i am quite impressed with the pug dog club in america, they seem to be spending alot of time and one into the problems that pugs seem to be suffering,a main one pde and gme, i am not sure if other dogs suffer from this, but pugs deffinatly do, it is a horrific problem with hardly any signs of it coming and no cure, i know of a few people who have lost their pug this way, and you feel for them,our pug club seem very good at rehoming and raising money but there is not alot on what they are doing health wise, mind you it costs so much apparenty, so its like swings and round abouts

>our pug club seem very good at rehoming and raising money but there is not alot on what they are doing health wise

Which one? There are five pug breed clubs which are affiliated to the KC.

I was interested to note on the parent club's website that long-lived pugs (15 or 16 years old) are not a rarity. That's very good going for any breed. The oldest one reported on the Pug health survey was 17. :-)

I have just googled "Animal Health Trust Pugs".   Guess what were the first two items which came up?

(1)   A pug key-ring.

(2)   A pug in a Christmas hat Christmas card.

So......the Animal Health Trust denigrates the breeding of pugs - but is prepared to sell merchandise showing pugs to further their funds?

Ironic or what?

> who is the aht, you are mixing me up with another post, although now you have mentioned it, maybe i will

The AHT is the Animal Health Trust, based in Cambridge. I think it would be very useful to you to contact these people and some of the other organisations who can help you to discover what is being done, and how good responsible breeders are working very hard to tackle inherited disease in their breeds. You might also try the BVA British Veterinary Association, whose health testing schemes are supported by the Kennel Club, the International Sheep Dog Society and all responsible caring breeders.

When health issues are important there are no maybes only supporters and those who don't want to support them, tahnkfully most people on this forum are supporters of any health testing they can do. In my breed (which is also the one Jemima likes to claim as her chosen breed), we have a BVA test for hips and for inherited glaucoma, but all flatcoat breeders on champdogs will have had their dogs hip scored and glaucoma tested prior to breeding and most will have had their dogs eye tested for PRA, HC, RD etc and elbow scored too, even though there is no need to as we do not have these problems.

I am sure Olive and you do have concerns, but I do wonder if you are tarring all breeders with one brush? If that is not the case then please be assured that all the breeders on this forum care very much indeed about their dogs and the health status of their dogs.

Before Jemima made her programme she asked me about eye testing and as the Kennel Club had asked ALL breeders, clubs and shows to co-operate with the film I invited her to come along to the eye testing. She did not come. I have since then offered her the chance to attend which she has not, so in the interests of fairness I now offer to you hat same offer. Would you like to come to the eye testing and meet the breeders and their dogs and actually see for yourself?

Firstly neither myself or Joanne have accused anyone of being back yard breeders.
Tooolz, I have emailed the Pug Dog Club many times and twice been told there will be no increase in muzzle length and that the twist in the tail is staying. Oh and by the way, I find your comment about me wanting/expecting change overnight just a tad patronising and to be honest makes me not take your comments seriously at all.
With regards to the screw tail and back problems, I was also told by my dogs referral centre that it was down to the nature of the dogs tail. Yes I do agree with the animal health trust experts too, and all the vets Ive spoken to (that I work with), but hey I guess they aren't the experts?
Ive emailed the KC about my concerns and basically got told by them over and over that they now have an accredited breeder programme, and just got tea and sympathy with regards to my dog.
Im not just sitting hear moaning. Ive emailed CAWC, APGAW, the Dogs Trust and the RSPCA. Ive read the reports/papers by the RSPCA and Dogs Trust about conformation related genetic diseases as you know my main concern is with the conformation of the pug at present. All are saying what I am, with regards to pugs massive changes are needed in breed standard to prevent genetic conditions that are down partly to confirmation.

It is worth remembering that clubs around the world co-operate and exchange information,a and that priorities can vary depending on the prevalence in the local population of a given issue.

Some health issues for example that have been seen in some countries are rarely encountered here and vice versa, though since the modern ease of exchanging bloodlines we have the mixed blessings of being able to widen gene pools, but this often means we exchange and introduce each others problems too.

My whole cause since I joined this forum is with my concerns over the pug dog and its conformation which doesn't help towards predisposed genetic conditions. Of course I know responsible breeders do as much as they can to eradicate problems, and also care dearly for their dogs. 
Of course I know crossbreeds also suffer with hereditary problems. But its a fact that they less predisposed on the whole. Im not here to "tarnish" all breeders, but I do feel that Joanne and myself are being "tarnished" as ignorant.

> Firstly neither myself or Joanne have accused anyone of being back yard breeders.

I don't think anyone has said that, but your posts do come across as though this is what you are implying, that is one problem with emails.

> Tooolz, I have emailed the Pug Dog Club many times and twice been told there will be no increase in muzzle length and that the twist in the tail is staying. Oh and by the way, I find your comment about me wanting/expecting change overnight just a tad patronising and to be honest makes me not take your comments seriously at all.

Sometimes you actually need to join the clubs to find out what is going on. The club can no more make your dog better than I can, they can offer sympathy, because like you there will be members and often breeders who have had a poorly dog. Breed clubs like the Kennel Club raise thousands of poiunds every year which they spend on health research, but they do not make headlines with this. (For example the RSPCA had a donation of £48,000 from the Kennel Club even though they condemn the Kennel Club publicly). If you think my comments are patronizing, then again all I can do is put it down to the email system, since it is not meant to be patronizing. All I am saying is that you and Joanne should explore all available information, so that you can be properly informed.

> With regards to the screw tail and back problems, I was also told by my dogs referral centre that it was down to the nature of the dogs tail. Yes I do agree with the animal health trust experts too, and all the vets Ive spoken to (that I work with), but hey I guess they aren't the experts?

I have worked with vets, my son in law is a Dr of Veterinary Medicine, I work closely with the BVA on a number of things. As Jemima asked me once, Do you believe scientists or vets? She does not believe vets she told me she relied on scientists. Like you I believe vets they work much closer with dog owners than most.

> Ive emailed the KC about my concerns and basically got told by them over and over that they now have an accredited breeder programme, and just got tea and sympathy with regards to my dog.

I imagine the KC told you about the ABS because all breeders on it have to have their dogs health tested. As to the tea and sympathy again there is not much they can do. They are as concerned as you are.

> Im not just sitting hear moaning. Ive emailed CAWC, APGAW, the Dogs Trust and the RSPCA. Ive read the reports/papers by the RSPCA and Dogs Trust about conformation related genetic diseases as you know my main concern is with the conformation of the pug at present. All are saying what I am, with regards to pugs massive changes are needed in breed standard to prevent genetic conditions that are down partly to confirmation.

As a reporter I have also read these reports but I have also gone on further to actually speak to the experts who feature in many of these reports, but even if I did not have to do it as part of my job, I would still do it because I am concerned that all dogs should have a good quality of life. As a dog lover I have contacted these experts and had long conversations with many, and this was extra to my work. I have spoken to APGAW, CAWC, DeFRA, the RSPCA, the BVA and the kennel Club to mention only a small number. Like others here I am not sure what you are hoping we can help you with? It is frustrating to own a poorly dog no doubt and upsetting, but if the breeder of your dog and the breed club about it, while they cannot offer our dog a better life they can take on board what you are going through.

In my breed we are doing a lot of research into cancer, a very good friend had a dog die of cancer at 11 years old, as part of this research she donated her dogs remains to the AHT for research purposes, she had the hell of having her dearly loved dog put to sleep then having to drive from her home in the north of England to Cambridge, she was distraught, but felt very strongly this needed to be done. It takes a strong person to go through this and it is not with out a lot of tears and unhappiness, but she did it. If it helped your chosen breed would you be prepared to do this? I ask because this might be helpful to the breed and any expert out there who is working on this problem. At least then perhaps some progress might be made, if the breed clubs and KC are not helping you move this forward?

> Of course I know crossbreeds also suffer with hereditary problems. But its a fact that they less predisposed on the whole.<

The trouble is Olive, that each and every cross-breed will carry the genetic traits of all its forebears - so how can one say that they are less predisposed?   Pedigree tripehound No 1 could be the offspring of say a labrador and a german shepherd - predisposed to HD on both sides, anal funiculosum on one, progressive retinal atrophy on the other.    Pedigree tripehound No 2 could be a collie cross spaniel - again HD on one side, possibility of epilepsy on both sides, possible eye problems on both sides plus skin problems on one.   What about the progeny of such a pairing?    There could be considerable health problems there.

I use these two examples deliberately - I've known several "labsations" and "spannycols" - lovely dogs, but they have had as many problems if not more than my pedigree labradors and australian shepherds.

Would add that of the litters that I have bred over 40 years (6 or 7) the puppies have all gone on well into their teens apart from a couple which died early on from accidents :(

To be honest, a lot of the replies we have had on here, likewise come across and rude and attacking so lets just put it down to emails I agree.
Personally, I tend to believe both vets and the scientific experts and with regards to pugs they are all saying the same thing. I apologise now if Im a little focussed on just that breed and not all dogs but thats why Im here, because I own one. I am exploring the available info and its all telling me the same thing with regards to my breed.
I am not here for help. I am here like Joanne to make other pug owners, potential owners, aware of the problems this breed are predisposed to, mainly because of the way they look. And its my belief that not enough is going to be done, but I hope it will. I know its not going to happen over night and would take years to reverse some of the conformation, but you have to start somewhere and there is no reason why it cannot be done eventually.
This was all originally about PDE. I believe it was a good programme because it too made the general public aware that many breeds are predisposed to horrific conditions. If this then stops one person for example from getting a pug from a non accredited breeder, or asks the breeder what tests have been done then surely thats a positive step. I really don't think it accused all dog breeders of being rubbish which is the impression alot get on here. I for one didnt get that impression.

> . I really don't think it accused all dog breeders of being rubbish which is the impression alot get on here. I for one didnt get that impression.<

Unfortunately, the majority of people over here in the UK did.   It lead to the BBC pulling out of televising Crufts (maybe not a bad thing because they made such a cat's breakfast of it) and also to the withdrawal by many large firms of their sponsorship.

It has also led to BYB now using the excuse "oh no, we wouldn't breed pedigree dogs - ours are much healthier (!?)!

Lokis mum, it also has forced the kennel club to make changes to breed standards which for many breeds is needed.

>and also to the withdrawal by many large firms of their sponsorship.

No, Pedigree withdrew from sponsorship before the program was aired & it was the animal charities that withdrew & they are not sponsors

>  it also has forced the kennel club to make changes to breed standards which for many breeds is needed

Really please state how many breeds have had their standards changed as a direct result of PDE ??? As you state many I presume you mean over half of the 150+ breeds that the KC recognize. They KC can change the UK standard for any breed, but this has no impact on the breeds anywhere else & in fact the two GSDs singled out as"defective"by PDE aren't UK bred & the B.O.B. doesn't even live in the UK so changing the UK breed standard would not affect those dogs.

Sorry but JH has admitted to excluding any good things about show exhibitors who breed as it wouldn't make good TV & would have reduced the "impact"the program had on viewing figures(& also world wide viewing ergo money paid to JH for the program). She has claimed that health testing has increased since the program, well not amongst breeders who do not register their dogs it hasn't, because she deliberately omitted the information that the Boxer & Cavalier were not from KC registered dogs nor from show exhibitors-again because that would have lessened the impact of the program(& would have stopped the breeders who don't register their dogs from claiming that their dogs are perfectly healthy, even though they are not health tested)

MM, I cannot say how many standards have changed if Im honest but I know the brachycephalic ones are being reviewed and have temporary interim ones? Im not saying all need changing just some.
As far as health tests are concerned the good thing that came from PDE is that people will now insist on tested dogs. Surely that good? Backyard breeders and puppy farmers surely would lose business if they cannot prove the dogs are tested? Just a view

>and also to the withdrawal by many large firms of their sponsorship.<

I worded that badly - what I intended saying was "many large firms used this as an excuse for withdrawal of their sponsorship which had already been decided."   My apologies.

For those readers from Australia who may well be coming to this for the first time - and with apologies to all others who have seen this link umpteen times before - may I recommend that you look at this :-
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1976/23/5/3

>As far as health tests are concerned the good thing that came from PDE is that people will now insist on tested dogs. Surely that good?

But that's not what's happening! PDE made no mention of the possible tests, so the general public are still unaware of them so can't insist on something they don't know about! JH told us on here that no mention was made of tests because it would have 'lessened the message' - I personally think it would have made the message infinitely stronger because it would have shown the public that there were many breeders who were doing all that's scientifically possible to minimise the chances of unhealthy animals being born.

Instead the pet-buying public are actively avoiding 'show breeders' (because of the message that all show dogs are unhealthy and inbred) and instead turning to the randomly-bred, unhealth tested (because they're not KC registered so they're healthy) outpourings from puppy farms.

Do you and Joanne belong to any of the pug web forums? I would think that would be one of the best courses of action for you both. There are very few pug breeders on this forum as it is a general forum rather than breed specific. Yahoogroups for example have a lot of pug groups, I am sure smartgroups will also be much the same. The people on these boards are surely more likely to know what is going on in the breed.

> This was all originally about PDE. I believe it was a good programme because it too made the general public aware that many breeds are predisposed to horrific conditions. If this then stops one person for example from getting a pug from a non accredited breeder, or asks the breeder what tests have been done then surely thats a positive step. I really don't think it accused all dog breeders of being rubbish which is the impression alot get on here. I for one didnt get that impression.

Sadly the programme did have a very negative effect for the responsible breeders and as Lokis Mum says it did give the impression to the majority of the general public the impression that there were no good caring and responsible breeders. Had the programme been more balanced and shown some of the positive work being done for dog health, Jemima would have taken single responsible breeder with her and greater strides forward would have been achieved. Instead we have a situation were everyone has become entrenched in their views and this has detracted attention from what is being achieved, and pushing things further forward.

Since the programme I have not had one single enquiry about health testing required of parents before breeding. Every enquiry has simply been to ask me if I know of puppies for sale, and regardless of breed and I do get a lot of enquiries, so from that view point it has not worked either. The general media are more obsessed in declaring how wicked dog breeders are, and being lazy journalists and not investigating for themselves in any depth what is being done. If they published articles telling people to ask breeders for health certificates for the sire and dam of their puppies, then again greater strides forward would be accomplished.

It is sad the programme was so biased that it divided all those like the RSPCA, CAWC, APGAW, The Dogs Trust, the BVA and the Kennel Club, when it is these very organisations who are all seeking the same end and if they really cared about dogs would be putting differences aside to work together. Instead there is a lot of finger pointing going on which benefits no dog. The Kennel Club has tried to talk to most of these organisations some have responded but many are not willing to even consider the postion which dogs and dog breeders now find themselves in. I just find it so very sad it has had to come to this, when so much more could have been achieved with a more balanced programme.

> As far as health tests are concerned the good thing that came from PDE is that people will now insist on tested dogs

If only.

Just recently had correspondence with a person who signed my guestbook saying they had a dog bred by me and had 9 puppies.

Now I knew that they did not have a pup from me but was curious, the dog was bred by someone with the same Christian name as me.

I checked for health test details on the dog thinking ti was a bitch, no results.

I contacted this dogs breeder and found out it was a male, and that in fact it had sired a litter to the owners bitch who turns out to have been sold with endorsed papers with a contract that they would not be removed unless relevant health tests were carried out.

On further enquiries with the bitches breeder it turns out that although the contract had been explained the need for health testing etc, the owner had had her under age (17 months)bitch 'accidentally' mated.

Did she get the bitch the injection to prevent pregnancy? No she went ahead with the pregnancy.

Our breed has only recently had the good fortune to have a DNA test for PRA and all breeders have been busily testing to ensure that no more affected pups (very low incidence and very late onset) could be produced.

The results of testing show a surprisingly high number of carriers, the fortunate thing is that most males and females produce few litters in our numerically small breed so their chance of being mated to another carrier has obviously been quite low, and with late onset of the condition some affecteds would have died with owners never realising they had it.

Responsibly the bitches breeder has refused to remove the endorsements (though the breeder of the pups had waited until pups were 6 weeks to try and persuade her to lift them out of sympathy) unless both parents are hip scored, eye tested, DNA tested and kidney tested normal.

The pups breeder could easily have had all but the bitches hips scored when she decided to go ahead with the litter, and undertaken to have the hips scored after weaning pups to show good faith to the mothers breeder re endorsement lifting.

So what of the litter, advertised and registered with a mickey mouse outfit and selling for almost the same price as from a good breeder who has spent a fortune on testing.  They have already sold three according to the advert, to probably unsuspecting new owners.

Who will get the blame if any of these pups go blind?????  The individual who didn't want to spend a £1000 on health tests or the breeders as a whole????  the puppy producer will use the often heard excuse 'I'm not a breeder, I didn't know' (which they do).

So there you go the possibility of eradicating a problem being sabotaged by the immoral.

Jeangenie, it did say there were no tests recommended for pugs. If you go to the KC website it actually doesnt recommend any for pugs.

Which of the KC sites did you look at? Was it the main one? If so did you see these two sites which are run by the Kennel Club?

http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/health/search/Default.aspx

http://www.doggenetichealth.org.uk/

Another site to look at:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/meet/charitable_trust.html

It details the money the Kennel Club gave to canine welfare. They also donate a lot of money raised to developing health schemes. The kennel Club is a non profit organisation and once their staff and other liabilities are paid for all their income is dispersed among organisations for welfare and health research.

Wonder how much money was donated from PDE's profits?

Polly
yes Ive seen them but I dont get your point?

MM, I cannot say how many standards have changed if Im honest but I know the brachycephalic ones are being reviewed and have temporary interim ones? Im not saying all need changing just some.
As far as health tests are concerned the good thing that came from PDE is that people will now insist on tested dogs. Surely that good? Backyard breeders and puppy farmers surely would lose business if they cannot prove the dogs are tested? Just a view


You actually wrote many not some & lots of changes have been made over the years some for the better & some for the worse.

PDE did not give any advice on how a prospective puppy buyer should find a responsible breeder nor on what health tests need to be done & how they can check that they have actually been done properly & not just a once over from a GP vet. As JG wrote JH has admitted this was a deliberate omission by her to make the program more sensational.

The fact that BYB, Pet Breeders & Puppy farms are openly advertizing that their dogs are not KC Reg & ergo are perfectly healthy shows that the PDE totally failed in that respect.

I actually contact advertizers of my three breeds who don't mention health tests & ask them what health tests they have done & the 100% answer is none my dogs aren't KC Reg so don't need them !!!!

That program did lot of harm and in no way gave the general public correct view of what good breeders are doing.
In my local paper there are adverts that point out not a show breeder, I can't see any other reason than to point out we are not part of those horrendous show breeders with sick dogs! These adverts used to brag many champions in the pedigree.... So they say what buying public wants to see, what sells the puppies at that moment, shows the reasons of having that litter...Monetary gain, nothing else.

I think one big step UK Kennel club is yet to take and they should do ASAP is NOT register puppies off not health tested parents or dogs that have failed the basic health tests.
I know they are doing many different things and helping reserach but to get their creditiability back they should enforse healthy breeding and the fact KC registered puppy will have parents that are health tested, no question about it.
There is no need to have accredited breeder schemes etc to confuse the public, just pure and simple any KC registered pup will have parents that have passed the health tests needed for the breed.

I know it will not stop health problems and there are many illnesses there are no tests for but at least KC registered puppy would stand out and have a difference to a Mickey Mouse-club registered puppy, basic health testing behind it.
Many european clubs have been doing this for long time now and they do have public behind them and people really believe in quality of a KC registration.
As many FCI clubs have the limits on place (and have had for many years)UK KC would not have to look far to give them direction and tips on how they could set similar limitations.

>> As another poster has mentioned regarding the increase in puppy farmed dogs and back yard bred dogs attending their training club, I am a trainer at a similar local dog training club and have also noticed this trend. We have watched these dogs from young pups, develop health problems, one much loved dog from this source is currently in the vets and is seriously ill. The other problem we are seeing increasing from dogs from these sources is that of poor temperament, we are seeing more aggressive dogs coming through our classes. Many are showing signs of poor temperament from very early on. We have two pups who are 5 months old and both are very sharp.

I'm just playing devils advocate here but think that the PDE programme is being blamed for an awful lot and I don't actually know anyone that isn't a total 'doggy' person who watched it.  There is a distinct possibility that the puppy farmed dogs and those from BYB may have been bought by people who watch dog training shows on tv and can't or won't wait for the right dog but would rather have one right now! 

Joe public who decides they want a dog is less likely to do lots of research regarding health testing and waiting for the right dog if they don't know to do these things.  How many people on CD bought their first dog from an advert in the paper or from a neighbour or friend who had a litter?

Hi Olive,

I just wondered which KC site you had seen. I don't know enough about pugs to put together an email or letter like the one I send out to flatocat buyers, but I think if I had your experience and had seen the scientific reports and veterinary reports on pugs to the extent I have seen on some other breeds then I would be inclined to put together one for prospective pug owners. I am a member on a number of web forums like champdogs, on these forums I am registered as a breeder, and if I get any inquiries about a puppy or if a litter of puppies is available I will send to the enquirer an email or letter explaining what they should know before going further. The websites I gave are KC websites but I am often surprised when people do not know this.

When I get an enquiry for a flatcoat for example I automatically send out via post or email to the person making the enquiry, a letter which details what the breed is like, what health tests are required, it explains symbols on a pedigree which a breeder might add (as flatcoats are gundogs for example you might see on a pedigree FTA, FTW, or even SDC A these are examples of working achievements, and can be confused by novices as health results or other information). I have built up this information over many years and I include on it such things which I think will give a novice buyer a good idea of what they should be asking the breeders, what health certificates they should insist on seeing, I explain the health testing how it is done and how regularly it should be done, what they should be looking for when viewing the puppies, how to find a good training school etc... One thing I include is a guide to places people can go to find out more about health if they want to. I always direct the enquirer back to the breed clubs, especially Mrs Shirley Johnson of the Flatcoated Retriever Society. I always suggest that the enquirer and his/her family goes to visit as many flatcoats as possible before buying, so they will understand exactly how boisterous the flatcoat can be. I warn the buyers that buying off the internet with out knowing what they are looking for is not a good idea, and that by doing this they could inadvertantly be supporting a puppy farmer or BYB. (I have not bred a litter of flatcoats since 1993).

So if you are regularly visiting all the KC sites and the web sites of the BVA, the AHT etc and keeping up with all the latest health advances, perhaps you might consider doing something like my 'flatcoat' letter but for pugs. Then you could give it to people who you think ought be to educated in what they should be asking a breeder and looking for. In this way you would be far more helpful to your chosen breed and would help puppy buyers. Your chosen breed would benefit because you would be reaching more potential buyers than simply coming onto web forums like this, and the more people you reach the more influence you will have over the roigue breeders who do not health test as they will find it harder and harder to compete against the responsible breeders who do. Perhaps pug breeders might be interested in helping you compile such a letter?

Perhaps you could get your vet to agree that you might be able to give such an advice letter to potential owners? I know that vets do get asked to give advice on where to find a puppy, as when I worked in a vet we had a lot of enquiries, and I know my son-in-law and all his veterinary colleagues do get people asking where to find a puppy. Every advanced member on champdogs has to agree to a terms of policy which includes giving copies of health certificates to the people who run this site for every dog they advertise here. Perhaps you could become a member and if under the heading searching somebody asks for help to find a pug puppy you might be able to guide them by telling them what to look for?

I would rather try to tackle problems in a constructive way than go on TV with a biased programme and destroy what trust there is between puppy buyers and good breeders. As either you or Joanne said earlier you want to do something to make a difference and if you can reach only one person that would be a good thing.

Hi Cheeky Chow,

> Joe public who decides they want a dog is less likely to do lots of research regarding health testing and waiting for the right dog if they don't know to do these things.&nbsp; How many people on CD bought their first dog from an advert in the paper or from a neighbour or friend who had a litter?

Yes you are right Joe Public doesn't want to do research, but my experience at a dog training club is none the less my experience, and one which I do know to be true. The cocker spaniel pup is in the vets, and is very poorly. The people who own the cocker got him from his original owners after they could not cope with him any more. He was not from a good breeder, he was from a retail outlet. The other two pups I mentioned are from a BYB and they were bought by a family who had owned golden retrievers previously, but were not happy buying a KC registered pet so got two from a BYB and registered with another well known register.

hi, i just want to make clear that i have never ever blamed the breeders, i am not bitter,just sad that george has gone through so much and also losing my other healthy pug so suddenly and so young,I know that there are many breeders out there that love their breed and do everything possible, like the lady i bought my pug off which died.From day one she was there with honest advice and care,she loves her pugs,only breeds once in a blue moon,and really cares about them, she was crying when i told her that he had died, she rang all the time offering support and a shoulder to cry on,and she would do anything possible to breed healthy pugs and it is people like her that need health tests for pugs so that they can improve the breed like they want to,

>> Yes you are right Joe Public doesn't want to do research

Polly, I said that JP doesn't know to do research which is very different from doesn't want to do research.  I am not doubting the volume of non-pedigree/BYB bred dogs at your class, just doubting that they are all there due to that one tv programme.  In my experience, most people I have known over the years didn't take their dogs to training and now all the training clubs in my area are extremely busy.  there are about 8 that I can think of and they are all very busy, from puppy training upwards.  I am in no way attributing this to the PDE programme but more to an increased awareness of the importance of training, a reduction in latch key dogs, vigilant dog wardens and fines for not picking up poo, amongst other things.

Nothing to add program will be as useful as the first airing ;-)

> As far as health tests are concerned the good thing that came from PDE is that people will now insist on tested dogs. Surely that good? Backyard breeders and puppy farmers surely would lose business if they cannot prove the dogs are tested?

Au contraire Olive.

Unlike yourself I am a breeder of pedigree dogs, I dont do anything different since the programme aired but I must let you know that you are sadly misinformed if you think this is the case.
I'm well known as someone who rigorously health tests - yet of all the enquiries I get, only about 25-30% are clued up about health issues and the rest dont know and worse - dont care. When I explain that I dont have puppies and what to look out for in those who do, I can sense them losing interest and keen to get off the phone. About the same ratio as the last few years.
In the celebrity driven culture we've found ourselves in, the likes of Kerry Katona buying a breed overrides all health issues and makes it desirable.....they dont have to last, they are disposable.
A large number of people want a pup and they want it now....in the back of their mind they have a dim memory of something they saw on telly....'KC pedigree dogs are bad news'...so they buy a nice 'pet' from a retail stockist.
That is one reality of the PDE debacle.

> Polly, I said that JP doesn't know to do research which is very different from doesn't want to do research.&nbsp;

Sorry I misread your words. However could the two be conected?

I am not doubting the volume of non-pedigree/BYB bred dogs at your class, just doubting that they are all there due to that one tv programme.&nbsp; In my experience, most people I have known over the years didn't take their dogs to training and now all the training clubs in my area are extremely busy.&nbsp; there are about 8 that I can think of and they are all very busy, from puppy training upwards.&nbsp; I am in no way attributing this to the PDE programme but more to an increased awareness of the importance of training, a reduction in latch key dogs, vigilant dog wardens and fines for not picking up poo, amongst other things.

I was not saying it was due to the programme, only that I had noticed a marked increase. One lady who comes had labradors in her youth now as an older lady wanted a smaller dog, she had booked a border terrier, then watched the programme and cancelled her puppy. Next thing she is back at club with a cross bred terrier type, (much bigger than a border terrier), and told us that having seen the programme she did not want to buy a pedigree as it would be unhealthy, like the programme said. Her new dog was collected by her at a motorway service station. Had I said that this was my belief then I would have quoted this experience and not the other two. There is little doubt that the BYB and puppy farmers have benefited from the programme as they have been given a new way of advertising their sickly stock.

The club I train at has always been very busy, we have more enquiries than we can take on, we have not noticed an increase in people wanting to bring their dogs to club. The club is a well established club which has been running for over forty years.

> hi, i just want to make clear that i have never ever blamed the breeders, i am not bitter,just sad that george has gone through so much and also losing my other healthy pug so suddenly and so young,I know that there are many breeders out there that love their breed and do everything possible, like the lady i bought my pug off which died.From day one she was there with honest advice and care,she loves her pugs,only breeds once in a blue moon,and really cares about them, she was crying when i told her that he had died, she rang all the time offering support and a shoulder to cry on,and she would do anything possible to breed healthy pugs and it is people like her that need health tests for pugs so that they can improve the breed like they want to,

One way to help is to join a club and and then support their health committees, help raise funds for research, and as I said earlier educate the people who will be buying the puppies in the future. There is so much you can do on a practical level, which breeders like the breeder of your pug would really appreciate help with.

One of my breed club members ran in the London Marathon to raise funds for health research. We have a breed health committee, something my breed has had for years. The Kennel Club has asked all breed clubs to have health monitors and these people are required to report to the KC and to assist researchers in any way they can.

So as you can see there is still much to be achieved and every breed needs people who are truly interested in this to help them. It is practical help to educate those who do not test, those who buy from untested stock, fund raising for research and if necessary providing those researchers with the equipment they need. Believe it or not researchers do need fund raisers willing to buy equipment they need.

Doing things like this is much more useful to helping eradicate health problems for all dogs not just pedigree dogs, than broadcasting a biased tv programme that did not show all the health information. Taking the cavaliers for example, at the show where the programme was filming there was health testing going on but did we see the interview Mr Ian Mason gave (which was a positive interview in support of good breeders), no we did not. Was the work being undertaken since I think it was 2005 by Dr Imelda MacGonnell mentioned? No it wasn't. Dr MacGonnells work is proving to be of great interest for both canine medicine and human medicine. So I would suggest that the best way to help is by offering the breed and the researchers positive help, in any way you can.

> but this has no impact on the breeds anywhere else & in fact the two GSDs singled out as"defective"by PDE aren't UK bred & the B.O.B. doesn't even live in the UK so changing the UK breed standard would not affect those dogs.

Firstly it is not the role of the UK KC to have any impact on the breed outside of the UK. They naturally will have to work on their own breed problems themselves, and I hear that many are doing just that.

However, whilst it wont affect those particular dogs, it will prevent dogs such as these winning CC's in the UK in future, and therefore breeders in the UK are less likely to use them in their breeding programmes, reducing the use of that line in the UK. Show success goes hand in hand with the heightened use of those dogs as studs, you only have to look at the genetic saturation in the German showline for a classic illustration of that, even though it shouldn't happen due to the SVs breeding regulations. 

> Olive, I do not breed or show and I run a rescue. From my experience, F1 and mongrels are just as susceptible (sp?) to hereditary diseases as purebred dogs. I've had plenty of dogs here with HD, ED, Epilepsy etc and lately I've noticed an upsurge in cryptorchism and entropia in Bull Breed x dogs as well

bless you otterhound for being sensible :)

Jsut adding on to the end here, and not responding ot Astarte, or anyone in particulary, but putting a little bit on behalf of pug breeders.  sorry, missed that this thread had turned a bit pug based, so have not read it since it began.  Olive and Joanna (hope I got the names right)  want health testing for pug conditions, but as far as I am aware there are no tests for the conditions mentioned.  Certainly research is going ahead into the whole HV question, and I am afraid X raying is the best we can do at the moment.  DNA tests don't just happen, and the research into the porblem has not even got to that stage.  So please don't advocate stoppping the X rays - lots of pug breeders have just started coming round to doing them, of course mating 2 dogs who x ray clear are not a guarantee of getting HV clear pups, but it is the best we can do at the moment.  We could be years away from even beginnning DNA research,  HV Xray is not required by the KC, and is not wholeheartedly supported by all breeders, but is the best we can do at the moment.  The other problems mentioned have been the subject of individual research, but as far as I know have not been taken up by any kennel club, they are relatively rare conditons with very divided Veterinary and scientific opinion on there causes, treatment etc.  The breed clubs have a "health working party" type thing, who are busy discussing the whole issue of pug health and problems, and of course the proposed new breed standards are formulated and (when last I heard) being approved before submission back to the KC.  Some assumptions in the posts are incorrect - there is certainly a school of thought which considers HV and the curled tail to be linked, but equally there are many who consider this to be a red herring.

Just to throw another spanner into the works - quite a few vets are absolutley anti pugs, assume all pugs are unhealthy and terrify new owners with potential problems.  Have had vets wanting ot perform completely unecessary surgery on perfectly healthy pug pugs for breathing problems etc simply becasue they have read a bit and don't have any depth of knowledge in the breed.  All responsible, reputable breeders want ot breed only  healthy pugs, the best way we can do this is by knowing our own dogs throoughly, both their virtues and faults, and only breeding from those who are health and sound.

A quick thought on the length of nose question too, my pug with the longest muzzle (much too long to fit the breed standard) is my only pug with health issues or breathing problems. 

MM, what I actually wrote was; " it also has forced the kennel club to make changes to breed standards which for many breeds is needed"
NOT ;"many not some & lots of changes have been made over the years some for the better & some for the worse." Thats the trouble with texts/emails.
Polly what you do for your breed sounds admirable. The letter idea sounds like a good one. My problem though is that I don't work on the cat/dog side of stuff anymore, so my access to buyers is difficult. I will try suggesting it to The Pug Dog Clubs.
Interestingly though Just out of interest, I asked at least 20 people at work today that had seen the PDE documentary whether they thought it would put them off getting a pedigree. Not one said definately yes. In fact they said it just made them aware that there were "bad" breeders out there that didnt test their pups before selling. It also educated them to some of the conditions that certain breeds are susceptible to.
What the kennel club needs to do as Noora points out is stop registering any old dogs from people who havent put in all the hard work on tests etc. Why do they still do this on the one hand, and yet promote accredited breeders on the other? What is needed in my opinion is a for the kennel club to only register pups that are from accredited breeders that can provide all the evidence of tests, genetic or health, and promote this nationally.

Hi Gwen, no one is advocating stopping xrays! Far from it!
I also understand that genetic testing for conditions involves isolating just one gene, and that in the pug many of the genetic conditions are difficult to single out and more down to the conformation of the breed? BOAS for example is purely related to conformation. Many eye problems are also related to conformation. Just wondered what your view on conformational problems are?

> Just wondered what your view on conformational problems are?

I know this wasn't specifically addressed to me, but I felt I had to make the point that any conformation different from the wild canid blueprint will predispose to something or other,a and that even wild canids can have issues such as Hip dysplasia, missing teeth, misplaced eyelashes and of course nature does not care if degenerative problems occur outside the age of procreation and rearing.  Most Wolves don't live much past five.  Zoo animals develop arthritis, cancer, cataracts etc.

Logically we would not breed dogs with floppy ears,a s this pre disposes to ear problems, rounder eyes or those more deep set than average can lead to lash or eye lid problems in SOME individuals, even in very primitive breeds like Huskies distichiasis (extra lashes in the tear film) occur.

Small breeds are more fragile than medium to large ones.  Large fast growing ones are more prone to bone cancer because of this growth and anything that interferes with it can start a problem.

The logical conclusion is that we should only keep dogs akin to the Dingo or Pariah types found feral in many parts of the world, with more or less coat depending on our climate.

I am sure that dogs of this protoype domestic dog could be sheepdogs, guide dogs, retrievers and be put to any use man has used dogs for, but man also likes to have dogs that look distinctive from each other.

Not only dogs, but Rabbits, Guinea Pigs mice etc have been bred away from their wild ancestors to come in different colours coat types and in many species different sizes, though the dog is probably the most varied size wise of all domestic animals.

Loki's Mum wrote:

No, Pedigree withdrew from sponsorship before the program was aired & it was the animal charities that withdrew & they are not sponsors

Actually, Pedigree didn't pull out until October 2009, two months after the programme. A quick Google search will confirm.

Really please state how many breeds have had their standards changed as a direct result of PDE ???

The KC announced changes to, I think, 79 breeds after the programme. They maintain that some of those had been in the pipeline (and indeed, I think that's probably true).

Jemima

> Why do they still do this on the one hand, and yet promote accredited breeders on the other? What is needed in my opinion is a for the kennel club to only register pups that are from accredited breeders that can provide all the evidence of tests, genetic or health, and promote this nationally.

The Kennel 'Club' is exactly that it is a private club, it has no legal powers,and cannot force breeders to do anything. It has decided that the best way to help dogs is to continue to register all dogs (and don't forget it does register all dogs including crossbred dogs in it's obedince, agility and companion dog registers). They think that by continuing to register all dogs they hope that the breeders who do not health test their dogs will be encouraged to do so if they can become an accredited breeder scheme member. I can see their point, that if they do not do this then the breeders who do not health test will simply stop registering or will use an alternative register who do not insist on dogs registered with them being health tested.

There are a number of breeders who do all health tests but do not want to join the ABS as some of the breeders in the scheme they regard as 'puppy producers' since they are breeding for financial gain as they are commercial kennels, however if the commercial breeders want the "accolade" of Accredited Breeder they have to health test all their stock. Most breeders on Champdogs are what is termed by the tax man as hobby breeders, people who have a few dogs which they care very deeply about and will do every test going and even do some not required by the Kennel Club, breed clubs or even the the tests the BVA would recommend.

Some of the dogs sold by breeders are registered with endorsements on the registration, these are put there by the breeder, because for example they do not want a certain dog bred from unless it has passed all health tests. Some of the alternative registers will allow dogs which are not health tested and have endorsements on the registration to be bred from and registered with them. The Kennel Club is not a monopoly, and anybody can set up and run a register for dogs, so perhaps the Kennel Club is right that as it has no legal powers and does not have a monopoly on registration, it needs to encourage and educate those breeders who do not health test, in order to do this they need to allow the breeders who are not currently supporting health testing to register their dogs with them.

Once a breeder moves from registering with the Kennel Club nobody has any access to them for the purpose of education or any form of control over what they do. This is something which the BVA have already recognised, and is why they feel vets and breeders should work more closely together.

Thanks for that info Polly. If they are a "private club" can they not make their own rules?
Reading what you have said it just makes the whole thing look a bit of a mess. If there are bad accredited breeders that mass produce pups an the one hand, and good non accredited breeders who do it as a hobby and do it well but are put off from becoming accredited because of association with the former, wheres the logic in the scheme at all?
Surely being a private club it can set its own rules about stuff like how many matings are done in one year etc? I know it would be completely impossible to check every registered puppy accredited or not, but I don't see how running two alternates helps at all, and don't see how it will help against BYB and puppy farmers.
From what Ive read on previous posts, the bad breeders are still not making efforts to test their dogs. I doubt that by offering an alternate scheme (ABS) and not enforcing it, that it will make a difference. I know a girl whose boyfriends parents bred their rotty with another. I know for a fact that the bitch wasn't registered at a vets, and unvaccinated, and that the pups had no health tests either. When I asked 3 weeks later how the pups (8) were doing, 3 had died, but she excitedly announced "we managed to KC register them".
If there was some legal obligation to register and test and a legal definition of what "purebred pedigree" means, it may make people like this think again before breeding. They thought by being KC registered meant they could more easily sell the pups.
I dont see how the pups gain from this at all. At pesent the only gain is financial to the owners and financial to the KC who sadly gave them what they thought was a mark of approval. The KC needs to do more. Please don't shout me down! Its just the way I see it!

>No, Pedigree withdrew from sponsorship before the program was aired & it was the animal charities that withdrew & they are not sponsors<

Although you attribute this comment to me, Jemima, I think you will find it was Moonmaiden who "corrected" what I had said earlier.

You say

>Actually, Pedigree didn't pull out until October 2009, two months after the programme. A quick Google search will confirm.<

A more in-depth Google search confirms what I was certain of:-

Friday 26 October 2007 headlines

Pedigree Launches UK Dog Adoption Drive
In 1964 the Pedigree brand, (Mars, Masterfoods) began telling UK dog owners that: Top breeders recommend Pedigree Chum. Even today you will find this message on Pedigree packaging. But watchers of the brand will have noticed a recent change of emphasis. These days the company is saying: We're for dogs.., by which it means all dogs, not just the champions of Crufts but the mutts, scamps, tramps and scrag-ends of the canine world.
Whilst retaining its position as Crufts' main sponsor, in August Pedigree told the Kennel Club that it had decided to withdraw finance from all other Championship Dog Shows after 40 years of sponsorship

So it is hardly surprising that Pedigree then jumped on your bandwagon and severed all ties.!

> If there was some legal obligation to register and test and a legal definition of what "purebred pedigree"

They have done this in Canada, only dogs registered with the official KC can be advertised as purebred.

Regarding the KC view that they cannot make rules about registration, well they already have, made changes to the basic rule of the parents having to be KC registered in order for pups to be.

First they brought in the maximum number of litters you could register, which is 6 (too many in most breeds but maybe acceptable breeds with litters of 1 or 2).

This was closely followed by the upper age limit of 8 years, with a possibility of waiving in exceptional circumstances with advance application.

Then most recently the rule was brought in that no litter would be registered from a bitch mated at under 12 months old.

They also brought in a 12 months between litters rule which was rescinded because of breeders having bitches mate a little early and those with pressing reasons to breed before 12 months was up.

So it wouldn't be difficult for the KC to insist on the basic tests of Hip Scoring (all breeds get HD event eh toy breeds), and eye testing (clinical exam) would keep an eye on any emerging conditions even in breeds that at present have no breed disposition to a particular issue.

The latter can be proven useful.  For example BSD's were not listed for any eye disease.  A friend took her bitches for testing when our ringcraft ran a testing session and one was found to have hereditary cataract, and the following year the other who had been clear was found to have it too, and they were of two different varieties.

Those who won't do the tests, as in the example In my breed recently even with good breeder endorsements preventing registration will still breed and register with commercial mickey mouse registers.

The KC could only insist on tests that applied across the board to all breeds, as they have done with litter numbers and ages, and could only encourage that breeders to additionally follow best practise as agreed by breed clubs.

I very reluctantly joined the ABS because I didn't see why I should pay an extra fee and for puppy folder at £10 a time (I did my own packs anyway) to prove I was doing the minimum of Hips and eye testing when I had done that all along and additionally DNA testing checking Kidney function etc.  To my mind god breeders should get perks, and the others should pay more.

Our breed club insists on these tests (that we as breeders have agreed as being best for our breed) says two years minimum age for a bitch having a litter, 4 litters maximum, age at which pups to be homed that 5 generation pedigree must be given etc.

So apart from the breeders who do not know being unable to register pups, those who don't want to be responsible are not going to change by being included, there is no incentive for them to change their ways.

For example the litter bred in my breed with the bitch having endorsements.  It would cost them approximately £1000 to do the tests for the sire and dam (the sires tests would still be less than an outside stud fee), yet they are selling the pups with Mickey Mouse registration for almost as much as the reputable breeders who are incurring health testing costs, KC costs and additional Accredited breeder fees, as well as the sots of proving the worth of their dogs (which I know is an expensive hobby and enjoyable pastime too).

The only way to make irresponsible breeders change their ways is to make it hard for their pups to sell.  Unfortunately the General Public is very uneducated in this regard and will happily pay for a pup without papers, especially if it seems a bargain at £50 - £100 less than a well bred one.  With dumb luck some of the pups will not have too many issues so they can't see what the fuss is about, only realising it was a bad move if the pup has problems, late onset blindness for example would just be put down to ageing, as would less than good hips becoming very stiff in old age.  In fact the bad breeders are riding on the good work of the better breeders for the first few generations as they invariably in a breed like mine start out with healthy stock.

So here we come back to our issue with the program this thread is about.  it did nothing to educate the public that there were good breeders who they should support and not to touch unregistered stock from parents with no health testing. 

The opposite has been the case in my experience.  I get a lot of people stop me when I take five dogs out walking around my home.  All of them think pedigree dogs are a liability as that program told them it was.  The usual one is all that 'interbreeding' (they mean inbreeding) with dogs having fits and things, how can I do that to my dogs?

Unfortunately some dogs would still become ill or be born with issues that are not evident in puppy hood, and there will be owners like Joanna and Olive with poorly pups, but these would be in the tiny minority as unfortunately nature can throw us the unexpected.  there are no cast iron guarantees with living things, if there were surely there would be no inherited disease in people and fluke things like birth abnormalities, Siamese twins etc.

A great opportunity for education lost, but of course it wouldn't have made good viewing so fewer people would have watched, and the TV stations would not have bought it.

All those organisations that are to do with dogs need to get out info to the masses, the RSPCA could easily stop people going to puppy farmers etc.

> Actually, Pedigree didn't pull out until October 2009, two months after the programme. A quick Google search will confirm.
>
>

They had announced their withdrawing from sponsorship long before though, and had scaled down their presence at shows from the start of 2008, they had committed themselves with their competitions for champions and veterans for example for the year..

>> Actually, Pedigree didn't pull out until October 2009, two months after the programme. A quick Google search will confirm.

So Google is better informed than the Area Managers of Pedigree Breeders Club ?????? I was told by the nearest Area Manager to me that Pedigree were withdrawing from ALL UK Breed Shows wef Bournemouth Championship show(which was before your PDE). All sponsorship was cancelled, including prize cards etc with immediate effect.

Pedigree stands down
08 Aug 2008

PEDIGREE's stand was dismantled and removed from Bournemouth championship show on Thursday and the following day the company confirmed that it was planning to withdraw sponsorship of its stakes classes.

So I suggest instead of Googling your"facts"you should go to the company involved & not what others have written/reported that appears on Google. Perhaps you missed this ?????????????????

By the way it was me that wrote what you quoted yet another mistake!!!

The latter can be proven useful.  For example BSD's were not listed for any eye disease.  A friend took her bitches for testing when our ringcraft ran a testing session and one was found to have hereditary cataract, and the following year the other who had been clear was found to have it too, and they were of two different varieties.

Did you mean that as in the past? Eye testing (HC) is most definitely a requirement now, both by the breed club (members should eye test their dogs annually up to the age of 7) and by the ABS scheme.

to polly, what you do for your bred is amazing and i wish there were more like you,

to gwen,  i never said stop the x rays,but as in my case the parents were both x ray clear,and i ended up with a pug with spine problems, which shows that the x rays are unreliable and gene testing is something for the future, i know it will take alot of time. i want to ask you, if you breed and either one of your puppies ended up like george, or you were the stud of a puppy like george, what would you do, would you carry on using that stud dog or bitch to mate with etc?, also, a thought, if the x ray is really no proof or guarentee that the puppy wont have spine problems, is it really worth putting the pug through the risk of anassetic, I feel that the genetic problems can skip from generation to generation and it is prob like looking for a needle in a haystack, but we must try. If i had george like he was and my other pug lived a long happy life,i may have considered buying another, but i would not have looked for one with spine clear parents as it did not do george any good bless him. Another thing to remember, is that, if george did not have BAOS we would not have known about his spine, (which is so bent)it was only because he was collapsing and screaming, he was not eating well, and he was drooling and exhausted after a walk that we knew something was really wrong.My first thought was his spine, as he had a massive swelling that could only be felt when he was lying down, i thought that even though he had this swelling for ever, maybe something had slipped further and was causing these episodes, so i asked for a spine x ray and that was when spine was diagnosed, and we were referred to cambridge.After a massive consultation, they decided that it was not his spine causing these episodes but BAOS,as his breathing was bad,all the signs pointed that way,and his nose wholes were so small,and then that was when the surgery was put forward, to widen his nose wholes,trim his soft palate up, it was only when he was under that they reallised that his larynx was in stage 2 collapse as it collapsed completely and they had to perform an emergency tracotamy,and then carry on with the surgery planned. He was in intensive care for 24hrs and they were sure he would die, but he pulled through, a few days later the tube was removed and luckily his larynx opened up and he came home. They said that there was no guarentee that it would stay this way, but he is 6 now and all this happened when he was 2. Our problem now is that unless it is life or death, he can not go under sedation etc as there is a risk his larynx will do it again, although the chance is not as high as before the surgery.my point is, if george spine being so bad was undianosed,how many others are there undiagnosed,so do we really know the full scale of this problem

Apologies for wrongly accusing Loki's Mum of making a mistake re this when it was you that had your facts wrong, Moonmaiden.

We did, of course, check with Pedigree.  It's true that they had pulled out of sponsorship of other shows before PDE, but we have a statement from Pedigree dated September 2009 confirming that they had "no plans" to withdraw from sponsoring Crufts. In late October, the company then accounced that it had changed their mind.

Here's the KC press release from 24 October 2009 - which was the day Pedigree announced it was withdrawing its sponsorship of Crufts. Please feel free to check with the company itself.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=2118

I'm slightly amused by those who are keen to rewrite history on this one. I presume it's a reluctance to play down the influence the documentary has had? In fact, Pedigree never said it was due to PDE, so you can take some comfort from that should you wish.

Jemima

> I'm slightly amused by those who are keen to rewrite history on this one. I presume it's a reluctance to play down the influence the documentary has had? In fact, Pedigree never said it was due to PDE, so you can take some comfort from that should you wish.

Actually it's one of the best things Pedigree has ever done, their products are basically ***p, the some company that produces Bakers(almost the worse dog food ever)owns Pedigree. No more claims(mostly false)that the Cruft's Supreme(an award that does not & never has existed) Champion is fed on their products. The breeder's who at one time used to be used to advert their food on TV rarely if ever fed the food. So Pedigree leaving the UK show scene was a plus for me, so as you claim that you influenced them-good on yer one positive thing to come out of your program !

BTW I was with the owner of Callaghan, the first Kerry Blue to go BIS at Crufts, when the Pedigree rep came to discuss the post Crufts advert & the fee payable to his owner(Wendy Streatfield), she refused all their offers(& it was a lot of money)her dogs were never fed on Pedigree & she was at the time the sole importer of a far better food. The Pedigree rep got very very very annoyed telling her that she was making a big big mistake, he obviously didn't know much about Wendy. From them on, those ethical people who won BIS etc at Crufts no longer claimed that their dogs were fed on Pedigree & of course now Pedigree don't advertise on TV that Champion after Champion is fed on their food-a great blessing as perhaps more people will stop buying the cheapest/most advertised food & look to feed their dogs a decent diet.

There you go, Moonmaiden - something we can agree on!

Have never fed my dogs Pedigree and agree that Bakers is dreadful stuff.  Some of our rescue dogs come in having been fed it - very often hyper - and we've had several completely transform once put on to something more sensible (which round here is almost always a base of Burns - the Pork + Potato as we have two dogs that don't do well on lamb, and one that reacts to rice).

Jemima