Yes, that's right, the dog had an operation, but I thought it was to remove extra tissue in order to help it breathe better? (It was claimed it was due to an infection or something, not sure though, I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong.) Even so, it's still shocking. Poor dogs.

Its nothing to do with infection it is short nosed breeds whose soft palate is too long for their ridiculously short muzzles so it flaps about at the back of their throat and affects their breathing. Seen most commonly in bulldogs, pekes and yorkies

I know that, I was just saying that it was claimed by the owner/handler/whatever that it was due to infection, and not because they can't breathe properly because their faces and muzzles are deformed. (IMO, they are deformed....*prepares to be shot down* ).

You misunderstand Jackbox, the resentment of the purebred message comes because the AR movement has taken the label "reputable breeder" and the promotion of the purebred from your world to ours, and is denouncing all those breeding outside the registry system. That does not side up with our own traditions where anyone on ranchland or prairies knows the dogs of our history are mixbred working dogs bred by type and ability. I know, I know, there is nothing you can do about it. I was obviously in a tizzy and doing some off topic moaning. Sorry it bothered you.

This article from Alaska is an example of how purebred dog breeds are even being promoted to children in our schools (I know this article is from Alaska but the same is happening here).

http://www.adn.com/outdoors/craig_me...ry/668658.html

"No, the grand stage of Alaska centers on the sled dog trails where it really doesn't matter who your ancestors were; it matters only that you perform like Paul Gebhardt's "red dog,'' the 2000 winner of the Iditarod's Golden Harness award for the best lead dog."

These two references are all I could find, estimating the USA purebred registered population at 25%. That is more than in Canada (which is estimated just above 10%), but certainly a far cry from the estimated 75% in the UK. You can count on most of that 25% in the USA being in the more urban areas.

http://stopbsl.com/bsloverview/impossibleid/

http://caveat.blogware.com/blog/_arc...1/4016544.html

Not personally, just wanted to point out that cultural differences contribute to a vastly different POV.

PDE hardly made a splash when shown here

Err.. thanks. Little old general-public me, getting sucked into all the hype because I don't understand. I'm not on the 'inside' of the show world obviously, but I do go along to shows now and again, and one day, I might like to do a bit of showing. I knew about a lot of the stuff covered on the programme before, so I'm not some daft noob who's blinded by the 'angle' and the clever journalism. It was an expose, course it has an angle!

I'm not totally anti KC - I'm just a bit annoyed that they don't seem to see any problems with advocating the breeding of dogs that are clearly, not fit for, well.. anything. I also believe they could be doing more: being a bit more clued up on puppyfarming, warning against them and definitely not registering their dogs, offering comprehensive genetics lectures and advice with a view to trying to combat inherited disease a bit more effectively, rather than just 'preferring' breeders test for some of them after they are rife in the breed.

Yep, I think we agree here too in a way. The KC need to make some changes and this programme has forced them to make some. But I believe this was a good way to catalyse them, and you don't. She did pick on some show breeders, but wouldn't you? The ones shown on the programme were a disgrace to the showing world.

The journalist will be out for a good story, of course, and this was one. She didn't need to add much angle or do much work, some of those breeders gave her all she wanted without much prompting. It just seems like the reason some of the show fraternity are peeved, is that this programme makes them look bad, even if they themselves, haven't done anything wrong. Isn't that a fair price to pay if it'll shake up the KC a bit? If some people can't be bothered to look into things properly and think showing = bad, who cares if it'll help pedigrees in the long run?

I'm sure we agree on a lot of things, honestly I do. It's just where you're annoyed as you feel the show world has been misrepresented (fair point), I think if this is the only price to pay for getting the KC to take measures to better preserve the health of pedigree dogs, then it's a price worth paying, in my opinion. There are things the KC could do that would potentially, benefit all pedigree dogs in the long run.

I am not involved in the 'show' world but disliked this sensatinalistic programme, she may not have told outright lies but as twisted words and debates to alter their meanings, this is a fine line and as accussed GSD breeders of threatening to shoot or or hang her with a noose this is blatent lies as the words were taken out of context of their original meanings.
Most people are aware that JH along with her friend BC are anti KC and anti showing and this was the angle she also potrayed in this programme.
Again none of her so called scientific evidence was recent.
Within GSDs she specificaly targeted the WG line breeders, why? she has made it clear elsewhere she prefers the English and workline GSDs, but these are the ones least likely to health test, and also inbreed and breed from carriers of serious conditions such as Epilepsy, Not the WG line breeders so where is the fairness in that?
So yes I dislike JH and her ethics, no doubt she will try to take credit for changes, when in fact it is the WG line breeders that have helped and been involved in developing various health screening and genetic testing.

The Jeff Sampson report that she referred to in the doc (that the KC commissioned then ignored the findings of) "Population Structure and Inbreeding From Pedigree Analysis of Purebred Dogs" was recent. "Manuscript received November 26, 2007. Accepted for publication March 1, 2008." Quote from Genetics - the journal it was published in.

Thanks for explaining that I did ask on the other thread how could the KC dictate to the breed clubs if they had nothing to do with setting standards as some people were saying.

The first article she refered to was ;
"The Geneticist's View on Dog-Breeding" Jeff Sampson, FCEVA Symposium 2004.

the second quote she came back with was from the article you mentioned which wasnt actualy published untill May 2008, do you realy believe she subscribes to this magazine? and do you believe her programme was based on this when she wouldnt have had access to it untill a couple of months before she aired her programme?

Again as I stated there are flaws in this my dogs being born in 2004 and 2005 would be included yet you cannot get a 5gen pedigree from the KC for both my dogs as not all their ancestors are recorded in the KC database, one of my dog's sire was born in Korea, only this dogs sire and dam are entered in the KC database, nothing further back, my dogs dam side again only goes 4 generations on the male line in the KC database. according to this study GSD's have an average COI in 9gens of 12%, my dogs are 3.7% and 5.2%. The male that won the British Sieger 2008 as a COI of 4.6%, the Best in Breed Crufts 2009 COI of 4.7%.

The high COI you will find are in the English show and worklines not the European dogs.

IMO That programme was shown for sensationalism. A spanner being thrown in here!!!! I was told that the Cavalier with SM and the Boxer with Epilepsy were bred by Pet owners not from Show Breeders !!!!!So why let the viewers presume they came from Show Breeders why did they not state the Breeding????
Also I can put you right re the Peke. I am friends with Bert who is owner of said Peke.
Danny the Peke suffered from an infection in his throat and had tonsils removed