounded and extended sideways beyond the eyes. Viewed at the side, the head should appear very high, and very short from its back to the point of the nose. The forehead should be flat, neither prominent nor overhanging the face; the skin upon it and about the head very loose and well wrinkled. The projections of the frontal bones should be very prominent, broad, square and high, causing a deep and wide indentation between the eyes termed the "stop". From the "stop" a furrow both broad and deep should extend up to the middle of the skull, being traceable to the apex. The face, measured from the front of the cheek-bone to the nose, should be as short as possible, and its skin should be deeply and closely wrinkled. The muzzle should be short, broad, turned upwards and very deep from the corner of the eye to the corner of the mouth. The nose should be large, broad and black, and under no circumstances should it be liver coloured or brown; its top should be deeply set back almost between the eyes. The distance from the inner corner of the eye (or from the centre of the stop between the eyes) to the extreme tip of the nose should not exceed the length from the tip of the nose to the edge of the under lip. The nostrils should be large, wide and black, with a well-defined vertical straight line between them. The flews, called the "chop" should be thick, broad, pendant, and very deep, hanging completely over the lower jaw at the sides (not in front). They should join the under lip in front and quite cover the teeth. The jaws should be broad, massive and square, the lower jaw should project considerably in front of the upper and turn up. Viewed from the front, the various properties of the face must be equally balanced on either side of an imaginary line down the centre of the face.

Not very hopeful. I can see that going down hill fast.

Again, I am convinced the insularity of pedigree breeders is the cause. Each generation only has whats in front of them to form values, and each generation will expect less, and have less to work with.

Permitted to cross breed for a "pet" market, I could see thoughtfully planned, health tested litters competing with both BYBers and puppy farms to promote better practices and dogs. Informing buyer expectation in the general population.

Supporting the idea purpose and value are just as relevant in non pedigree dogs. The ways these are achieved. About time.

Dogs that might not win in the show ring but having great value for companion purposes being retained for breeding because of value else where being recognized. And in turn comparative and alternative values being recognized by pedigree breeders and judges alike.

I realy don't think we have time for anything less.

We have some wonderful breeders, putting their hearts and souls into improvement, but until the pedigree is better understood to be a tool for better practice and not the end goal for their unique difference, they are pi**ing into the wind.

Edited May 1, 2016 by moosmum

[asal]

Being able to test for recessive carriers and breed away from any animals in the gene pool ever being affected by them is a completely different issue to what the OP is about.

Breeding dogs which have brachy heads is about selection for the way the dog looks and if breeders don't get that and start selecting for dogs with muzzles which are moderately short rather than acutely short they will only have themselves to blame.

I said earlier that I didn't think the breed standards were the problem and it was more about interpretation which I still believe is the case in many but then I had a better look at this current breed standard. and clearly I was wrong and the breed standard extension is just as bad .

You can't seriously tell me this is O.K. and that you cant see that dogs bred like this wont have health problems .You can't seriously tell me that a dog bred to this standard and this breed standard extension is not going to have welfare issues due to its conformation,be able to whelp etc!

This was only amended in 2015 !

My link

The skull should be very large - the larger the better - and in circumference should measure (round in front of the ears) at least the height of the dog at the shoulders. Viewed from the front it should appear very high from the corner of the lower jaw to the apex of the skull, and also very broad and square. The cheeks should be well rounded and extended sideways beyond the eyes. Viewed at the side, the head should appear very high, and very short from its back to the point of the nose. The forehead should be flat, neither prominent nor overhanging the face; the skin upon it and about the head very loose and well wrinkled. The projections of the frontal bones should be very prominent, broad, square and high, causing a deep and wide indentation between the eyes termed the "stop". From the "stop" a furrow both broad and deep should extend up to the middle of the skull, being traceable to the apex. The face, measured from the front of the cheek-bone to the nose, should be as short as possible, and its skin should be deeply and closely wrinkled. The muzzle should be short, broad, turned upwards and very deep from the corner of the eye to the corner of the mouth. The nose should be large, broad and black, and under no circumstances should it be liver coloured or brown; its top should be deeply set back almost between the eyes. The distance from the inner corner of the eye (or from the centre of the stop between the eyes) to the extreme tip of the nose should not exceed the length from the tip of the nose to the edge of the under lip. The nostrils should be large, wide and black, with a well-defined vertical straight line between them. The flews, called the "chop" should be thick, broad, pendant, and very deep, hanging completely over the lower jaw at the sides (not in front). They should join the under lip in front and quite cover the teeth. The jaws should be broad, massive and square, the lower jaw should project considerably in front of the upper and turn up. Viewed from the front, the various properties of the face must be equally balanced on either side of an imaginary line down the centre of the face.

Not very hopeful. I can see that going down hill fast.

Again, I am convinced the insularity of pedigree breeders is the cause. Each generation only has whats in front of them to form values, and each generation will expect less, and have less to work with.

Permitted to cross breed for a "pet" market, I could see thoughtfully planned, health tested litters competing with both BYBers and puppy farms to promote better practices and dogs. Informing buyer expectation in the general population.

Supporting the idea purpose and value are just as relevant in non pedigree dogs. The ways these are achieved. About time.

Dogs that might not win in the show ring but having great value for companion purposes being retained for breeding because of value else where being recognized. And in turn comparative and alternative values being recognized by pedigree breeders and judges alike.

I realy don't think we have time for anything less.

We have some wonderful breeders, putting their hearts and souls into improvement, but until the pedigree is better understood to be a tool for better practice and not the end goal for their unique difference, they are pi**ing into the wind.

standards can be changed. they need to be changed if that is what is above.

as in Persians the standard was changed to favor the flat no face.

when are the breed clubs going to make the changes BEFORE they are forced too?

when are they going to become proactive instead of the decades of reactive?

at least PDE , forced one good reaction the deletion of (in the case of equal merit the more diminutive preferred)in the chihuahua standard or words to that effect, some of us noticed the smallest were going to the top of the line before conformation was even assessed and commented should be deleted . but no nothing was done until public embarrassment.

not good public relations waiting for that surely?

how is shortening a breeds face over decades from what is was originally "improving" it into eye problems and suffocation?

drooping skin so badly eyes look like they are sunk in sagging purses of dust catchers for infection?

eyes bigger and bigger again until they are easily damaged and infected , how on earth can that be construed as improving anything other than the chances of needing veterinary intervention to cure the resulting damage?

there are soooooo many sites to show the original breed and what "improved" has morphed it into, I doubt the origional breeders would be any but horrified at the changes wrought over the past 40 to 60 years

Edited May 1, 2016 by asal

[dog_fan]

Being able to test for recessive carriers and breed away from any animals in the gene pool ever being affected by them is a completely different issue to what the OP is about.

Breeding dogs which have brachy heads is about selection for the way the dog looks and if breeders don't get that and start selecting for dogs with muzzles which are moderately short rather than acutely short they will only have themselves to blame.

I said earlier that I didn't think the breed standards were the problem and it was more about interpretation which I still believe is the case in many but then I had a better look at this current breed standard. and clearly I was wrong and the breed standard extension is just as bad .

You can't seriously tell me this is O.K. and that you cant see that dogs bred like this wont have health problems .You can't seriously tell me that a dog bred to this standard and this breed standard extension is not going to have welfare issues due to its conformation,be able to whelp etc!

This was only amended in 2015 !

My link

The skull should be very large - the larger the better - and in circumference should measure (round in front of the ears) at least the height of the dog at the shoulders. Viewed from the front it should appear very high from the corner of the lower jaw to the apex of the skull, and also very broad and square. The cheeks should be well rounded and extended sideways beyond the eyes. Viewed at the side, the head should appear very high, and very short from its back to the point of the nose. The forehead should be flat, neither prominent nor overhanging the face; the skin upon it and about the head very loose and well wrinkled. The projections of the frontal bones should be very prominent, broad, square and high, causing a deep and wide indentation between the eyes termed the "stop". From the "stop" a furrow both broad and deep should extend up to the middle of the skull, being traceable to the apex. The face, measured from the front of the cheek-bone to the nose, should be as short as possible, and its skin should be deeply and closely wrinkled. The muzzle should be short, broad, turned upwards and very deep from the corner of the eye to the corner of the mouth. The nose should be large, broad and black, and under no circumstances should it be liver coloured or brown; its top should be deeply set back almost between the eyes. The distance from the inner corner of the eye (or from the centre of the stop between the eyes) to the extreme tip of the nose should not exceed the length from the tip of the nose to the edge of the under lip. The nostrils should be large, wide and black, with a well-defined vertical straight line between them. The flews, called the "chop" should be thick, broad, pendant, and very deep, hanging completely over the lower jaw at the sides (not in front). They should join the under lip in front and quite cover the teeth. The jaws should be broad, massive and square, the lower jaw should project considerably in front of the upper and turn up. Viewed from the front, the various properties of the face must be equally balanced on either side of an imaginary line down the centre of the face.

I actually find that breed standard almost crazy.

It is completely unacceptable given what we know of the problems in that breed.

There is no excuse for this.

I am appalled.

[Steve]

Being able to test for recessive carriers and breed away from any animals in the gene pool ever being affected by them is a completely different issue to what the OP is about.

Breeding dogs which have brachy heads is about selection for the way the dog looks and if breeders don't get that and start selecting for dogs with muzzles which are moderately short rather than acutely short they will only have themselves to blame.

I said earlier that I didn't think the breed standards were the problem and it was more about interpretation which I still believe is the case in many but then I had a better look at this current breed standard. and clearly I was wrong and the breed standard extension is just as bad .

You can't seriously tell me this is O.K. and that you cant see that dogs bred like this wont have health problems .You can't seriously tell me that a dog bred to this standard and this breed standard extension is not going to have welfare issues due to its conformation,be able to whelp etc!

This was only amended in 2015 !

My link

The skull should be very large - the larger the better - and in circumference should measure (round in front of the ears) at least the height of the dog at the shoulders. Viewed from the front it should appear very high from the corner of the lower jaw to the apex of the skull, and also very broad and square. The cheeks should be well rounded and extended sideways beyond the eyes. Viewed at the side, the head should appear very high, and very short from its back to the point of the nose. The forehead should be flat, neither prominent nor overhanging the face; the skin upon it and about the head very loose and well wrinkled. The projections of the frontal bones should be very prominent, broad, square and high, causing a deep and wide indentation between the eyes termed the "stop". From the "stop" a furrow both broad and deep should extend up to the middle of the skull, being traceable to the apex. The face, measured from the front of the cheek-bone to the nose, should be as short as possible, and its skin should be deeply and closely wrinkled. The muzzle should be short, broad, turned upwards and very deep from the corner of the eye to the corner of the mouth. The nose should be large, broad and black, and under no circumstances should it be liver coloured or brown; its top should be deeply set back almost between the eyes. The distance from the inner corner of the eye (or from the centre of the stop between the eyes) to the extreme tip of the nose should not exceed the length from the tip of the nose to the edge of the under lip. The nostrils should be large, wide and black, with a well-defined vertical straight line between them. The flews, called the "chop" should be thick, broad, pendant, and very deep, hanging completely over the lower jaw at the sides (not in front). They should join the under lip in front and quite cover the teeth. The jaws should be broad, massive and square, the lower jaw should project considerably in front of the upper and turn up. Viewed from the front, the various properties of the face must be equally balanced on either side of an imaginary line down the centre of the face.

Not very hopeful. I can see that going down hill fast.

Again, I am convinced the insularity of pedigree breeders is the cause. Each generation only has whats in front of them to form values, and each generation will expect less, and have less to work with.

Permitted to cross breed for a "pet" market, I could see thoughtfully planned, health tested litters competing with both BYBers and puppy farms to promote better practices and dogs. Informing buyer expectation in the general population.

Supporting the idea purpose and value are just as relevant in non pedigree dogs. The ways these are achieved. About time.

Dogs that might not win in the show ring but having great value for companion purposes being retained for breeding because of value else where being recognized. And in turn comparative and alternative values being recognized by pedigree breeders and judges alike.

I realy don't think we have time for anything less.

We have some wonderful breeders, putting their hearts and souls into improvement, but until the pedigree is better understood to be a tool for better practice and not the end goal for their unique difference, they are pi**ing into the wind.

standards can be changed. they need to be changed if that is what is above.

as in Persians the standard was changed to favor the flat no face.

when are the breed clubs going to make the changes BEFORE they are forced too?

when are they going to become proactive instead of the decades of reactive?

at least PDE , forced one good reaction the deletion of (in the case of equal merit the more diminutive preferred)in the chihuahua standard or words to that effect, some of us noticed the smallest were going to the top of the line before conformation was even assessed and commented should be deleted . but no nothing was done until public embarrassment.

not good public relations waiting for that surely?

how is shortening a breeds face over decades from what is was originally "improving" it into eye problems and suffocation?

drooping skin so badly eyes look like they are sunk in sagging purses of dust catchers for infection?

eyes bigger and bigger again until they are easily damaged and infected , how on earth can that be construed as improving anything other than the chances of needing veterinary intervention to cure the resulting damage?

there are soooooo many sites to show the original breed and what "improved" has morphed it into, I doubt the original breeders would be any but horrified at the changes wrought over the past 40 to 60 years

Because of the system and the shonky deals made to "protect the breeds" the standards can only be changed via the breed clubs in country of origin. And whats more that breed standard has only just been amended and up dated SINCE PDE !

[*kirty*]

I can't open the link - what breed is it?

[Willem]

http://ankc.org.au/Breed/Detail/195

from a legal point of view: such a document would count as incitement to animal cruelty, so why is the law not stopping it?

ETA: http://ankc.org.au/media/pdf/635576349099962677_710ef73d-e7d9-46ca-89a0-6f0af3cbf2d9.pdf ...the rating (page 29) of the different characteristics makes it even worse: a more healthy version of the particular property will result immediately in reduction of the final score.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Willem

[Steve]

http://ankc.org.au/Breed/Detail/195

from a legal point of view: such a document would count as incitement to animal cruelty, so why is the law not stopping it?

ETA: http://ankc.org.au/m...f0af3cbf2d9.pdf ...the rating (page 29) of the different characteristics makes it even worse: a more healthy version of the particular property will result immediately in reduction of the final score.

No idea from a legal point but from a moral, ethical point - its disgusting and any hint from those responsible that this is about the bloody betterment of the breed and what some think is what is best for the dogs is needing to take a long hard look at a bit of reality.

The law knows that until they wake the whole world up so less people want to own them that trying to stop it wont work thus why the campaign to try to de sensitise people to what has happened. You can hardly claim its not us when that garbage is what you bleat on about and bully

anyone who wants to have a go at moving the other way. Because the only way they can is to breed away from the standard.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

ANKC Policy on breed standards

Link

[asal]

I have a friend who told me he thinks french bulldogs are so cute he is going to get one..think I will send him a link to this.

might have a rethink

Edited May 2, 2016 by asal

[Steve]

I have a friend who told me he thinks french bulldogs are so cute he is going to get one..think I will send him a link to this.

height have a rethink

And that is exactly what the desired outcome is. French Bulldogs are great - they make fantastic pets and though do have some potential health issues related to their conformation as all breeds do.

[Jed]

It's all academic really - they will be banned before too long.

yes

that seems to be the intention

But I don't think it WAS the intention, to begin with. Just asking for changes to meet community and welfare expectations. That has not happened, and can not happen fast enough. There has been at least one generation of breeders since PDE, as far as average ( human) breeder span. Show ring awarded examples of poor practice are still rife and in some cases, for some breeds, going backwards. Internationaly if not nationaly. It seems international trends trickle down universaly too.

Peta and the like, yeah, no pretense there on their intentions.

Thing is though, So far, People still want DOGS enough that these extreme animal rights types wouldn't have a hope in hell of banning dogs. While the majority of people find value and purpose in keeping them, they haven't a hope of banning that. They are NOT the threat as long as that holds true.

Poor breeding ( and husbandry) practices ARE a threat. One that gives Peta and the like any clout they have.

Poor practices don't meet needs or expectations. There is no value or purpose in a poorly bred dog. Unless of course its being rewarded in the show ring, or a pet living in a home with such lowered expectations of dogs its only asked to be quiet.

Diseased, crippled, unable to breathe, move freely, short lived or not bred for an ACTIVE role in Mans communities = a dog with little purpose but human vanity. Status. A cause for animal rights activists.

While these types of dogs are PROMOTED in show ring results as prime examples of quality breeding they are forming expectations of the acceptable and desirable in any who don't already expect better and more.

PETA stated their intention to do away with ALL companion animals well before PDE was made. In fact PETA coined the term "companion animal" because it didn't sound as "touchy feely" as "pet" and it would be easier to ban a "companion animal".

Diseased, crippled, unable to breathe, move freely, short lived or not bred for an ACTIVE role in Mans communities = a dog with little purpose but human vanity

So really, in light of that, they ought to be banned, ought they not? I cannot see any reason why not, after reading this. No one can justify continuing with a breed which suffers.

[moosmum]

It's all academic really - they will be banned before too long.

yes

that seems to be the intention

But I don't think it WAS the intention, to begin with. Just asking for changes to meet community and welfare expectations. That has not happened, and can not happen fast enough. There has been at least one generation of breeders since PDE, as far as average ( human) breeder span. Show ring awarded examples of poor practice are still rife and in some cases, for some breeds, going backwards. Internationaly if not nationaly. It seems international trends trickle down universaly too.

Peta and the like, yeah, no pretense there on their intentions.

Thing is though, So far, People still want DOGS enough that these extreme animal rights types wouldn't have a hope in hell of banning dogs. While the majority of people find value and purpose in keeping them, they haven't a hope of banning that. They are NOT the threat as long as that holds true.

Poor breeding ( and husbandry) practices ARE a threat. One that gives Peta and the like any clout they have.

Poor practices don't meet needs or expectations. There is no value or purpose in a poorly bred dog. Unless of course its being rewarded in the show ring, or a pet living in a home with such lowered expectations of dogs its only asked to be quiet.

Diseased, crippled, unable to breathe, move freely, short lived or not bred for an ACTIVE role in Mans communities = a dog with little purpose but human vanity. Status. A cause for animal rights activists.

While these types of dogs are PROMOTED in show ring results as prime examples of quality breeding they are forming expectations of the acceptable and desirable in any who don't already expect better and more.

PETA stated their intention to do away with ALL companion animals well before PDE was made. In fact PETA coined the term "companion animal" because it didn't sound as "touchy feely" as "pet" and it would be easier to ban a "companion animal".

Diseased, crippled, unable to breathe, move freely, short lived or not bred for an ACTIVE role in Mans communities = a dog with little purpose but human vanity

So really, in light of that, they ought to be banned, ought they not? I cannot see any reason why not, after reading this. No one can justify continuing with a breed which suffers.

No. You can't. IF, as a breed, they continue to be bred to standards that demand such extremes and are awarded for such extremes that they do suffer.

I'd rather see changes in the culture of pedigree breeders that can avoid that. Too many breeds are headed for a similar fate and once there is a precedent it won't stop there.

I think we all need to stop focusing on 'Where' a dog comes from to either justify or condemn poor/better practices and start selling expectations and practices.

Those can bring value whatever purpose a dog is to serve, no matter where it comes from or goes to.

Instead of arguing about who is doing it wrong, promote ideals and expectations to live up to. DEMONSTRATE how better value is to be had.

Allow that demonstration, encourage it, and the breeds are better able to follow. The public can start to cheer that on and have an avenue open to drive change.

I think the breed clubs are too insular and caught up in promoting existing standards for any degree of support to initiate change. Within clubs that require international agreement, its near impossible to gain 'approval' for anything different to whats in front of every one now.

The public is no position to influence that when breeders 1st loyalty is not to dogs, or those who might buy them, but to a standard.

Necessity CAN drive change, But demonstration is needed before its value can be recognized. Seems to be physical law of biology, backed by psychological research.

Edited May 2, 2016 by moosmum

[asal]

just spotted this add for pedigree puppies with main or limit register available

obvious this photo of the cream/black parti it actualy does have a muzzle without the deep folds so there are dogs that could be used to select away from the ulra squashed face still to be found

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/zI0AAOSwFEFXJqEb/$_20.JPG

compared to how short this one is

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/qooAAOSwIjNXJqET/$_20.JPG

Edited May 2, 2016 by asal

[moosmum]

just spotted this add for pedigree puppies with main or limit register available

obvious this photo of the cream/black parti it actualy does have a muzzle without the deep folds so there are dogs that could be used to select away from the ulra squashed face still to be found

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/zI0AAOSwFEFXJqEb/$_20.JPG

compared to how short this one is

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/qooAAOSwIjNXJqET/$_20.JPG

I agree. With their popularity, I'm sure it would be quite possible to select for dogs based on common expectations of good health and vitality.

How to get breeders to recognize that favoring the standard 1st diminishes those values is the hard part.

Common values Vs breed specific values.

.....If it doesn't conform to a ridgid, accepted standard, its got no recognizable value worth contributing. Or so they are told. Hard to push against that.

If it can't be accepted there should be common standards for all dogs before breed standards, we will drive dogs to become uncommon. Standard by standard.

Edited May 2, 2016 by moosmum