Well I watched the show- lucky, since I caught it 15 minutes in, not knowing it was on! I have mixed feelings about it. I agree that breeding dogs with inheritable defects is wrong. I agree breeding dogs with mutations harmful to their health are wrong. And I also agree that inbreeding is unnatural and harmful.
However I don't think that the only obvious solution to these problems is to oppose pedigree breeding itself, or to ban crufts. Crufts is just the name of a show. It doesn't do anything itself does it, it is an inanimate thing? Why do people instantly go down the war path?
I personally think that it is unreasonable to expect people to stop wanting to breed any animal for looks. A dog breeder breeding for looks is no different to a budgie breeder who breeds 'violet clearwings' or a pet snake breeder who breeds albinos etc. I don't think it is playing God, I think people do it since we are naturally very visual animals, intelligent and creative. We all choose pets on the basis of of visual information, whether it is the 'cure mutt' factor, us enjoying watching their behaviour, the colour of their fur and eyes, the appearance of their breed...If we didn't find things in this world aesthetically pleasing then we wouldn't have art, photography, books, or any pets at all. People wouldn't bother collecting anything, or buy nice clothes...We probably wouldn't have progressed from being apes. That is what makes us human.

However I do think it is reasonable to expect people to only breed ethically, therefore not further mutations or examples of selective breeding which are harmful to the dog. Why create public outrage against pedigree breeding as a whole? It just creates anger, and it is not do-able or fair to try and ban showing or breeding dogs. And as for going on about people's obsession with 'purity' and mentioning racism and the flipping Nazis is a completely unfair portrayal.

We don't need to sacrifice dog breeds, or showing, we just have to do it differently. You can breed for looks and still breed a healthy dog, perhaps through a combination of health screening and by being allowed to outcross. The idea of purity comes entirely from the Kennel Club's current system. Under this system unhealthy dogs are allowed to win in the show ring, the responsible breeder scheme goes no further than just advising people, only those dogs with a 'pure' (therefore inbred)ancestry are allowed to compete, and the breed standard is treated as the law. Well, people want to win don't they? Winners under this system will feel like royalty and no doubt wish to continue what they are doing. They are always going to be trying to breed a dog which is a little bit better so slowly dogs have become more and more exaggerated in order to impress and be better than last year, or better than other people's. Dogs are thereby treated solely as living works of art, and so will be affected by trends such as for snub-noses, impressive size/weight, or petitness and the original function of character of the breed may be lost, along with its health. If you could outcross (and I mean while still adhering to plans, and trying to stick to a certain look), and if you HAD to produce healthy dogs to win, then what would be wrong with the act of showing them?

If we forgot the restrictions that are in place the best way to cure say a Cavalier King Charles spaniel of one of its inherited diseases would be to mate some of the healthier ones to other types of spaniel or other small dogs. You could selectively breed these dogs to fit loosely around a breed standard, and judge them on how nice they look but without having to have everything about their anatomy perfectly fit a written 'blueprint.' The standard could just be a loose idea, and the dogs who are crowned the winner are the 'best' from various perspectives including health, temperament etc. Kind of like the way fun dog shows are run.

I think testing is good, agree that in some cases bad up bringing is a cause for bad hips in pups, but i have been in the breed for many many years and know what not to do - so to speak.

I treated my dog with cotton gloves, restricting excercise. for the first year to prevent any problems being caused, they never go up stairs, jump from cars etc, everything we are told to do with giant breeds this never worked either.

I firmly believe that in her breeding somewhere (not the last 8/10 years) dogs with bad hips were being used, but testing is quite a new thing in the dog world. 20 years ago testing didn't happen very much..

I know somebody now, who is very well up in the breed and is using a bitch with a hip score of about 50. They will all be kc registered and so the problems will go on in years to come.


I also know of a dog who is a champion that is very agressive, which goes against the standard of a newfoundland, still became a champion though.

Get rid of the 'dead wood' eh?

Im sorry but to me speaking as a breeder, I would never KNOWINGLY breed an exageration in a dog that I knew would cause that dog to suffer, I personally wouldnt give a damn about getting a rosette in the ring, dont get me wrong I love showing my dogs, but if I thought that I had to breed my dogs in such a way that it compromised their health because of miss interpretation of the breed standard I would bow out gracefully.

Mo

Very well said and if all breeders thought like that, this programme would never have had to be made.

absolutly spot on - if only everyone thought like this.

Well said Mo, no doubt you are not alone either, but the question begs, would you still breed a line that does not meet the breed standard but looks good and is strong and healthy?

I would and the KC and show dog fraternity can KMHB

Problem is dog breeding is an apprenticeship with mentors....most old time breeders are hung up on type, and have little understanding of anatomy eg screw tails effects on spinal column or the insidious effects of loose-line breeding on the gene pool and recessive genes carrying disease. That needs to change big time. I for one, do not wish to be associated with such intransegence: its time is past. We all need to act sensibly to get reform in the KC, just kicking off for a few hours will achive little in terms of long term benefits. I shall try to answer some of Azz's thoughts tomorrow...a bit boarded out tonight!

Mary

these sort of people should be shot at dawn.

i just hope the buying public do their homework and ASK the see the certificate as proof.
but even then its been known that these are swopped about.
in reality we dont know what were buying.

I don't know for sure, but I remember reading somewhere that although the kennel club tells members of its responsible breeder scheme to do health tests, that that is as far as it goes. I read that you could still breed a dog and register it if it got a bad result. It just had to have the test.