have done

dont let it get to you staffysmum
it will be someone elses turn to get picked on next week *sigh*
you have to have thick skin and a tin helmet on here lately, is there something in the water? or is it all the hormones of the women on here ?
lol lol

yea i like your explanation lol its probably the water and pmt lol lol

:smt003

hmmmmmmmmm...

OK.

What have we here?

Tbh - I don't think people were 'picking' on anyone, merely trying to stress how important 'they felt' health testing was/is. I think the thread went a bit silly on both sides towards the end.

If this is a question about health testing - then perhaps a good rule to follow is that if the breed is a KC breed and there are recommended health tests for that breed - then off course they should be done.

If it isn't a KC breed, then should the leading club for that breed have some guidelines about health testing, then those should be followed.

Even if people are against clubs or registries then they should research the breed and see for themselves if testing of any sort is a good idea. (ie use common sense, such as large breeds and hip problems etc)

I think most people who care about their breed would agree with the above and when our breeder charter comes out it will probably specify health tests be carried out in accordance with recommendations for the breed.

Now going back to this thread, I think a question was asked - 'if you don't breed to better the breed then why do you breed?' And an answer posted was something along the lines of, 'if i can have kids then why should i deprive my dog who cant decide as she cant talk' then I must say, that in my opinion, that that IS a wrong reason to breed. It is irresponsible, and not only dangerous to your own bitch but to her puppies and the breed in general (passing on bad genes etc). Breeding should always be about improving the breed amd health of utmost importance, whether that breed is KC, non KC, or a new experimental 'breed/ cross breed'.