breed standards . 'deformed' Brachy breeds

[persephone]

1 hour ago, Maddy said:

This is exactly the sort of derailing of arguments that people are talking about. Crossbreeding of dogs for money is bad, no one here is arguing otherwise. But they have nothing to do with breed standards that lead to seriously compromised dogs. Nothing. End of story.

YES!.

[Maddy]

2 hours ago, Thistle the dog said:

I've no idea what you're going on about asal.

Actually, I think we've finally gained a very clear insight into why asal says, what asal says. 

The RSPCA took a dog from her- whether that seizure was warranted or not, we'll never know, but clearly, asal felt it was not. The deflection is not from purebred dogs or the issue of unhealthy standards, but from herself, as a breeder and a dog owner. 

Asal didn't breed breed dogs with hernias, luxating patellas or entropion. Asal didn't breed greyhounds that went on to die before two years of age, by the vet's needle. Asal wasn't breeding dogs with skulls so small that their eyeballs pop out of their heads if their blood pressure rises too much. Asal was breeding sensible dogs and the RSPCA took one of them anyway.

That is what all of this is about and now that I understand that, I feel sorry for asal because whatever happened, it must have been deeply distressing. That still doesn't make the issues with backyard bred dogs or DDs relevant to this discussion but at least we can see that she's not derailing on purpose. 

 

Asal, I feel it's worth pointing out that while we all get it wrong sometimes, a mistake on the part of the RSPCA does not negate the facts of many things we've argued over. You believe you were treated unfairly and that the "average" person is also at similar risk if we do not aggressively defend ourselves from the extremes, and the people who would push their ethics onto us. But the thing about welfare standards is that they'd remove any subjective judgements entirely. In greyhound racing, in dog breeding, in any matter involving animals. Clear standards, clear expectations, clear definitions of what constitutes reasonable conformation for an acceptable quality of life. We could take opinions and ethics right out of the argument. Unfortunately, the ANKC suffers a similar paranoia as you do, and in their efforts to deflect from themselves and to protect themselves from further harm, they have actually made things significantly worse for their members and unspeakably worse for the dogs. Instead of deflecting and getting defensive, they should have acknowledged issues with certain breed standards, set up reviews (in consultation with suitably qualified veterinarians) and just fixed the problems. Instead, they pointed fingers elsewhere, smeared anyone who disagreed with them and did nothing to help the dogs that they make money from.

[Two Best Dogs!]

I see, yes thanks for the interpretation - I had read it as happening to someone she knew or a story she heard so was confused. Asal I'm very sorry that happened to you  that puts a lot of your comments in a different light. 

 

I do agree with Maddi though. The health challenges need to be acknowledge and discussed, especially in the purebred context by purebred representatives 

[_PL_]

Years ago this thread would have gotten people banned.  I'm glad judging and deformities can finally be discussed.

 

I agree it's not about designer dogs. But feel the need to point out that breeders are selling their rejected purebreds to byb. Dogs so ridiculously wonky they shouldn't be bred or crossbred from at all let alone by people with NFI.

Deformities and health problems are kept in circulation and passed on down the generations outside the registered orgs. It's up to the ANKC to pull things back into line for the sake of all dogs not just their 'own'.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Powerlegs
spelling

[Maddy]

7 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

Years ago this thread would have gotten people banned.  I'm glad judging and deformities can finally be discussed.

 

I agree it's not about designer dogs. But feel the need to point out that breeders are selling their rejected purebreds to byb. Dogs so ridiculously wonky they shouldn't be bred or crossbred from at all let alone by people with NFI.

Deformities and health problems are kept in circulation and passed on down the generations outside the registered orgs. It's up to the ANKC to pull things back into line for the sake of all dogs not just their 'own'.

Or the OP would have been viciously flamed for daring to suggest that there are problems. 

I can actually remember a few threads about GSDs that got pretty heated, because some uneducated peons refused to believe that a shepherding dog is supposed to have a wobbly, staggering gait and horrendous hips. Said uneducated peons couldn't understand that "correct" doesn't necessarily mean correct for the dog to lead a normal, healthy life. 

It's a bit like the pug people who say that people who own other breeds can't appreciate the pug's unique conformation, as if whether or not a dog can breathe normally is just a matter of personal taste.

I just honestly can't understand why anyone would choose to breed dogs with health problems caused by extreme conformation, or with abnormally short lifespans. I can't see how it's any better than backyard breeding- it can't be for the good of the breed or the individual dogs (unless they are very actively breeding away from extreme traits) so that really only leaves one other motivation, so far as I can see.

Registered breeders have every right to fear animal lib and groups like the RSPCA because some of what is going on could really only be described as animal cruelty  

[PossumCorner]

And just now on a local buy-swap-sell group, a fellow is asking if anyone has a male Pug he can breed with his female Pug.  Beyond words. 

 

Edit to add: already has a reply, and offering $300.

Edited February 22, 2018 by PossumCorner

[sandgrubber]

21 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

I agree it's not about designer dogs. But feel the need to point out that breeders are selling their rejected purebreds to byb. Dogs so ridiculously wonky they shouldn't be bred or crossbred from at all let alone by people with NFI.

Deformities and health problems are kept in circulation and passed on down the generations outside the registered orgs. It's up to the ANKC to pull things back into line for the sake of all dogs not just their 'own'.

IMO it's a bigger problem that brachy dogs with tiny nares or spinal deformaties can win show points and get titled. Also hard to forgive a system that makes it hard, in some breeds, to title a dog with sufficient nose length to ensure healthy breathing.  At one point I considered breeding Boston terriers.  I was in the  US at the time, planning to return to Oz or NZ.  I found that many of the healthier dogs in the US were outside the system, and there would be no way to get them registered.

A purebred may be rejected because its tailset is wrong or its ears flop instead of standing erect or it has a scissor bite when the standard calls for undershot, or it's coloring is wrong...or its too tall or too short.  BFD.

The KC's are in decline.  My guess is that they will continue to decline until they, along with the breed clubs, look seriously at breed standards and what goes on in judging. There are reasons people are shifting to DDs, bybs, and rescues (legit and corrupt).

 

[Two Best Dogs!]

I was wincing recently over a pug breeder spending lots of time defending her tendency to inbreed as necessary. As if there couldn't possibly be a suitable pug out there who isn't a close immediate relative - then lists off all the health issues with pugs as if it's just the slightest risk and not bear guaranteed for most to experience at least one of the listed issues. They shouldn't have to have so many issues common enough to be listed in a casual disclaimer!

 

sure you cannot guarantee good health the entire life of any dog but you should strive for it! Especially when new research comes out showing the negative effects a certain body alteration may have. 

 

A bit bit like it turns out the folded ears of a Scottish fold - tiny aesthetic change to cat ears - when homozygous is linked to a bone disorder that every single representive with homozygous folded ears has to a degree. When that new information comes out you would hope breeders would stop breeding fold to fold but as usual there is slow uptake. The push with folds being discouraged or outright banned has been faster than most but it's an example... of a breed trait has been found to be highly detrimental it should be reconsidered or discussed not ignored. 

Edited February 22, 2018 by Thistle the dog

[Pjrt]

15 hours ago, PossumCorner said:

And just now on a local buy-swap-sell group, a fellow is asking if anyone has a male Pug he can breed with his female Pug.  Beyond words. 

 

Edit to add: already has a reply, and offering $300.

To be honest, yes the pups from a mating like this are still more or less Pugs, and liable to have issues inherent to the accepted conformation of a pug, but possibly less likely to be bred to extremes for ribbon chasing. 

A lot of pure bred dogs bred outside of the show system are actually very good and moderate examples of their breed BECAUSE they are bred outside of the show system. But of course they are decried because they lack ribbons or papers they are left aside as garbage. 

Show points, titles and ribbons are not the definition of an excellent dog. I have a lot of respect for breeders brave enough to know they have good dogs without having to seek justification in a show ring. 

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by mingaling

[Diva]

I am much less inclined to blame breed standards. I shall stick my neck out for you to chop off. I think our society seeks extremes and novelty. How often is some poor deformed creature posted on social media to a chorus of ‘I want one!’, ‘cute!!’. Let a celeb own one and guaranteed popularity no matter how dysfunctional. 

 

Certain sectors of society prefer cute/extreme to functional everyday of the week. Look at the extreme bullies, completely outside the normal ankc arrangements and highly extreme. Or the colour breeders making everything Merle. Or teacup everything. Or novelty crosses for  novelty sake. Nothing to do with show wins or conforming to the standard.  

 

But I agree judging in the show ring also tends to fashion to the detriment of function. Often quite contrary to what the breed standard actually calls for. There are breeds where moderation is a key feature of the standard, or excess in one feature is specifically prohibited in the standard, but rewarded in the ring. Actually sticking to the standard would be quite different. That needs to be fixed.

 

I don’t think show bred brachy breeds are automatically unhealthy either. I used to, really firmly I believed that, until I saw the healthy ones in action. And saw the results where the testing chambers are being utilised and how many were just fine. 

 

I think the the real issue for me is not the extreme physical features that can fairly easily be bred away from. I think it is the shift in thinking from line breeding/ in breeding, which was hugely useful in setting type and often produces great dogs, to managing genetic diversity for the good of the overall population. Over the course of a human lifetime what is needed to maintain pure breeds has changed quite a bit. I think that is a challenge, one where technological advances offer huge potential but where the culture and incentive structure needs to catch up a bit. 

 

For my own breed, I think things have improved over the last 15 years. Mainly in the US and parts of Europe, where many of the dogs that are in the show rankings also feature in  lure course and straight racing rankings. Function is right back up there. I can also look at some of the photos from a hundred years ago and know you could groom those same dogs up and show them successfully today. I can  plan a litter and have less than 1% COI over 10 generations. Our big risks  are low numbers and being collateral damage in the anti pure bred agenda. 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Diva

[sandgrubber]

Problems vary by breed, and I agree with Diva, for some breeds narrow gene pools and line/in- breeding are a bigger concern than extreme conformation: especially if you look at COIs going out 12 or 15 generations. 

I'm not so optimistic that the decline is slowing....but I've not been around shows or breeders for awhile.  Does anyone think breeders are backing away from use of popular sires? Or making more use of dogs that are healthy, but not stellar in the ring?