A little concerning!!

Just stumbled upon this!!
http://www.saveourbreeds.org.uk/
im not sure if any of you have seen it before but i think its a little concerning!!

I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I think it could be a great subject for a debate

It's easy for me to say, having opted for one of the healthiest breeds going, but I think if breeders are producing animals with predictable, breed-related disorders then they are guilty of serious abuse, regardless of whether the dogs meet the breed standard. I know that many responsible Bedlington breeders are working hard to produce dogs with healthy eyes, and if I were buying a Bedlington (I wish!!! ) I know I'd go for one which was bred for good health above one bred for show-winning looks.

We often talk about breed standards as a blueprint for the dog best adapted to its original function. Surely nobody could claim that a dog prone to slipped discs, hip dysplasia, skin infections, breathing difficulties or entropion is better adapted to any function than a healthy example. I'm one of the first to argue against unnecessary modification of breeds, but I do think the welfare of individuals ranks higher than our notions of how our dog breeds should look or behave.

this is frightening.

how dare europe dictate what breeds can and cant live and this does extend to other matters as well.

i thought Hitler was dead and buried???????

it has it pros and cons like an awful lot of other things BUT look at all the breeds it will affect!!!

Think of all the euthinasia that could potentially occur?!

The actual clause on breeding states -

"Any person who selects a pet animal for breeding shall be responsible for having regard to the anatomical, physiological and behavioural characteristics which are likely to put at risk the health and welfare of either the offspring or the female parent."

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en...s/Html/125.htm

There's an awful lot left open to interpretation and personal opinion on this and if taken to the letter, would surely see an end to some breeds. And there are many other breeds where the normal body form could be considered detrimental to the health of offspring and/or female parent.

I do think the time has now come that we need to do something but I'm not sure if this is the answer.

Most of these are because of docking which is under review anyway. I see they have listed breeds with a 'named fault' but I can't find what these faults are and what action on them is proposed..... any ideas?

it doesnt say iv been trying to find them too. From what i am seeing it poss that the named faults could be similar to the ones used as eg on the home page

i can understand banning docking and clipping ect but to upheaval breeds and "redisgn" them completley would be near on impossible. Most of the breeds we see today are a result of 100s of years of breeding, so its likley that these listed breeds (unless docked ect) could be banned!

If you look at this page http://www.saveourbreeds.org.uk/convention.htm you get the following, but you've really got to hunt for it!!

Guidelines for the revision of breed policies:

set maximum and minimum values for height or weight of very large or very small dogs, respectively, to avoid skeleton and joint disorders (e.g. dysphasia of hip joints or elbows, fractures, luxation of elbow or patella, persistent fontanella) and collapse of tracheas.

set maximum values for the proportion between length and height of short legged dogs (e.g. Bassethound, Dachshund) to avoid disorders of the vertebral column.

set limits to the shortness of skull, respectively nose, so that breathing difficulties and blockage of lachrymal ducts are avoided, as well as disposition to birth difficulties (e.g. Persian cats, Bulldogs, Japan Chin, King Charles Spaniel, Pug, Pekin Palacedog).

prevent the occurrence of;

a persistent fontella (e.g. Chihuahua) to avoid brain damages;

abnormal positions of legs (e.g. very steep line of hind legs in Chow Chow, Norwegian Buhund, Swedish Lapphund, Finnish Spitz; bowed legs in Bassethound, Pekin Palacedog, Shi Tzu) to avoid difficulties in movement and joint degeneration.

abnormal positions of teeth (e.g. brachygnathia in Boxers, Bulldogs, Persian Cats) to avoid difficulties in feeding and caring for the new born.

abnormal size and form of eyes or eyelids (e.g. ectropium: Bassethound, Bloodhound, St Bernard).

small deep lying eyes with disposition to entropium (e.g. Airedale Terrier, Australian Terrier, Bedlington Terrier, Bullterrier, Bloodhound, Chow Chow, English Toy Terrier, Jagdterrier, Newfoundland, Shar Pei).

large protruding eyes (e.g. Boston Terrier, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Dandie Dinmont Terrier, Brussels Griffon, Japan Chin, King Charles Spaniel, Pug, Pekin Palace Dog, Shi Tzu, Tibet Terrier) to avoid irritation, inflammation and degeneration as well as prolapse of eyes.

very long ears (e.g. English Cocker Spaniels, Bassethound, Bloodhound) to avoid disposition to injuries.

markedly folded skin (e.g. Bassethound, Bulldog, Bloodhound, Pug, Pekin Palacedog, Shar Pei) to avoid eczema's and in the case of furrows around the eyes irritation and inflammation of eyes.

Avoid or, if it is not possible to eliminate severe defects, discontinued breeding of:

animals carrying semi-lethal factors (e.g. Entlebucher Cattledog);

animals carrying recessive defect-genes (e.g. homocygotic Scottish Fold Cat; short legs, vertebral column and tail defects)

hairless dogs and cats (lack of protection against sun and chill, disposition to significant reduction of number of teeth, semi-lethal factor)

Manx-cat (movement disorder, disposition to vertebral column defects, difficulties in elimination of urine and faeces, semi-lethal factor)

cats carrying "dominant white" (significant disposition to deafness);

dogs carrying "Merle factor" (significant disposition to deafness and eye disorders, e.g. Blue Merle Collie, Merle Sheltie, Merle Corgi, Merle Bobtail, Tigerdogge, Tigerteckel)

Thanks duboing. I still can't make out if this is the official guidelines or just something written for that website. I suspect the latter as it is so full of mistakes. The website is so confusing.... well for me it is

This does seem to be based on the CAWC report which was published earlier on this year -

http://www.cawc.org.uk/documents/CAWCModifications.pdf

There is currently a 'Horizon' TV programme being prepared on this subject.

Great, sounds like it could be interesting, although in my experience Horizon can be pretty reluctant to spoil their story for want of a bit of hysteria