Vets Report Increase In Disease Amongst Brachycephalic Dogs

[Steve]

Good post Mita but the glaringly obvious is that none of the activities reported or the research cited which the ANKC are involved in or are funding is relevant to BOAS or other conformational issues and it is the conformational issues which are being focused on in the current media campaigns.

In order to be seen to be doing something toward elimination of dogs suffering due to their conformation something needs to change.

[mita]

The point, Steve, is that the Norwegian Kennel Club which has issued that position re conformation of brachy breeds .... is informed in what they do via close cooperation with bodies that gather actual evidence, like the Veterinary section of the Norwegian University & their country's Veterinary Association. Which explains why it's an objective one, based on tested reality... not on ideology. That's the story behind that statement.

The NKC takes that approach, generally. It's not only brachy breeds. Because my own breed has big numbers in Norway, I've kept tabs on what's come from there. Fortunately, significant ones have been written in English. Like, there's an excellent, longish position paper co-authored by the NKC & the Vet Dpt of their University which just as objectively & honestly looks at health & welfare issues generally in breeding purebreds. That's the culture that needs supporting here .... & registered breeders have shown willingness to contribute.

When an animal welfare organization like our RSPCA talks of 'risk' associated with brachy breeds, they need to be invited to the table to see (& support) what is being done to acknowledge & prevent health and functioning problems.

When it comes to animal rights groups, they tend to take an extreme ideological stand that reason doesn't change. But if major organizations like the Kennel Clubs, Vet Association, Research Centres & welfare organization have some point of agreement .... that will be a stronger influence (hope springs eternal!).

Edited April 12, 2016 by mita

[Steve]

The point, Steve, is that the Norwegian Kennel Club which has issued that position re conformation of brachy breeds .... is informed in what they do via close cooperation with bodies that gather actual evidence, like the Veterinary section of the Norwegian University & their country's Veterinary Association. Which explains why it's an objective one, based on tested reality... not on ideology. That's the story behind that statement.

The NKC takes that approach, generally. It's not only brachy breeds. Because my own breed has big numbers in Norway, I've kept tabs on what's come from there. Fortunately, significant ones have been written in English. Like, there's an excellent, longish position paper co-authored by the NKC & the Vet Dpt of their University which just as objectively & honestly looks at health & welfare issues generally in breeding purebreds. That's the culture that needs supporting here .... & registered breeders have shown willingness to contribute.

When an animal welfare organization like our RSPCA talks of 'risk' associated with brachy breeds, they need to be invited to the table to see (& support) what is being done to acknowledge & prevent health and functioning problems.

When it comes to animal rights groups, they tend to take an extreme ideological stand that reason doesn't change. But if major organizations like the Kennel Clubs, Vet Association, Research Centres & welfare organization have some point of agreement .... that will be a stronger influence (hope springs eternal!).

Yes again I agree and it would be good if in this country Kennel Clubs, vet associations, research centres and welfare orgs have some point of agreement but that will mean re thinking how they respond.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Steve

[Salukifan]

some questions for the experts (I hope it is not too off-topic):

1. why are insurance costs for purebreds in general higher than crossbreeds?
   
2. why do the insurance companies consider parameters like size of dogs, age and breed, but not whether it is a pedigree or just a purebred without papers?
   
3. why are the insurance costs for e.g. a French Bulldog significant higher compared to e.g. a Border Collie?
   

Answer to 1: Because it is ONLY purebred dogs in which health issues have been tracked.

That will explain why some breeds cost more to insure than others.

[Salukifan]

So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job.

As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today.

That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow. ut of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only.

I know some of the most valued breeding dogs around are ordinary show dogs. Most breeders I know value dogs by what they produce in the whelping box. There are also the instinct dog sports.

Do you show Moosmum? Do you hang out with breeders?

I get this sense from some folk that they think that pedigree dog folk don't think and worry about these issues and are blind to the extremes of breeding. Maybe you need to search out some different forums. They DO talk about it, they do worry about GSD hind ends and other extremes and they sure as hell DO criticise.

I won't deny there's a 'circle the wagons' mentality that tends to see breed folk defend their own. But introspection and reflection aren't absent.

I'm not going to blame BYBs for this but it IS a fact that most of the dogs that suffer these issues have at one time or another suffered the curse of popularity. I think what that can mean even within the ANKC is people attracted by profit and lacking in knowledge.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Haredown Whippets

[sandgrubber]

If the breed standard is not encouraging selection for healthy traits,

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard.

A breed standard that can be and is interpreted to favor a type that is inherently unhealthy, such as extreme brachy, is a breed standard that needs to be rewritten.

If 'broad head' and 'powerful build' in the Labrador standard got emphasized, and the words with respect to balance got ignored, leading to muscle bound hulks with monster heads (not saying this has happened or is likely to happen), I'd say the standard needed rewriting.

Good on the Norwegian KC. Here's hoping they continue on to other breeds whose standards have been pushed to the extreme (Peke comes to mind) and other KC's follow their example.

[Jed]

If pedigree breeders stick their heads in the sand when they pull their heads out there will be legislation against some breeds.

Proactive work may allow us to have these breeds for longer.

The RSPCA will be listened to regardless of what anyone on this forum thinks of the organisation.

Feel free to provide proof that pedigree dog breeders are sticking their heads in the sand.

The proof is in this thread, in the show ring and in vet surgery's.

I could ask you to provide proof that they don't have their heads in the sand but that would achieve nothing.

I am interested in solutioms not point scoring.

You are taking a very combatative approach to this issue.

This issue is too serious for me to play word games.

I suggest you check the information going out from the state CCs - and the varied discussions on facebook will show you that breeders do not have their heads in the sand. And I also suggest that you watch carefully because some breeds will be banned in due course - and everyone will say "oh those damned breeders" but where is the proof - either way? Not all dogs are healthy, as some horses, cattle, sheep and children are not healthy no matter what tests are done. That's nature. I think the majority of breeders are trying - but it will make no difference to the eventual outcome.

I'd like to see some proven figures.

We were told that up to 70% of Cavaliers had CM/SM. yet a survey by the Cavalier club in Australia found that less than 2% had CM/SM. As a breeder, how do I overcome that rumour??

dog-fan

That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow.

Where did you get that idea? what is "ineligible to show"? If it is non-stud book, of course it is ineligible. There is not even proof that it is the breed it is stated to be.

One of the reasons I breed pedigree dogs is that IT IS TOO HARD to breed decent dogs without knowing something about where they came from. I use dog X and my pups look like another breed - I use Dog y, and the pups have cow hocks and bad mouths. Because I didn't know who the grandparents were, and it turns out they were exactly the same.

NO one is forced to breed pedigree dogs. It is for many people - including me - to be assured that the dog they are using is (a) purebred and (b) from parents who are of acceptable quality. I knew most of the dogs behind my dogs, and can see photos of the others.

And before this comes up - plenty in the dog world, including me - use dogs which are not heavily shown or titled. However, titled dogs are more visible, and usually better quality dogs. It is the bitch's owner's choice what dog to use.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Jed

[moosmum]

If the breed standard is not encouraging selection for healthy traits,

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard.

Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - providing that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions.

16% in a survey is not too many.

moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose.

Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool.

Yes Jed, I know what the pedigree is for, and it is and always will be a very useful tool. But thats ALL it is...A tool towards a goal. A dog.

But the point is, some dogs with very valuable, sought after traits might NOT HAVE a pedigree. It doesn't make them less a dog, or have less to contribute IF there is a genuine goal in mind. A purpose. And buyers who will support what ever that purpose is. Its clear many support cross breeds and find value there anyway. They won't be going away.

It CAN be done ethicaly with exactly the same values pedigree breeders hold and promote. And if it were, we would not be having such problems with over breeding of BYB dogs or puppy mills enjoying the support they currently do. Because those same values would be promoted universaly. But instead the public becomes ever more ineffective and random in their breeding, ownership and management choices, while the K.Cs become ever tighter in controls. They are 2 sides of one coin.

Opposite environments instead of a single one. Opposing.

Cross breeding will always be less predictable, and pedigree will always offer greater predictability. The pedigree doesn't loose value because cross breeds are being bred. But cross breeds can be better bred, with goals in mind and pedigrees can be bred with out such a narrow focus. The 2 sick opposing environments can be a single healthy one if the common values are recognized. The dogs. The dogs ARE the value. Their purpose is for Humanity.

The show ring is 1 purpose of many. Its no less valid than any other. Its no greater value than any other. Interpretation of the standards is the problem, I agree. So allow more interpretation of those standards by allowing other interpretaions to have relevance to the people who show them. Not JUST the show ring, but what people and communities are asking for. Dogs that can also serve THEIR needs.

So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job.

As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today.

That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow.

No pedigree doesn't mean NO ancestors can be known or that no attempt to know them could be made where thats possible. Thats a valuable contribution FOR THE DOGS right there from pedigree breeders that should be able to influence breeders of non pedigree dogs.

Even if that ancestry can't be traced at all, There may be overiding value in the DOG (not its pedigree) that could contribute to the species. A lot more risk, Yeah. But if that dog has valued traits that can't be found else where, it could eventualy Contribute to a new purpose and breed to join the K.Cs and contribute to a new kind of predictability available. If it doesn't, well its a line unlikely to last long. But historicaly, thats how the breeds were created and what the K.Cs grew out of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only.

Is that it? It THAT the rule you constantly reference and push about it being the root cause of the problems?

Yes. I have been quite clear on that from the start.

[moosmum]

So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job.

As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today.

That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow. ut of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only.

I know some of the most valued breeding dogs around are ordinary show dogs. Most breeders I know value dogs by what they produce in the whelping box. There are also the instinct dog sports.

I get this sense from some folk that they think that pedigree dog folk don't think and worry about these issues and are blind to the extremes of breeding. Maybe you need to search out some different forums. They DO talk about it, they do worry about GSD hind ends and other extremes and they sure as hell DO criticise.

I have shown horses, and have many dog breeder friends. So I DO know these are things breeders are concerned and worry about, and striving to correct. Which is why I have NEVER said they are not, or blamed breeders in any general sense.

[moosmum]

If pedigree breeders stick their heads in the sand when they pull their heads out there will be legislation against some breeds.

Proactive work may allow us to have these breeds for longer.

The RSPCA will be listened to regardless of what anyone on this forum thinks of the organisation.

Feel free to provide proof that pedigree dog breeders are sticking their heads in the sand.

The proof is in this thread, in the show ring and in vet surgery's.

I could ask you to provide proof that they don't have their heads in the sand but that would achieve nothing.

I am interested in solutioms not point scoring.

You are taking a very combatative approach to this issue.

This issue is too serious for me to play word games.

I suggest you check the information going out from the state CCs - and the varied discussions on facebook will show you that breeders do not have their heads in the sand. And I also suggest that you watch carefully because some breeds will be banned in due course - and everyone will say "oh those damned breeders" but where is the proof - either way? Not all dogs are healthy, as some horses, cattle, sheep and children are not healthy no matter what tests are done. That's nature. I think the majority of breeders are trying - but it will make no difference to the eventual outcome.

I'd like to see some proven figures.

We were told that up to 70% of Cavaliers had CM/SM. yet a survey by the Cavalier club in Australia found that less than 2% had CM/SM. As a breeder, how do I overcome that rumour??

dog-fan

That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow.

Where did you get that idea? what is "ineligible to show"? If it is non-stud book, of course it is ineligible. There is not even proof that it is the breed it is stated to be.

One of the reasons I breed pedigree dogs is that IT IS TOO HARD to breed decent dogs without knowing something about where they came from. I use dog X and my pups look like another breed - I use Dog y, and the pups have cow hocks and bad mouths. Because I didn't know who the grandparents were, and it turns out they were exactly the same.

NO one is forced to breed pedigree dogs. It is for many people - including me - to be assured that the dog they are using is (a) purebred and (b) from parents who are of acceptable quality. I knew most of the dogs behind my dogs, and can see photos of the others.

And before this comes up - plenty in the dog world, including me - use dogs which are not heavily shown or titled. However, titled dogs are more visible, and usually better quality dogs. It is the bitch's owner's choice what dog to use.

Where did I get that idea?

From the constitution and rules of the K.Cs.

Forbidding breeders to breed from a dog ineligible for registration means that there is no value recognized in a dog ineligible for registration. or not conforming to a recognized breed standard.

The show ring is the measure of conformity and ( I may be wrong on this point? But I believe) any dog with a full pedigree is eligible to show?

I have no argument with any of the points you bring up, or your right to breed only pedigree dogs. Or to show them.

Nor do I believe an unregistered dog should be eligible to show.

Only with a constitution that denies there can be value out side of that system. Because by its very nature, it will OPPOSE values out side of that system. And the SPECIES depends on those values. Not just the K.Cs.

A constitution will only do what is written into its charter and rules. If there are problems, look to that charter and rules to find where that direction is coming from.

I have done that, and my conclusion, based on research into how to write a successful effective constitution and rules leads me to that ruling.

For reasons I've already out lined in this thread, on advise that a successful constitution avoids negative instruction. The reason given is that a negative instruction does not set clear direction, Only implications. Negative instruction can never bring value, but can only restrict values INTO a direction that may be unforseen.

Its a ruling that states opposition to some thing, Most often the environment that constitution must exist within.

If those values out side of that organization aren't recognized, but opposed, that equals a directive to reduce the environment.

And this all seems to be borne out.

Edited April 13, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

If the breed standard is not encouraging selection for healthy traits,

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard.

Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - providing that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions.

16% in a survey is not too many.

moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose.

Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool.

Yes Jed, I know what the pedigree is for, and it is and always will be a very useful tool. But thats ALL it is...A tool towards a goal. A dog.

But the point is, some dogs with very valuable, sought after traits might NOT HAVE a pedigree. It doesn't make them less a dog, or have less to contribute IF there is a genuine goal in mind. A purpose. And buyers who will support what ever that purpose is. Its clear many support cross breeds and find value there anyway. They won't be going away.

It CAN be done ethicaly with exactly the same values pedigree breeders hold and promote. And if it were, we would not be having such problems with over breeding of BYB dogs or puppy mills enjoying the support they currently do. Because those same values would be promoted universaly. But instead the public becomes ever more ineffective and random in their breeding, ownership and management choices, while the K.Cs become ever tighter in controls. They are 2 sides of one coin.

Opposite environments instead of a single one. Opposing.

Cross breeding will always be less predictable, and pedigree will always offer greater predictability. The pedigree doesn't loose value because cross breeds are being bred. But cross breeds can be better bred, with goals in mind and pedigrees can be bred with out such a narrow focus. The 2 sick opposing environments can be a single healthy one if the common values are recognized. The dogs. The dogs ARE the value. Their purpose is for Humanity.

The show ring is 1 purpose of many. Its no less valid than any other. Its no greater value than any other. Interpretation of the standards is the problem, I agree. So allow more interpretation of those standards by allowing other interpretaions to have relevance to the people who show them. Not JUST the show ring, but what people and communities are asking for. Dogs that can also serve THEIR needs.

So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job.

As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today.

That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow.

No pedigree doesn't mean NO ancestors can be known or that no attempt to know them could be made where thats possible. Thats a valuable contribution FOR THE DOGS right there from pedigree breeders that should be able to influence breeders of non pedigree dogs.

Even if that ancestry can't be traced at all, There may be overiding value in the DOG (not its pedigree) that could contribute to the species. A lot more risk, Yeah. But if that dog has valued traits that can't be found else where, it could eventualy Contribute to a new purpose and breed to join the K.Cs and contribute to a new kind of predictability available. If it doesn't, well its a line unlikely to last long. But historicaly, thats how the breeds were created and what the K.Cs grew out of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only.

Is that it? It THAT the rule you constantly reference and push about it being the root cause of the problems?

Yes. I have been quite clear on that from the start.

But thats not true - there is no rule which forbids members to recognise value in a dog ineligible to show. Show me where in the constitution of the ANKC that this is stated. If a breeder wants to demonstrate their success in breeding dogs which conform to the current view of the standard then the show ring provides a reward for them but to suggest that this is the only reward a breeder seeks or can receive is way off the mark. I think you confuse a pedigree with a registered pedigree.A dog can still have a pedigree if its not registered on the Kcs system even a hand written one scratched up equivalent to a birth certificate is a pedigree and as I have pointed out numerous times the ability for breeders to use dogs which are not registered, which do not have a pedigree - registered or other wise is now and always has been available when there is a good enough reason and when the necessary criteria is reached. There is a system in place which protects the breed from everybody making their own individual decisions in this regard which comes from the breed clubs.

The ANKC cant just make up their own rules regarding a breed on its own ,they cant just decide to change a breed standard or place mandatory tests or conditions on registration criteria on a breed without the parent club and in lots of issues such as changes to a breed standard has to come through a breed's country of origin breed club. They cant get out of this due to agreements which are in place and have been for over 100 years without massive changes which for them would mean serious negative financial consequences.

The UK has opened its stud books and theoretically they allow people to apply for and get approval easier for inclusion of dogs which dont have a pedigree but they have a different system and my deep argument in how this has been developed is wholly and soley on criteria about how the dog looks rather than what else it may bring to the gene pool.

[moosmum]

If the breed standard is not encouraging selection for healthy traits,

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard.

Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - providing that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions.

16% in a survey is not too many.

moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose.

Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool.

Yes Jed, I know what the pedigree is for, and it is and always will be a very useful tool. But thats ALL it is...A tool towards a goal. A dog.

But the point is, some dogs with very valuable, sought after traits might NOT HAVE a pedigree. It doesn't make them less a dog, or have less to contribute IF there is a genuine goal in mind. A purpose. And buyers who will support what ever that purpose is. Its clear many support cross breeds and find value there anyway. They won't be going away.

It CAN be done ethicaly with exactly the same values pedigree breeders hold and promote. And if it were, we would not be having such problems with over breeding of BYB dogs or puppy mills enjoying the support they currently do. Because those same values would be promoted universaly. But instead the public becomes ever more ineffective and random in their breeding, ownership and management choices, while the K.Cs become ever tighter in controls. They are 2 sides of one coin.

Opposite environments instead of a single one. Opposing.

Cross breeding will always be less predictable, and pedigree will always offer greater predictability. The pedigree doesn't loose value because cross breeds are being bred. But cross breeds can be better bred, with goals in mind and pedigrees can be bred with out such a narrow focus. The 2 sick opposing environments can be a single healthy one if the common values are recognized. The dogs. The dogs ARE the value. Their purpose is for Humanity.

The show ring is 1 purpose of many. Its no less valid than any other. Its no greater value than any other. Interpretation of the standards is the problem, I agree. So allow more interpretation of those standards by allowing other interpretaions to have relevance to the people who show them. Not JUST the show ring, but what people and communities are asking for. Dogs that can also serve THEIR needs.

So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job.

As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today.

That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow.

No pedigree doesn't mean NO ancestors can be known or that no attempt to know them could be made where thats possible. Thats a valuable contribution FOR THE DOGS right there from pedigree breeders that should be able to influence breeders of non pedigree dogs.

Even if that ancestry can't be traced at all, There may be overiding value in the DOG (not its pedigree) that could contribute to the species. A lot more risk, Yeah. But if that dog has valued traits that can't be found else where, it could eventualy Contribute to a new purpose and breed to join the K.Cs and contribute to a new kind of predictability available. If it doesn't, well its a line unlikely to last long. But historicaly, thats how the breeds were created and what the K.Cs grew out of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only.

Is that it? It THAT the rule you constantly reference and push about it being the root cause of the problems?

Yes. I have been quite clear on that from the start.

But thats not true - there is no rule which forbids members to recognise value in a dog ineligible to show. Show me where in the constitution of the ANKC that this is stated. If a breeder wants to demonstrate their success in breeding dogs which conform to the current view of the standard then the show ring provides a reward for them but to suggest that this is the only reward a breeder seeks or can receive is way off the mark. I think you confuse a pedigree with a registered pedigree.A dog can still have a pedigree if its not registered on the Kcs system even a hand written one scratched up equivalent to a birth certificate is a pedigree and as I have pointed out numerous times the ability for breeders to use dogs which are not registered, which do not have a pedigree - registered or other wise is now and always has been available when there is a good enough reason and when the necessary criteria is reached. There is a system in place which protects the breed from everybody making their own individual decisions in this regard which comes from the breed clubs.

Its the only value recognized by the CULTURE. Individuals will always recognize the individual priorities relevent to them, and their own unique perspective. But that is environmental. And why there is often so much difficulty in gaining recognition for those efforts.

[dog_fan]

dog-fan

That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow.

I did not say this you quoted the wrong person

[Salukifan]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Haredown Whippets

[Willem]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure....

[Steve]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure....

Breeders who use the pedigree the way it's supposed to be used to track such things can tell you now which generation or more to the point which dog is responsible for a disease. We can also know what colour traits a dog has so we can predict what colours our puppies might be using a punnet square ,we can predict body shape and there is more and more every day . Is it a good thing? Absolutely. If I can breed a dog which is cleared for certain genetic disorders via DNA, if I can see in its pedigree that none of its ancestors have had allergies, bad hips immune diseases etc then I have the chance of breeding happier healthier dogs. The issues discussed here are not genetic issues that can be addressed by DNA its about selection for or against traits you can see and because you may or may not be able to see it all in one generation knowing what traits were in previous generations helps the breeder to be able to work out predictability stats on risk factors and potential outcomes via keeping scores or maths using the Chi Square test .

Edited April 13, 2016 by Steve

[Rebanne]

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure....

a test which has been proven to be very wrong several times here on DOL

[Steve]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

I dont think I would call it cynical - more of a realistic view in my opinion. One of my main" I am intrigued" is by the notion thats its a simple fix by just changing the standard , open the stud books, rub out a rule or two.

[moosmum]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

But removal of that rule says nothing of the sort. The rules for breeding PEDIGREE dogs stay exactly as they are.

The rules for breeding pedigree dogs are set into the rules and constitution even without that rule. It serves no purpose to the pedigree itself. Pedigrees would function the same way as they do now.

A positive ruling ie: "We WILL..... " gives direction and purpose. It tells you to do this brings value to the purpose of the organization (or dogs)

A Negative ruling gives no direction. It simply informs where there is no value to be had. Its a ruling AGAINST values to be had. What values must not be accepted into the pedigree system.

Its a ruling against the environment, or what is out side the pedigree system. In this case, every thing out side the pedigree system.

Never mind the fact that its STILL a dog.

The language of the constitution says there is no value in any direction outside of a pedigree. The culture of its membership are bound to express that.

Just as much as the language of genes govern expression.

Edited April 13, 2016 by moosmum

[dog_fan]

I am not sure if I am being naïve but don't the breed clubs play a role in any fixing?

Surely they are the responsible organisation that sets the breed standard?

I think this is a multi-layered issue and there is no one thing or one rule or one organisation that will fix it.