|
Location: Glasgow, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 810
|
|
Originally Posted by JoedeeUK
Hm interesting Beagles have HD & MRD so were the parents of your dogs tested ??? If not why did you buy the puppies ?
The Kennel Club advised that no health tests were required for the Beagle breed as they have no health issues.
Since being a beagle owner I have come into regular contact with lots of beagle owners, lots of beagle showers and lots of beagle breeders. The general consensus is that the Beagle breed is healthy. I have heard of just a single case of hip dysplasia (the dog in question is fully mobile and not in any apparant pain) and a problem with epilepsy (two dogs destroyed at a young age and two requiring medication) with a
single breeder.
So one of two things is possible :
1. The Kennel Club were right about the Beagle breed being healthy. In this particular case no harm came about from trusting what the KC told me.
2. It's a conspiracy. Both the Kennel Club and breeders are lying and covering up the true health status of the breed.
I suspect the former but if the latter is true then all the more reason for bodies such as the BBC to make a stand and force the truth out into the open.
Originally Posted by Jackbox
As the KC and show breeders are under the same umbrella, I assume with your negative attitude towards both
In that sentence you have highlighted quite nicely why I think it's so important for the Kennel Club to disassociate themselves from breeds with serious health problems and from breeders with questionable breeding practices. And why I think that if they fail to do so that large organisations such as the BBC, Dogs Trust etc should disassociate themselves from Crufts.
I personally have very good experiences with show breeders so I know there are good ones. I don't assume that all show breeders are bad. People that haven't had my good experiences with show breeders are highly likely to react in the way that you incorrectly assumed that I would.
Originally Posted by Jackbox
I don't understand why you would even consider buying a kC registered pup , if that is how you feel.
We only bought our second pup a few weeks ago - AFTER the BBC documentary aired, and AFTER lots of large groups started to pull out of Crufts. At the time of buying him I know that KC registration meant nothing of value to me. I knew that there were plenty of KC registered dogs suffering from serious health problems brought about by poor breeding practices. I chose my second pup based upon my own research. The fact that he is KC registered was simply not relevant to me.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you missread this next bit
Originally Posted by scarter
If enough of us feel this way then it won't be long before someone fills the void and provides what pet owners want - a governing body that will only endorse breeds and breeders that have a track record of producing healthy pups with great temperaments.
To which you responded....
Originally Posted by Jackbox
I think that void has already been filled with what is called BYB`s
Surely you are not suggesting that Back Yard Breeders endorse only breeders that have a track record of producing healthy pups with great temperaments!!!!???!!
Originally Posted by Jackbox
Would that be Beagles you are talking about... since when do they not suffer with any health problems...
Did your breeder do any of the required tests on their dogs.
As I said, the KC say there are NO required tests for Beagles.
Again, I think you've missread what I said here...
Originally Posted by scarter
I know a lot of breeders of working dogs (e.g. pack hounds) are very much against breeding for the show ring. They believe that dogs should be bred to work - not prance around a ring. But I don't see it this way. There isn't enough work for dogs nowadays.
to which you responded...
Originally Posted by Jackbox
That's a little contradictory is`nt it..in one sentence you say they should be bred to work, then follow on to say there is not enough work for dogs...
If you read again you'll see that I said that a lot of breeders of working dogs are very much against breeding for the show ring. I disagree with them. There is no contradiction. Just a difference in opinion - I think it's fine to breed dogs for lots of different roles in our society.
Originally Posted by Jackbox
As for mos tpeopel who buy pets..they want their dogs to look like th ebred they are buying... and till the day that ends.. the show world will have a part to play, after all , they ar ethe ones who know the breds what they should and should not look like...
You are forgetting that very many pets are show ring rejects. Mine wouldn't win shows but to me they are just wonderful. As for whether the show people know best about how the breed should look - well I think in the case of Beagles you'll find quite a bit of dissagreement between show breeders and pack hound breeders!! Mine looks like a cross between a pack and show hound - in my opinion the best of both worlds
. If it were possible to make my dogs even better for me then it wouldn't be by making them look more like show champions or by making them look more like pack hounds. It would be by ensuring that they had the best possible health and that they would live long, healthy lives without running up big vet bills. I have a friend who breeds beagles but doesn't show them. Her only consideration is in producing good, healthy pets. Some of her dogs are very highly regarded by show breeders. She still produces great looking dogs, but she'd rather have dogs with exceptional good health than dogs that had good enough health and great show careers. This friend of mine contacted the KC about their responsible breeder scheme (can't remember the name of it). She wanted to know what health tests she should have done for her dogs to qualify. She was told that there were no health tests for beagles as there were no health issues with beagles.
I understand that the KC don't want to alienate large numbers of breeders and breeds. But by associating themselves with the bad ones they render themselves useless to many prospective dog owners and to breeders that are looking to become members of a group that stands for exceptional health and superb breeding practices. By choosing to associate with the 'bad breeds and breeders' they harm their reputation terribly. And I think that will hit them harder in the long run than the loss of revenue from the BBC.