French Bulldog pups

[Mjosa]

Well the French Bulldog registrations have gone through the roof in the UK, just received my weekly electronic copy of Dog World this morning and the breed is being pointed out as the one that has increased with puppy registrations for 2016.

I have a very close friend over there and she has decided not to breed any more of her beautiful Frenchies as they are now ten a penny, but still demanding ridiculous prices, same problems with the colour factor and health problems.

If people would just do their homework and only use health tested breeding stock, as did we who have had them for years, there would not be the out of control health problems, not to mention the colour problem.

quarterly_breed_stats_utility.pdf

[Steve]

I think that there are some huge chunks of reality that seem to be a bit missing in this equation

1. Firstly there is a campaign being run by the RSPCA and the AVA that puts the health issues of the breed firmly on the show ring and registered breeders - if you go to the bottom of the page after  you watch the movie to "yes I want to help" it takes you to a petition directed squarely at the ANKC. Registered breeders who show can state that they are breeding the healthiest dogs but not everyone agrees. There is much evidence to show this isn't necessarily the case http://loveisblind.org.au/

2. There is no mandatory health testing for a registered breeder to register their puppies and hell of a lot of them don't test where a hell of a lot of those who are not members and who are breeding and selling them do test. Some of them [MDBA breeders] are also doing fitness tests on adult breeding dogs as far as I know NO ANKC registered breeders are doing these tests which are about  how the dog can function rather than only testing them in the ring for how they look. MDBA puppy  buyers are also sharing with us details of any health problems that show up as the dog proceeds through life so we can see how responsible our breeders actually are.  

3. Some ANKC Registered breeders are registering dogs with a different colour so they can breed the blues etc so some of the pedigrees are false and if the colours do truly relate to health problems there is no way of knowing via profiling a pedigree. 

4. If there is a such a high demand for the breed if those who are getting  it right don't breed more then people will buy a dog that is available and fits what they want. Rather than registered breeders who believe they are doing it right slowing what they breed down it makes more sense for them to breed more not less. If ANKC breeders only want to breed show dogs and not also pet dogs then they can hardly moan about someone else filling the gap. You can breed pet puppies and still consider the welfare of the dogs and the best for the breed. 

5. Now and if things go on as they are no one can prove who is most responsible because there is no way of tracking which dogs bred by which breeders actually do have to have operations and vets want to do operations just in case. When the finger is pointed there is no defence as the data hasn't  been collected. 

 

 

[asal]

Years ago my vet approached the AVA suggesting vets compile a list of breeders whose puppies were proving to be free of inherited or low incidence of problems, as well as a list of breeders with high incidence and from this information release a list of recommended breeders. This would have included ALL BREEDERS, of all puppies, be it ANKC, unregistered, x breeds and purebreds,

 

As he said, vets are at the front line of seeing these things and in the best position to compile such records, to his disappointment there was little interest.  Many he said feared they may be sued by breeders they didn't recommend.

 

He still lives in hope some day it may get up off the ground. sounded a great initiate to me anyway.

 

I know even really motivated breeders can still have a disaster, one bought a new potential stud puppy of the french bulldog breed and he developed problems during a heat wave and died before they could get him to the vet, he had not exhibited any of the problems prior to purchase so was a very devastating to happen.

 

Having owned and bred Chihuahuas since 1978 I know of no health problems associated with either the blue, chocolate or lilac genetics save the 1 in 4 incidence of blue gene alopecia in some blues and lilacs.  It has never contributed to any actual health issues in the dog though. what it does do in the one it does manifest in, is end the show career of the dog as if its a long coat it does tend to look pretty odd.  I have seen it manifest as either short , very short hair on the ears.  or along the top of the tail and hindquarters and back. the funniest I saw as a beautiful Lilac boy I bought as a puppy with stunning coat, but when his adult coat came in he had fine baby mist on his ears, top of his head and right along his topline to the tip of his tail. looked like a lawnmower had gone over him.

 

the cutest manifestation I saw was a blue and white boy I bred, he had a white muzzle, big blaze, white collar, 4 white feet and half the tail was white. in his case he lost all his long blue coat and could have passed easily for a Mexican hairless, save for his flowing white face and blaze, massive white mane around his collar, wide legged pants around his legs and 3 inch long white flag on his tail.

 

alopecia means hair loss, not mange of any kind and chocolates are not affected.  In the case of the Mexican Hairless it is a different gene, the blue gene alopecic dog is not actually hairless the hair in the affected areas is soft and short. giving the visual impression compared to the normal length coat.

 

so I do wonder why people are saying there are health issues with these colour genes?

 

how many of you realise an entire breed is the result of all dilute coat colour,  blue and chocolate hence their amazing colour, and that is the Weimariner?

 

http://www.blueweimaraner.com/genetics.html

 

 

 

so I do wonder why these colours are taboo in the frenchie?

 

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by asal

[Roova]

It sounds like a great initiative but if may be difficult to record healthy dogs if they don't go to the vet?  I imagine it would have to be a national list to cover people moving around too?

The problem is people can find recommended or ethical breeders now with a little research but there aren't enough puppies going around.  

 

I would love to see Health funds offering discounts for puppies from health tested parents.  Currently they insure all puppies of certain breed the same regardless of back ground and those with healthier dogs are now suffering through premium hikes because of the constant claiming from poorly bred dogs.  It would have to benefit the health fund to promote healthier dogs too you'd think.  

[asal]

14 minutes ago, Roova said:

It sounds like a great initiative but if may be difficult to record healthy dogs if they don't go to the vet?  I imagine it would have to be a national list to cover people moving around too?

The problem is people can find recommended or ethical breeders now with a little research but there aren't enough puppies going around.  

 

I would love to see Health funds offering discounts for puppies from health tested parents.  Currently they insure all puppies of certain breed the same regardless of back ground and those with healthier dogs are now suffering through premium hikes because of the constant claiming from poorly bred dogs.  It would have to benefit the health fund to promote healthier dogs too you'd think.  

now that would be a really great initiative wouldn't it

[Pjrt]

Speaking generally it seems in an effort to 'stamp out puppy farms' it has become unethical for ethical registered breeders to ACTUALLY BREED DOGS!  Along the way in the last twenty years or so something went awry and now it seems to be held up as ethical you can only breed 'when you want something for yourself'.  

 Unfortunately other factors in the 'war against puppy farms' has led to breeding being legislated out to only the most dedicated and wealthy breeders, and those willing to live in rural and semi rural locations.  

Registered breeders need to actually breed dogs as Steve said someone else will fill the demand, not always with the best or ethical intentions.

so many breeds suffer from supply and demand. Breeds like Maltese & ShihTzu. Everyone knows what they are, and every second person seems to own one, but in reality there is a minute percentage of Maltese & ShihTzu that actually are registers pedigree examples. But Jo publics breed expectations have been so eroded that they actually think small mixed breed dogs of Maltese & ShihTzu type are close enough, good enough. Because they just can't find or access registered breeders, and even when they do, there are no puppies to be found.  The same thing happens to most  breeds that go through a popularity boom. What comes out the other side is usually a diluted expectation of what exactly that breed should be. 

 

It needs to be sexy for registered breeders to actually breed dogs to meet demand, hell  even make money *gasp* doing it. 

And there needs to be more breeders but everything goes against people becoming registered breeders and remaining registered breeders.

 

meanwhile the nice big shiny registered wholesale puppy factories actually thrive under new legislation and go forth to become, in the eyes of the general public, the new 'registered breeders' 

[Steve]

8 minutes ago, asal said:

now that would be a really great initiative wouldn't it

But the problem is that puppies from healthy parents that have been tested for everything imaginable still get sick and if its due to a conformation issue such as Brachy head health testing isnt  going to help. Breeders have to select for dogs that are less extreme to lower the incidence of health problems. Hip scoring has been the biggest rip off of the century and any dog can still get it including those that  have parents that have been scored or tested with perfect hips.Insurance companies would still be paying the same whether breeders test or not.

 

[Roova]

Scary when you read it like that

[Steve]

the fact is a breeder cannot contribute to the breed if they are only breeding a litter or two per year. This clearly is where the CCs want us to go as they fall in line with animal rights but any breeder that  wants to make a difference to the breed where it really matters needs to breed MORE litters and MORE puppies.Or we need thousands of small breeders breeding a few litters each per year actively working together for the common goal of improving the health or whatever of the breed.  This is the only way you can select for the all of the things that go into the betterment of the breed - you simply cant do it if you have limited choices and shrinking gene pool with less diversity. Genetics experts reckon you need about 20 irls and 5 boys to be able to select the healthiest and best to breed on with.Its not the non registered breeders who are doing  harm to the breed its the CCs and the show breeders who think that breeding less makes them more of an expert and breeding less is better. Its not - its straight out propaganda that most of us have swallowed and perpetuated.

 

 

[asal]

13 minutes ago, Steve said:

the fact is a breeder cannot contribute to the breed if they are only breeding a litter or two per year. This clearly is where the CCs want us to go as they fall in line with animal rights but any breeder that  wants to make a difference to the breed where it really matters needs to breed MORE litters and MORE puppies.Or we need thousands of small breeders breeding a few litters each per year actively working together for the common goal of improving the health or whatever of the breed.  This is the only way you can select for the all of the things that go into the betterment of the breed - you simply cant do it if you have limited choices and shrinking gene pool with less diversity. Genetics experts reckon you need about 20 irls and 5 boys to be able to select the healthiest and best to breed on with.Its not the non registered breeders who are doing  harm to the breed its the CCs and the show breeders who think that breeding less makes them more of an expert and breeding less is better. Its not - its straight out propaganda that most of us have swallowed and perpetuated.

 

 

spot on.  in the early 80's it became more and more people were being told " to be ethical"  you must not breed to supply people with a puppy, "to be ethcal" you only breed a litter to continue your line.

 

There were many who also came out with "to be ethical" you cant ask a price for your extra puppies you dont keep, to make a profit is to be a SHOCK, HORROR,  PUPPY FARMERS.

 

ONLY a puppy farmers breeds to make money. 

 

I have heard so much along these lines and as I was told each, asked, if only those who have sufficient money to breed and except a loss that leaves only the rich allowed to continue a breed?

 

even then when the KC did a survey they discovered to their suprise 90 of members are only registered breeders for 6 years or less. of remaining 10% the membership that had been breeders 15 years or more and were the actually backbone the majority were pensioners and their pin money came from their puppy sales.

 

I believed then and I am sure now, this crap that those so desperate to get  on and stay on the so called "ethical" bandwaggon were being conned by the animal libbers spreading this junk

[Steve]

Breeding more litters does mean you place more pet puppies but it also means you have more choices in which ones you keep and breed on with. These days if a breeder is breeding to work toward betterment of the breed by upping the numbers they are spoken of as pond scum because they are only in it for the money - puppy farmers. But a breeder who breeds more has a greater chance of making a difference to their lines and the breed in general. How can what is happening be good for the breeds? but  you cant have it  both ways - if we breed less others will breed more - grown up people who want Frenchies wont change their mind because registered breeders want to limit the supply especially when in the wings they are being told the show breeders are the cause not the solution of their dogs having a chance at being  healthier. Wake up Australia. 

 

[asal]

2 hours ago, Steve said:

Breeding more litters does mean you place more pet puppies but it also means you have more choices in which ones you keep and breed on with. These days if a breeder is breeding to work toward betterment of the breed by upping the numbers they are spoken of as pond scum because they are only in it for the money - puppy farmers. But a breeder who breeds more has a greater chance of making a difference to their lines and the breed in general. How can what is happening be good for the breeds? but  you cant have it  both ways - if we breed less others will breed more - grown up people who want Frenchies wont change their mind because registered breeders want to limit the supply especially when in the wings they are being told the show breeders are the cause not the solution of their dogs having a chance at being  healthier. Wake up Australia. 

 

When the code of ethics for Dogs NSW included this.

"

8.

A Member shall not breed a bitch that results in it whelping more than twice in eighteen months

without the prior approval of the Board of Directors except under extenuating circumstances where

application for registration of the litter may be considered by the Board of Directors.

9.

A Member shall not breed a bitch that results in it whelping more than twice in two years without

the prior written approval of a Veterinary Surgeon certifying her fitness to carry and whelp the third litter.

 

10.

A Member shall not breed a bitch that results in it whelping more than six times without prior

veterinary certification of fitness for further breeding and without prior approval of the Board of

Directors except under extenuating circumstances where application for registration of the litter may

be considered by the Board of Directors"

 

My vets comment was they certainly did not bother to liase with any reproduction specalist vets.

 

The species canine in his opinion should not be bred so infrequently.

That a bitch is better off having her litters when she is young (the norm before was the majority of bitches had their litters before they turned 4 or 5 and were retired, either desexed and rehomed or retired and kept as pets)  but the breeder should have the right to that decision as there really is never going to be a one size fits all where individuals are concerned)   litter spacing decided by the breeder and their vet, if she had large  litters some bitches need to be rested, those with small litters would be better off being bred on each to not only give the breeder greater choice to choose from, but reduce obesity in bitches which have small litters and therefore can have weight issues if left unbred too long between.  It also flies in the face of the fact that older mothers, human included produce a higher percentage of chromosome abnormalities including mongolism, its now documented in dogs too

 

I well remember when I asked why such a blanket ruling, I bred Chihuahua's at the time and one of my best bitches never had more than one pup per (cough) "litter" if anyone can call one pup a litter that is?

 

her best pup was the result of her 7th litter. now of course banned and she had all 7 in a row bred every 6 months, now that stupid rule is in place she would only possibly have managed to produce 5 pups maximum in her lifetime.  no Matter that the large breed bitches produce anything from 10 to 18 PER LITTER!  

 

YET I had to put up with them yelping that I should stop wingeing and be satisfied with what I got.

 

I suggested then if this utterly stupid code come into force then no breeder be permitted more than 15 puppies per bitch and she be retired, regardless of breed since few toy breeders were ever going to be allowed even that number of puppies to choose their next generation from, if its forced on one percentage of the membership then the rest should cope with the same restrictions too.  Surely fair, should be fair to all?

 

The real problem was the code of ethics was not formulated to work with the best practice for either the health and well being of the bitches or the selection of the best puppies for the next generation.

 

It was formulated to pander too and appease the animal libbers and the Politically correct in the frantic hope the KC's would be left off the persecution list.

 

doesn't seem to have worked at all does it, if the latest attacks from Victoria in the form of that latest legislation that was so almost shoved through. 1 bitch and you had to become a registered business with an ABN?  NO one allowed to have more than 10 fertile dogs.

 

 

utter nonsense. look at the world famous breeders who created and maintained the breeds we know today, never happen again with the incredible genetic selection restrictions being called for and pushed for now

 

 

 

No sign yet the libbers or Peta have put down the gun does it?

 

pandering to them is not going to achieve anything, Their Brief is not the elimination of puppy farms, it is the elimination of the domestic dog.  read their own websites.

 

I should reword that, Pandering to them is going to achieve the elimination of the domestic dog by genetic bottlneck, too few being bred, too few to select from, mission will be accomplished.  unless those of us who want to keep their dogs wake up before its too late.  if it isnt too late already for many breeds, hopefully the blinkers will fall off before its too late for all

 

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by asal

[asal]

off topic or is it?

 

humans dont seem to learn by their mistakes if this is anything to go by

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-stone/history-tells-us-what-will-brexit-trump_b_11179774.html

[sandgrubber]

5 hours ago, Steve said:

But the problem is that puppies from healthy parents that have been tested for everything imaginable still get sick and if its due to a conformation issue such as Brachy head health testing isnt  going to help. Breeders have to select for dogs that are less extreme to lower the incidence of health problems. Hip scoring has been the biggest rip off of the century and any dog can still get it including those that  have parents that have been scored or tested with perfect hips.Insurance companies would still be paying the same whether breeders test or not.

 

Yup!  Testing is no panacea.  So many health (and temperament) problems require observation, record keeping and pedigree analysis based on honest reports from breeders/stud owners etc.  Often inheritance is complex and there is no official test, eg., cancer and bloat prone-ness, epilepsy, allergies).  With the brachy breeds, it is possible to screen  (as opposed to test) for steniotic nares and BOAS.  The Frenchie mess would be less messy with pressure, preferably from many directions, for health screening for obvious health problems.

[RuralPug]

To

9 hours ago, asal said:

 

...

alopecia means hair loss, not mange of any kind and chocolates are not affected.  In the case of the Mexican Hairless it is a different gene, the blue gene alopecic dog is not actually hairless the hair in the affected areas is soft and short. giving the visual impression compared to the normal length coat.

 

so I do wonder why people are saying there are health issues with these colour genes?

 

how many of you realise an entire breed is the result of all dilute coat colour,  blue and chocolate hence their amazing colour, and that is the Weimariner?

 

http://www.blueweimaraner.com/genetics.html

 

 

 

so I do wonder why these colours are taboo in the frenchie?

 

 

 

 

To answer your question in general, it is because in some breeds (SBT in Australia is currently a good example) the dilute colour genetics are frequently linked with more severe health problems. It might just be a case of the genes for dilute colour being on the same physical chromosome as the genes for low immune health/organ malfunctions etc. in that breed OR it may be the case that breeders of "fad" colours go not generally breed for health but nevertheless there is a definite and easily proven link.

In the case of the Wei, there is no such link which may or may not be due to high culling rates as the breed was being developed. Other breeds also have blue as a possibility (e.g. Great Danes, Greyhounds) and it has not been a problem in those breeds.

 If dilute colours are historically found within a breed but are not included in or are specifically undesirable or not permitted then I would imagine that there is a reason and the reason may be that the colour carries problems in that breed, whether alopecia or more.

[Steve]

7 hours ago, RuralPug said:

To

To answer your question in general, it is because in some breeds (SBT in Australia is currently a good example) the dilute colour genetics are frequently linked with more severe health problems. It might just be a case of the genes for dilute colour being on the same physical chromosome as the genes for low immune health/organ malfunctions etc. in that breed OR it may be the case that breeders of "fad" colours go not generally breed for health but nevertheless there is a definite and easily proven link.

In the case of the Wei, there is no such link which may or may not be due to high culling rates as the breed was being developed. Other breeds also have blue as a possibility (e.g. Great Danes, Greyhounds) and it has not been a problem in those breeds.

 If dilute colours are historically found within a breed but are not included in or are specifically undesirable or not permitted then I would imagine that there is a reason and the reason may be that the colour carries problems in that breed, whether alopecia or more.

This is the year 2017 and this colour issue is easily tested for and eliminated. I promise you some colours are kept out for no other reason except that the founders dont /didnt like the look of it and these days its about politics where those who are running the breed clubs play power games.

Colour dilution alopecia does not occur in all dogs with blue or fawn coats, and the frequency varies within affected breeds.

It is the result of a faulty version of the d allele, known as dl. Not all breeds carry this faulty allele, and the majority of blues are completely healthy.

There are various different D alleles, and only one of these causes CDA. Technically this makes CDA a recessive allele, as it is recessive to D (non-dilute, non-CDA) however dl is dominant over the standard d allele.

What this all means is that CDA can be bred out of most lines by careful breeding and genetic testing to eliminate the dl allele in favour of the healthy d allele.

[Steve]

13 hours ago, asal said:

When the code of ethics for Dogs NSW included this.

"

8.

A Member shall not breed a bitch that results in it whelping more than twice in eighteen months

without the prior approval of the Board of Directors except under extenuating circumstances where

application for registration of the litter may be considered by the Board of Directors.

9.

A Member shall not breed a bitch that results in it whelping more than twice in two years without

the prior written approval of a Veterinary Surgeon certifying her fitness to carry and whelp the third litter.

 

10.

A Member shall not breed a bitch that results in it whelping more than six times without prior

veterinary certification of fitness for further breeding and without prior approval of the Board of

Directors except under extenuating circumstances where application for registration of the litter may

be considered by the Board of Directors"

 

My vets comment was they certainly did not bother to liase with any reproduction specalist vets.

 

The species canine in his opinion should not be bred so infrequently.

That a bitch is better off having her litters when she is young (the norm before was the majority of bitches had their litters before they turned 4 or 5 and were retired, either desexed and rehomed or retired and kept as pets)  but the breeder should have the right to that decision as there really is never going to be a one size fits all where individuals are concerned)   litter spacing decided by the breeder and their vet, if she had large  litters some bitches need to be rested, those with small litters would be better off being bred on each to not only give the breeder greater choice to choose from, but reduce obesity in bitches which have small litters and therefore can have weight issues if left unbred too long between.  It also flies in the face of the fact that older mothers, human included produce a higher percentage of chromosome abnormalities including mongolism, its now documented in dogs too

 

I well remember when I asked why such a blanket ruling, I bred Chihuahua's at the time and one of my best bitches never had more than one pup per (cough) "litter" if anyone can call one pup a litter that is?

 

her best pup was the result of her 7th litter. now of course banned and she had all 7 in a row bred every 6 months, now that stupid rule is in place she would only possibly have managed to produce 5 pups maximum in her lifetime.  no Matter that the large breed bitches produce anything from 10 to 18 PER LITTER!  

 

YET I had to put up with them yelping that I should stop wingeing and be satisfied with what I got.

 

I suggested then if this utterly stupid code come into force then no breeder be permitted more than 15 puppies per bitch and she be retired, regardless of breed since few toy breeders were ever going to be allowed even that number of puppies to choose their next generation from, if its forced on one percentage of the membership then the rest should cope with the same restrictions too.  Surely fair, should be fair to all?

 

The real problem was the code of ethics was not formulated to work with the best practice for either the health and well being of the bitches or the selection of the best puppies for the next generation.

 

It was formulated to pander too and appease the animal libbers and the Politically correct in the frantic hope the KC's would be left off the persecution list.

 

doesn't seem to have worked at all does it, if the latest attacks from Victoria in the form of that latest legislation that was so almost shoved through. 1 bitch and you had to become a registered business with an ABN?  NO one allowed to have more than 10 fertile dogs.

 

 

utter nonsense. look at the world famous breeders who created and maintained the breeds we know today, never happen again with the incredible genetic selection restrictions being called for and pushed for now

 

 

 

No sign yet the libbers or Peta have put down the gun does it?

 

pandering to them is not going to achieve anything, Their Brief is not the elimination of puppy farms, it is the elimination of the domestic dog.  read their own websites.

 

I should reword that, Pandering to them is going to achieve the elimination of the domestic dog by genetic bottlneck, too few being bred, too few to select from, mission will be accomplished.  unless those of us who want to keep their dogs wake up before its too late.  if it isnt too late already for many breeds, hopefully the blinkers will fall off before its too late for all

 

 

 

 

This has never made any sense to any breeder who knew the science of breeding dogs and who knows that the canine reproductive system is unique .It is detrimental to our female dogs to wait too long to breed them and to breed them with gaps rather than back to back. This is a prime example of when it should have been that our CCs were saying "bugger off and  don't tell us how to suck eggs because we are the experts at it "  But this is how it goes - the do gooders push for anything they can think of to lower the numbers bred then the government call together a panel of "experts" .That turns out to be welfare, animal rights, vets and one representative of a state CC and that is usually someone who knows jack shit about actually breeding dogs and the science for the species. So they sit us down as a sheep with a pack of wolves at the dinner table to vote on what is for dinner and before we know it everyone is being educated on how to breed dogs and what is best for them by animal rights.The code of practice comes in and then the state CCs have to  tell their members they have to stay within the rules .At no point does anyone ask what is actually best for the dogs - and you have to be brave to say what is best for the dogs out loud because then you get flogged including flogged by breeders who at some point should be told the truth about the science. 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Steve

[asal]

Not sure if Brave is the right word, I said it without realising the roof would fall in on me. Wasn't trying to be brave just remind them, but it seemed to fall on plugged ears and didn't work.  The word "ethical" seems to be some sort of ear plug to stop anything said that isn't in line with the "to be ethical you have to do or be xyz"  ?  weird

 

It never ceases to amaze me how so many become registered breeders and how little they actually know not only about genetics but the reproduction of this species.

 

one idiot and thats the only word to use, desexed her best (and only)  bitch because the neighours foxi got in and mated her, the reason she gave me?

 

She is now contaminated and every litter now can have foxi x in one or the whole litter.

 

Dogs are NOT GUPPIES folks.

 

 

but she would not listen, the bitch was desexed and end of generations of great dogs. doah?

 

talk about old wives tales being alive and well even today

Edited January 31, 2017 by asal