Some interesting reading there Wildmoor , this is a link on one of the pages you posted...

http://home.comcast.net/~NoPuppyMill...rid_vigor.html

I'm sorry but this is sheer drivel. The source for this is suspect. It is not evidence, rather a lay opinion of mis-represented science.

To say one could not have hybridisation in dogs is utter nonsense, a mongrel is just that. Gardeners develop plants for vigour and disease resistance. AFAIK, broad beans have only been crossed with broad beans to get f1 hybrids....two different breeds, one species.

One could say Thabo Mbeki is right about the cause(s) of AIDS, but it is not a sane explanation given the information we have available.

I might remove the link or put a serious health warning up...its certainly 'interesting'

I have nothing against pedigree dogs, it’s the way they are being bred I have the problem with. I admit I like having different breeds of dogs and would hate for us to lose individual breeds, but unless we make drastic changes, that is the way we’re heading. I feel so angry about what I have learnt over the last year, if it meant dogs no longer suffered I would happily see an end to all pedigree dogs, it's a sacrifice I'd be willing to take after all I love dogs not just what breed they are. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Come away from the idea of pureblood lines and start thinking about genetic health. Controlled outcrossing/opening the stud books doesn’t mean losing pedigree dogs.

Jackbox I absolutely do not support breeders when we currently have a massive overpopulation crisis. It’s not the dogs’ fault they end up in rescue, it's got nothing to do with supporting breeders. However I believe if people are going to breed let welfare, health and temperament be their number one priority over looks, money, conformation, type, winning prizes etc..

This view is now outdated, the last 10 years has taught us where we've been going wrong. Do you know when this piece was written I noticed it points you in the direction of books/articles written in the 80's. Going back further the Nazis and the Royal family also used to think that inbreeding was the way to achieve a superior race. They were proved wrong. Linebreeding/inbreeding has been proved to be detrimental, do we stick to believing what we did in the good ole days instead of facing up to what we know now.


Not sure what a study on campylobacter and internal parasites in Hearing dogs has to do with this? It doesn't mention how many of the dogs they tested were pure breed and how many were mixed breed.

This is actually lower than what I would have thought considering the population of non pedigree dogs. Do you know what breeds and how many the insurance covered? and how many of them were mongrels? do you have a link? As said before insurance companies reflect their price on the likelihood of the said dog costing them money in vets fees, the very reason pedigrees cost their owners nearly twice the amount compared to mixed breeds to take out insurance.


Not sure what you're pointing out here. How many dogs were used ? how many were crossbreeds? how many of them were German shepherds? were there other breeds? A brachiocephalic breed like the bulldog, pug, peke, even the mild ones like shih tzus are at a higher risk of anaesthetic complications compared to mongrels with normal mesocephalic heads and open airways


Mongrel (dogs) suffer from various genetic diseases, most diseases are recessive so in the population of dogs the likelihood of two dogs with the same recessive disease gene meeting up is uncommon. Inbreed these dogs (pedigrees) and the likelihood of two dogs with the same recessive disease gene meeting up is increased, even more so if the pedigree dogs are then inbred further. So whilst mongrels can suffer from a wider range of hereditary illnesses the occurrences are drastically smaller compared to pure breeds.

"In the 1990's Veternarian and Geneticist George Padgett wrote a book (Control of Canine Genetic Diseases) from which he is often quoted as saying that mutts are subject to more genetic diseases than purebred dogs. What Padgett doesn't say in his book, though, is what the chances of a mutt getting any one of those genetic diseases is, compared to a purebred from a breed where the genetic disease exists. "

Example - Prevalence of primary breed-related cataracts in the dog in North America
Fifty-nine breeds of dogs were affected with cataracts above the baseline prevalence of 1.61% seen in mixed-breed/hybrid dogs. The breeds with the highest cataract prevalence included: Smooth Fox Terrier (11.70%), Havanese (11.57%), Bichon Frise (11.45%), Boston Terrier (11.11%), Miniature Poodle (10.79%), Silky Terrier (10.29%) and Toy Poodle (10.21%).
"11.7% compared to 1.6%. That's phenomenal."
http://everydogsblog.blogspot.com/20...-of-mutts.html



I agree throwing two mongrels suffering from diseases together is not going to produce healthy pups. That doesn't however justify breeding two health tested, related, pedigrees together. Both are detrimental to our dogs health.


Not sure what your pointing out here?

Yes you're right I could quote papers from years ago that support the eugenics theory that recommend breeding best to best and keeping blood lines pure, however the last 10 years we have learnt this is not the right way and is damaging. So should we shut our eyes and ignore modern population genetics in favour of how things have always been done despite the dogs suffering as a result?

I have no hidden agenda guys, I can see why some might start to think I'm a Ladradoodle breeder in disguise Like I said before I would hate to see an end to individual breeds, but if breeders carry on the way they have been I'd rather see pedigrees die out than continue to suffer. The thing is if breeders do carry on as they are it won't be long before inbreeding depression makes that decision for you and why should the dogs have to suffer in the interim.

Perhaps if we bash all breeders enough including the good ones we will get rid of them and leave a clear field for the puppy farmers/the 'I am going to have a litter from my pet' brigade/those who through lack of care allow their bitches to mate indiscriminately providing a supply of badly reared and socialised puppies for the rescue centres....great !

I keep seeing this excuse used and it really is a poor argument. Because there are unethical puppy farmers, so called ethical breeders should be given freedom to do as they please regardless of whether their practice is damaging ?

Paddywack, has anyone other than you used the phrase....
breeders should be given freedom to do as they please regardless of whether their practice is damaging
..I think not . I have already stated on many occasions that breeding should be carefully regulated and all breeding stock tested.

I still think people should have the freedom to buy puppies of their choosing from good breeders and that we should not be dictated to by 'extremists' who don't think any dogs should be bred at all only accidental litters , and that we should all take on only rescue dogs many the product of bad ownership and puppy farmers .

You say that quiet vehemently , that you abhor all breeders of pedigree dogs, you shout it from the rooftops in every post you make.. yet you have yourself a varied selection of rescue pedigrees.... the fact you have taken these dogs on , is contradictory in itself to your beliefs..

You campaign Xbreeds/mongrals, as the only healthy type of dog, one would wonder why someone would burden themselves with such a expense, it must cost you an fortune in keeping your pedigrees well, what with all the health problems they must suffer.


Usually when someone has such strong convictions and seems to be so active in the making their feeling known, i.e seeing the demise of pedigree dogs to further their course... it would go against every grain of their being to ever own such a dog.

You would not get a vegetarian, eating meat, because the cow had no say in its demise for the food chain...

People live by the convictions..

i.e, I would never buy from a PF, if we keep buying the pups, (who had no say in being born) until we stop buying puppies from unscrupulous breeders, and they are left with endless amounts of unsold pups, they will not stop breeding... supply and demand..

But it seems like many who have a closed mind, their preachings dont apply to themselves.

You seem to have a very blinked view, to the fact, by allowing all breeds to out cross to other breeds we will suddenly have a world population of healthy dogs....

Mmmmmmmmm let me see, where is the logic in that!!!

Or could it be that the answer is , breeders and breed clubs, work tiredlessly to improve and eradicate any health issues from their breed...........

Oh NO!!! is`nt that already happening!!