One of the guys that was outspoken on the program has been on TV before and I can't place his face.

SOMEBODY PUT ME OUT OF MY MISERY PLEASE !!

Mark Evans was a TV vet on something or other.

They can't, and even the most healthy of dog lines can produce genetic disorders.

Humans do it all to often, they are told that they may produce "defective" offspring but still they go ahead, they take a chance, but if you certain that you are breeding unhealthy inbred stock and the offspring is almost certain to have genetic disorders in the case of some pedigree dogs, do you still press on regardless because some donut long ago wrote down a brief description of a particular breed and your genetic mongrel fits the bill?.

There has to be a breed standard otherwise all dogs would end up looking the same eventually, but breeding in undesirable aspects that cause pain and lifelong discomfort is just plain stupid.

Even the best testing cannot rule out genetic disorders, but the KC and the army of judges well know that some breeds are adversely affected in the pursuit of showing excellence however they chose to turn a blind eye, skim over the bad bits because they consider the standard to be paramount.

Any judges care to comment?

No?

Drawbridge up in the Ivory tower?

That's the fella - thanks - I was fearing a sleepless night

I wasn't really surprised at the things I heard in the program, whatever field you are in there will always be those who carry things to extremes whether the it is breeding dogs, racehorses or looking at it in human terms the people who ruin their bodies in the name of sport (think of the young girl gymnasts a few years ago/those who take fitness enhancing drugs ).

There are hundreds of dogs breeders in this country, many I am sure are caring and have the best interests of their breed formost in their minds.A proportion of breeders do not and that of course includes puppy farmers/BYB who certainly don't care about health tests or inbreeding and the puppies they produce add to the overall impression of unfit pedigree dogs.


I have said for a long time that testing for recognized breed specific illnesses should be mandatory, only health tested dogs should be bred from.
Also there should be no need for excesses of inbreeding, the world is a small place these days and it is not difficult to importing dogs in order to introduce new blood.


Some people seem to blame the Kennel Club and the breed standards for some of the problems. The breed standards were originally decided upon by the breed clubs then approved by the Kennel Club. Breed standards of many older breeds were set down to contain details of body conformation /coat etc, most of these being necessary requirements to enabled a dog to perform its working duties, an incorrect constructed dog would soon tire or be prone to injury or joint problems.


Over the years in some breeds certain 'types' have become fashionable, this is often down to the way people choose to interpret the breed standard rather than the fault of the breed standards themselves (or the KC). Some people who try to resist 'fashion' and stick more closely to the original standards in some breeds can be unpopular and thought of as old fashioned. That is not to say some breed standards don't need altering to take into consideration the health/ wellbeing/lifestyle of the dogs we are breeding nowadays.


In the Min. Schnauzer BS it states ..
Correct conformation is of more importance than colour or other purely ‘beauty’ points. Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog.
So in one breed at least looks arn't the only consideration.

I agree, there could have been more actual quoting of facts to back up the statements like inbreeding levels and percentages of affecteds in breeds etc. But I think the GSD example was more to show the effects of breeding for showring exaggerations rather than effects of non health testing.

Despite the GSD's rigorous health testing and surveying in Germany, the breed is still one of the most badly affected by these exaggerations. A dog of stoic temperamernt with a good trainer can easily get through the tests required for breeding. It's nothing in comparison to the real work that the original dogs would have done.

The gait of the Crufts BOB was really appalling and the weak hocks are a result of overangulation.

Just a quick reply(OMG look at the time, but i couldn't sleep)as I have only seen bits of the program(it's on the hard drive of my digibox)

As someone who has a dog with Syringomyelia diagnosed by MRI scan-who is by a dog with SM(who was PTS before his 3rd birthday) I have to take exception to the remarks that dogs with genetic conditions should not be shown or be placed. Loukar has no symptoms at all. He was scanned at the request of the stud dog owner(who also bred the stud dog)not because he had any symptoms himself.

Why should we not show him(he's retired now BTW) & win with him, dog shows are beauty shows in the UK based on the dogs outward appearance not their genetic makeup ?

He has never & will never be bred from & this I obviously do agree with & until the DNA of the Cavalier is mapped & marker genes found then only dogs that have been MRI scanned clear should be bred from & if they produce an affected puppy then they should be withdrawn from the gene pool.

As he has SM this means his mother must be a carrier & also means at best the rest of the litter are carriers. So imagine my disgust when I discovered that his brother was being used at stud(& for all I know still is)& that his mother had been sold as a brood bitch & was mated again after Loukar was diagnosed. For publicly stating that I disagreed with Lou's brother being used at stud(without naming him or his owner or breeders)I was kicked off a Cavalier forum, becuase I upset Lou's brother's owner & their breeders ! So much for freedom of speech.

Loukar's brother to the best of my knowledge has never been MRI scanned & certainly hadn't been scanned after Lou was diagnosed-but he was used at stud. He must be a carrier so using him on unscanned bitches should be a big no no. Sadly the breeder is on this forum & has started breeding again after getting rid of all her dogs except two older ones just after Milo(Lou's father was PTS)& I think has used Lou's brother at stud on one of her bitches

His breeders didn't bother to tell us that Milo had been PTS & I found out via Dog World Cavalier breed notes !! His breeders haven't spoken to us since then & didn't even bother to contact my friend when her Rikki died suddenly @ 7 despite being aware of this & my friend was(& still is) very upset about this.

The same goes for my Rjj he is a CEA carrier-he doesn't have CEA & being a carrier doesn't affect him physically at all & certainly doesn't stop him doing the job he was bred to do. If I wanted to show him why shouldn't I ?( I have no intention of showing him BTW)He can safely be used @ stud on my Jessie as she is CEA normal genetically(not planning to & in any case Rjj has had the Suprelorin implant & Jessie hasn't had a season)so their puppies would not be affected.

My BC's are 3/4s health tested they all need their hips & elbows scoring & also clinically eye tested for PRA & will not be breeding from any of them until this is done

The program that I saw was very one sided-no mention of ABS breeders like me who do all the health testing available & no mention of the PF etc who exploit dogs to the extremes & do no health testing at all & who are outside the control of the KC if they do not register their puppies with them.

I'll be watching the program in depth & as it is on a hard drive I will be be able to study it carefully

Pet Rescue, used to watch it years ago.

The dog had sired 34 litters but 26 were after it was found to have the horrible illness

I haven't got time to read all of this, sorry, I suspect I will agree with most people though.
I wasn't at all surprised by any of the things shown, possibly because there has been so much chat on other forums about it, possibly because the problems in many breeds are all too apparent.
I do agree that the kC has to be careful and faced with the attitudes shown last night, it is obvious many would go do their own thing if forced to implement things, which in the long term would be more damaging for many breeds. At the same time though they need to insist on basic health checks at least for all parents of registered dogs IMO. It is terrible that someone could buy a pup, with 'papers' but with no health tests in place.
The trouble is, a lot of the responsibility lies with the breeders and breed societies. The outrage of the woman RR breed society when reading the letter from the KC was laughable. She was upset because everything had been ok the day before...NOT because of the healthy pups being culled. I suspect removing that sentence from their Code of Ethics won't stop the practice. It is people like that the the KC are battling with...and possibly there are too many people like that in the KC.

I think the breed societies should take more responibility and play a bigger part in things, until they change, the kC can't and there is no hope for many breeds.

Terribly sad, not very shocking and long overdue. Congratulations to Jemima Harrison who wrote, edited and produced the programme.