>And Dally's give birth to huge litters

10 is about average

>and culling is pretty common.

Really? What is your evidence? I only have hearsay evidence from breeders themselves (who raise litters of 12+) that it would be very rare. I'm sure you have proof (I'd be very pleased if you could PM me with it, so that I can pass it on to the club committee) or you wouldn't make such a statement. All breeders should be prepared to do it if necessary, but that doesn't mean it happens very much.

I have scanned and will continue to scan before breeding any dogs, but I admit I'm not keen to pay out £200 twice in the dogs life, once at 6 months and once at 2.5 years. If I did scan at 6 months I strongly believe the dog must still be scanned at 2.5 years before breeding as a syrinx can develop at any time. A relation of my boy had no symptoms at all until he was about 6 or 7 I believe (this was before scanning really got going) but then got it so badly he was first operated on and then pts when the op did not work sufficiently. :-(

>>Geoff Skerritt told me that Cavaliers can & should be scanned for the malformation at 6 months, the herniation may not occur at all, but if the dog has the malformation it is better to know earlier(IMHO)than later & I quite agree with Sylvia that all dogs should be scanned pending the DNA test being available.

> This may have happened in the past when vets were willing to cull healthy puppies for no good reason), but certainly not now & I know a good few Boxer & GSD breeders. They  sell the puppies at same price as the other puppies in the litters(the boxer breeders hearing test their white puppies)& endorse their registrations regarding non registering puppies from them.
>

Around 2 years ago when we first started looking for a dog our first choice was a boxer and we contacted the breed club who gave us the names and telephone numbers of all in a certain part of the uk (I don't want to name them) and every one that we contacted (and we contacted  sold their white Boxers for half the price of their coloured, they also told us that they shouldn't be bred from but only one person actually told us they endorse any white puppies :-(

> Very little culling goes on in practice for a simple economic reason, pet quality pups can be sold and if the breeder cares about the future of their breed they can be sold with a signed contract to back up endorsement. The only time breeders have generally considered culling in the past was at birth when there were far too many pups for mum to rear and some were weak, nowadays breeders seem more likely to try to rear them all and hope they survive and the homes turn up.
>

There was a thread on here a little while ago that turned into a discussion about healthy pups being culled, pups from litters of rare breeds where the entire litter (althoug *very well planned*) do not get homes booked, so the un-homed ones are culled or where 5 month old pups still haven't been homed so they are PTS. :(
People say 'it doesn't happen much' - but how much does it happen?? - out of the 10's of thousands of purebred litters registered each year, exactly how much is 'not much'? - a few hundred healthy puppies culled?? a few thousand???? all down to cosmetic marking or the breeder not being able to home them.

There are some very good breeders about that not only are passionate about thier breed of dog and truly want to improve the breed as much as they can, but also deeply care about the lifes of the dogs they produce, there are also breeders who appear to be so focused on the 'future of the breed'/money/winning the show that the individual lifes they produce mean very little, if not nothing at all. maybe that's why there are dogs suffering crippling diseases - as long as the breed survives/the money rolls in/they get BOB, who cares about the individual lifes that are lost to soon or marred with a life of pain?

There are serious issued raised by the programme that do need addressing but the programme was very biased and extremely missleading with regards to stating that cross breeds are healthier than mongrels.
I wonder if anybody who was planning on getting a pure-bred dog, now gets a mongrol, finds out it has inherited problems and manages to sue the programme for mislieading information???

I dont know if anyone has already put up this link, but its a good one - http://www.doggenetichealth.org/

have scanned and will continue to scan before breeding any dogs, but I admit I'm not keen to pay out £200 twice in the dogs life, once at 6 months and once at 2.5 years.

Lucy, I see what you mean but if you dont like to pay the fee, maybe have a different breed which doesnt require expensive testing?I think thats why alot of people play ignorance (this isnt directed at you lucy :) ) is because they know how much the tests are and its easier to pretend you dont know!

Lucy, I see what you mean but if you dont like to pay the fee, maybe have a different breed which doesnt require expensive testing?

As Cavaliers should never be bred from before 2 ½ years of age, it makes perfect sense if some people wnat to wait with scans until then.

the most annoying part is that many inexperienced dog owners, not being educated on exhibiting and breeding will only believe the stupid information they have been fed on this programme and will think twice before even looking at another pedigree dog which for me is ridiculous.

Having owned pedigree dogs for over 30 years I would not call myself an inexperienced or uneducated owner but having watched the programme I have to say that it is very unlikely that I will have another pedigree.  You may consider this ridiculous but what I saw on BBC 1 on Aug 19th disturbed me greatly.

Not all the info is stupid. The skulls are not stupid, the GSD back and legs are not stupid, nor the breed that cannot reproduce without full human assistance. The little dog that 'passes out', the culling of puppies, dogs conformation that is worse now than back in time. In breeding causing problems, breeders lying, the Kc unable to face direct questions. That was all real. caught with their pants down sadly.

Has anyone seen a public reply from the KC, or any breed club? Has anyone even attempted to defend you all apart from a bit on the Kc website which few will see outside the world of dogs?

I happen to think it is good that the pet puppy buying public are aware of health tests for breeds, maybe they will ask more questions now and be aware that a sideboard full of trophies and ribbens on the wall don't count for everything.

>Having owned pedigree dogs for over 30 years I would not call myself an inexperienced or uneducated owner but having watched the programme I have to say that it is very unlikely that I will have another pedigree.  You may consider this ridiculous but what I saw on BBC 1 on Aug 19th disturbed me greatly.

Well I hope you find a non pedigree breeder who fully health tests their dogs, but don't hold your breath. My BC's are health tested clear & I've found a Cavalier breeder who only outcrosses & MRI scans her dogs & only uses MRI scanned clear dogs on MRI scanned clear bitches with current eye & heart certificates

....just a thought ...if we eliminate all dogs that fail  their health tests from breeding ( as I believe we should ) ... then are we not making the available gene pool even smaller than it already is in some breeds ? ...yes we could import from other countries but this is an expensive and time consuming route - I know,  having imported a bitch from France when I discovered epilepsy in my own lines and needed 'fresh' blood to start again with...the whole project cost me £3,000 and over a year of planning and waiting.

Frozen semen could be a way of increasing the availablity of a wider choice of studs but this is also  difficult , restricted and costly ...and with advances in veterinary science ,  the range of tests for inherited conditions increases yearly thus reducing the number of dogs that wiill be clear in all their health tests.

Breeders may well be faced with some very difficult decisions - do you breed from the dog that has a  low hipscore , clear eyes, no evidence of epilepsy but is a nervous wreck ?...or has a very narrow front ? ...or is over angulated....? or do you go with the one that has good hips, no epilepsy, great temperament and construction ..but has failed his current eye test ?... or the one that has great health results , great construction and great temperament but is your bitch's grandfather !!

and if the small 'passionate' breeder decides that the whole game is just too fraught with difficulties and we cease to breed at all , will this not leave the market wide open for the puppy farmers who don't give  a t***ss anyway ??!

I would be interested to know which of the choices my fellow Champdoggers would go with - note that I have not also thrown into the dilemma the need to maintain 'breed type' - this may appear to be of little importance but without it we would simply not have the range of dog breeds we have today ( it is after all the differences in breed type that distinguish the Belgian, Dutch and German Shepherd Dogs from each other !).

Yvonne

> without a scrap of emotion having to find an 'old vet' to pts these healthy specimens without ridges. Shame on thes people. They should be prosecuted.
>

Who will prosecute?  Do you think the RSPCA would not put down a dog that did not have good prospects of a decent, capable home?

And can you imagine the embarassment that one dog paper must be suffering at the moment .......their new columnist interviewd and slating pedigree dogs on that programme....oh dear....heads will roll!!! LOL :)

> ...if we eliminate all dogs that fail  their health tests from breeding ( as I believe we should ) ... then are we not making the available gene pool even smaller than it already is in some breeds ? ...

This was one of the points raised by Caroline Kisko in her interviews following the programme.  All these contentious points were dealt with in the couple of interviews I watched and listened to namely the Today programme and Richard and Judy and are available on the web for anyone interested (I have already given links if you want to search my posts)  I don't think the KC were caught "with their pants down" so much as duped over whether the portrayal was going to be sympathetic to the efforts they have already put in to healthier breeding.

The only time breeders have generally considered culling in the past was at birth when there were far too many pups for mum to rear and some were weak

Not true, breeders have culled for other reasons too. In fact, I have an old book that states one breed person seeing a mismark and stating 'it should have been bucketed at birth' so.....maybe all didnt get to the vet either. I also have another book stating that breeders would breed for themselves, then cull the rest of the litter.

Oh, they were certainly caught with their pants down and its a shame. They are intelegant people, eloquent, else how have they managed to obtain their high places. yet, when asked direct questions, and challenged, they muttered and mumbled and couldnt answer a straight question. to be honest, they should have anticipated difficult questions, and should have been prepared for them. It simply made it that they have something to hide.....

Do you think the RSPCA would not put down a dog that did not have good prospects of a decent, capable home?

So, a healthy whelp, puppy or older puppy, all healthy and well, cannot be found a home? They would not have a good prospect of one?

Lucy, I see what you mean but if you dont like to pay the fee, maybe have a different breed which doesnt require expensive testing?

Rach85, will you have your Staffies MRI scanned for SM? (As I think you've mentioned breeding in the future.) Just found out the  Staffy is one of the breeds it has been seen in:
http://www.cavalierhealth.org/SYRINGOMYELIA_NEWS_Autumn_2007.htm and obviously nobody would want other breeds to get to the same problem stage as the Cavaliers.

...just a thought ...if we eliminate all dogs that fail  their health tests from breeding ( as I believe we should ) ... then are we not making the available gene pool even smaller than it already is in some breeds ?

Yes Yvonne, this is really what happened in Cavaliers. Breeders concentrating on getting rid of MVD ended up with SM instead...... Catch 22.

"Having owned pedigree dogs for over 30 years I would not call myself an inexperienced or uneducated owner but having watched the programme I have to say that it is very unlikely that I will have another pedigree.  You may consider this ridiculous but what I saw on BBC 1 on Aug 19th disturbed me greatly"

I think everyone was disturbed by the programme - that was clearly the producers intent and they did so very successfully.  To me the comparison of breeders to Nazis by implication was an absolute disgrace and the producers should be ashamed of themselves that they stooped so low.

I know people now with "designer" crosses - not only were the parents of these dogs not health checked - but one of my friends now has had a dog with two leg surgeries directly as a result - per the specialist - of an irresponsible cross so that the dogs legs were angled and build for a different type body than it had to support.   Designed to fail.

Personally, before I chose the breed I have now I did tons of research and I intentionally chose a breed with few health problems and acquired my dogs from responsible breeders.  My breed has changed little from when it was first bred, to work. I have owned mongrels - and they were NOT perfect pictures of health.  I for one will continue to have pedigree dogs because I am more - and not less - confident that the dog will be healthy.

>Having owned pedigree dogs for over 30 years I would not call myself an inexperienced or uneducated owner but having watched the programme I have to say that it is very unlikely that I will have another pedigree.

Of course that's your choice, but would you rather have a random-bred cross or mongrel where the breeder has no idea of the health issues of the breeds which have gone into its make-up? At work we have crossbreds with epilepsy, HD, glaucoma ... all the problems that also affect pure breeds, simply because they're conditions that affect dogs as a whole. A cross would be too much of a gamble for me; I'll stick with pedigrees.

I don't have to PM you...not only have I met people who own these pups (and were told they would be culled if not sold as they are patched) but have a look again at the progamme and let the breed council take issue with the BBC! (I bet they don't!! do you?)

Breeds are in a dreadful mess. The Vets that try to console these owners as their hearts are breaking, and who's dogs lives they are ending the pain for, and the Vets have, at last, bitten back!!! I spoke to my Vet today, and asked her if she saw the programme, I was there as my dog has cancer, and I lost one at 6 years old in December, so my heart is breaking.............AGAIN!! AND I MISS MY GIRL THAT I LOST EVERY SINGLE DAY. My Vet hadn't seen it and said it was 'old news'. She is right of course.

Some breeders are good. Some are downright cruel. One just today I know, who breeds, shows and judges...24 toy dogs kept in crates in a one bedroom flat. Just waiting for his address and let the RSPCA mop up the mess.....AGAIN!! We read it in DW every other week. Filthy conditions, animals in a horrific state, Crufts judges, prosecuted. Farcical.

Is this what you all want for dogs????? The programme should be a series until it gets through to all involved, to make life better for our beloved dogs. Which is what is should be all about. Can anyone argue with that?   

> Is this what you all want for dogs????? The programme should be a series until it gets through to all involved, to make life better for our beloved dogs. Which is what is should be all about. Can anyone argue with that?   

(this is not aimed at you golden lady, just to those essentially accusing the breeders on this forum of being like those featured)

of course its not and the suggestion that all breeders behave this way is down right offensive and slanderous! i cannot believe people are believing that this tripe and garbage is the actual way the dog breeding and showing world generally operates.

there are evil, cruel and heartless people in every walk of life in this world, there will always be weak people who want the best for themselves at the detriment of others but to believe that anyone who breeds a pedigree dog fits this bill is sheer, blatant stupidity. what right minded person cannot see through the manufactured and twisted pap given by the media to produce a 'story'- STORY- i.e myth, fable, apocraphle...often or usually made up!

i'm not denying the poor cases discussed above and my heart goes out to those poor dogs and i genuinely believe tighter controls need to be put in place about testing and breeding, but to have people vilifying good breeders, caring and loving breeders, such as most of those on this forum is simply wrong.

i suggest if people want to make judgements they get some info first and not react to media creations without opening their own eyes.

to those who do breed on here i truely hope that such misguided thinking does not effect your ability to home litters etc- i'd have a dog from pretty much any of you any day

rant over :)

Kennel Club hits back at BBC Dog Documentary

read the above on kc site- their reacion to the prog- makes lame reading, it sounds like they are unable to change anything in the dog world

cross posted as there seem to be 2 threads on same subject

The way forward for this problem is clear to me. The breed standards need to be changed and revert back to how the breed looked originaly. It would take some time  but would result in a GSD being able to walk properly and not suffering with the hip problems. Breeders would strive to get the original look to win comps.

react to media creations
i cannot believe people are believing that this tripe and garbage is the actual way the dog breeding and showing world generally operates.

This program was based on FACT and actual events, not set up scenarios.  The program's intention was to shock and reveal what it is really like - those within the breeds shown in the program with serious health problems that have been bred in are clearly so blinded that they can't see what they are doing to them.

i quite agree, the kc as they are are toothless and only really seem influenced by takings... i'd love to see that changed to a kc registration being a badge of quality

sara1bee, please don't post the same thing on the different threads as it just means people have to repeat their replies and will get very confusing for people to follow.

well said, Astarte!
Many of us must have been tempted to throw things at our tellys, one son got up during the "eugenics" thread, saying this is a nasty filthy smear, nothing but gross propaganda! My old man sat down and wrote a letter to the editor, not realising that there was nowhere to send it, so here is Bob's letter to the Beeb. He WILL have his say.

Dear Beeb
Tuesday's "exposee" of the pedigree dog world was quite frankly a joke. The whole thrust of the programme was based on the violent prejudices of Mark Evans, the RSPCA's chief vet, whose ravings made it clear he has a bee in his bonnet about dog-showing; that is to say he expressed an intensely personal viewpoint, not a professional judgement backed by any science and certainly not one shared by the majority of his vetinary colleagues. He seemed to be saying we shouldn't breed dogs to be the pets we love, instead we should keep wolves in our homes. Your programme-makers swallowed his line whole and, based on problems in a handfull of breeds, proceeded to condemn the whole dog-show business - according to your programme we are all a bunch of nazis. The Eugenics movement,some 30 years after dog showing began, proposed selective breeding of humanity; but with no more idea than anyone else as to the purpose of people, it had only a brief vogue. Why on earth drag them, still less nazi Germany, into the discussion? Dogs, unlike people, do exist for known purposes, historically many and varied; to preserve and enhance by selective breeding the characteristics that fitted them for those purposes, and now give each breed its distinctive appeal as pets, is a perfectly legitimate moral activity. I do share the concerns expressed at squashed-in noses, oversize skins and crouching rear ends - as, I believe, do most Crufts exhibitors outside the breeds involved - but to take as typical the Crufts 2003 winner, ignoring the whippet, the australian sheepdog, the standard poodle (my breed), and any other recent best-in-show, was just ridiculous.
Yes, that horrific genetic defect afflicting Cavalier King Charles Spaniels is of course a scandal; who is responsible though? The owner of one top show dog was put in the dock, but doesn't it take two to tango? For the suffering offspring he sired after testing positive she deserves half the blame - what about the bitches' owners? A proper piece of investigative journalism would have at least asked that question; the answer I suspect is that she allowed her dog to be bred in return for large sums of money, probably from commercial breeders who cared only that he was a champion. If so they are as much to blame as any show people, yet they never got a mention.
There are several serious welfare issues surrounding commercial puppy farming, not just bad genetics, but let's not have any more legislation, please! Half the dog laws we have already are muddle-headed and useless, the rest only sporadically enforced - which is surely where the RSPCA should be directing its efforts. Routine flouting of breeders' licence rules is in fact there for all to see in the Kennel Club's records, yet not only doesn't  the RSPCA actively pursue the culprits, they often will not act even when concerned individuals shove damning evidence under their noses. Mark Evans will achieve far more for dog welfare if he puts his own house in order rather than pointing the finger of blame at the poor old KC.
Nor is it any good him railing against our breeding for beauty, when beauty is an obvious part of a pet's appeal. Does he think we want to share our homes with ugly animals? He should join the real world, where a dog's purpose is to please its owner and its breeder's aim to fit it for that purpose. If the public stop buying squashed noses etc, we will stop breeding them. I do hope that KC and RSPCA can get together to tackle the problems rather than sounding off at one another, which will only say to the dog-buying public that this is not their problem - that's exactly whose it is; ultimately they dictate what appears in the show-ring.
Bob g

> This program was based on FACT

the program was deliberately twisted- as crespin stated on one of the threads they mentioned that ped dogs make up 2/3 of the uk dog population, then later, following from an issue with cavs they mention ped dogs take up most vetinary medicine- duh! of course they do if they make up the majority, and as crespin aslo pointed out that did not break down in to for health probs or general health care (such as innoculations) or indeed how much was spent on HEALTH TESTING by responsible breeders- lots!

as i said i am not denying the fact that these poor dogs exist and these awful people exist, clearly they do but lumping all exhibitors and breeders into the same list as them is simply slanderous.

> serious health problems that have been bred in

i don;t think anyone ever selectively bred for sm etc, they are naturally there in the breed and good breeders do everything they can to address that as mentioned by many people above.

> The breed standards need to be changed and revert back to how the breed looked originaly.

The KC have already changed standards where they considered them detrimental to the dogs health.  Have you any particular statement in a standard that you think remains?

> those within the breeds shown in the program with serious health problems that have been bred in are clearly so blinded that they can't see what they are doing to them.

Yes but that does not mean the showing world generally operates in the fashion.

thats what i'm wondering, they changed about bulldogs heads etc didn;t they?

The two GSDs featured have good hips !

> the kc as they are are toothless and only really seem influenced by takings..

This idea seems to be perpetuating around the internet.  The KC is a non profit charity.  The money they make does not go to finance a luxury lifestyle for shareholders.  The revenue that is left over from adminstrating their pedigree data bases and schemes such as the ABS goes towards the general health and well being of dogs by funding research and welfare initiatives.  They may well be toothless in certain areas but that is because they have no statutory powers to insist on people registering with them.  If that is what people would like to see happen then it is their MPs they must lobby, the KC cannot simply grab powers that are not theirs.

Wow Carole g that was a brilliant reply ! One of my vets thinks Mr Evans is a......................... well I can't put on here here actual words but basically the man's a fool of the worst type !!

i don;t think anyone ever selectively bred for sm etc,
I'm not saying they did, however the single most disturbing thing to me was the GSD.  They have been deliberately breed to have a rear end like that by people who claim to be guardians of the breed.

Of course the majority of pedigree dogs are more moderate and there are plenty of excellent breeders on here. But the programme's aim was to shock (and hopefully shock people into action) so of course it was going to sensationalise and focus on those areas where the real problems lie.  And ALL breeders have to take note of how easy it is to get so immersed in breeding (and showing/competing) that one can become blind to what is happening.

I had no idea that the GSD was bred as it was - I've only ever know pets that have the old straight back.  I was horrified, as too, I assume was the producer.  I'm guessing many who show other breeds must have been aware of this.... what do they think about it?  were they not equally horrified, or was it a case of it's not our breed, so not our concern.  The producer felt that no one was doing anything and decided to make this film to show people what was happening.

An excellent letter Carole g's old man :-)
You could try sending it here not that I think for one minute they will be interested as they must have come across similar rational views, even if not as eloquently put, that did not fit their remit during production.  Or it could be rejigged to the BBC as a letter of disappointment at allowing such bias.

which will only say to the dog-buying public that this is not their problem - that's exactly whose it is; ultimately they dictate what appears in the show-ring.

Carole - I think your letter has some excellent points...HOWEVER... how can the dog-buying public dictate what appears in the show-ring?  It is the breeders and judges that decide how to interpret the breed standard.  In any case, as I said in the previous post, I don't see the dreadful rear ends in pet GSD's - only in the show ring....

Yes but that does not mean the showing world generally operates in the fashion.
Isabel, of course not, I've never thought it did and I've never suggested it does, however, when so many are either blind to what is happening, or stand by and maybe debate it, but do nothing, then how they can be affronted when someone else does decide to reveal it. 

i know, i feel they should be given powers and be raised to a form of government body.

The two GSDs featured have good hips !

They may have had good hips, but the weakness and instability in the hocks and the terrible gait makes that irrelevant.  The most horrific thing was that the breeders and judges appear completely blind to these exaggerations.

you said

> I don't see the dreadful rear ends in pet GSD's - only in the show ring....

but previously said

>>I had no idea that the GSD was bred as it was

so how can you know if all show GSD's are like that? i've never seen one that can barely walk in the ring, granted i don't get to many shows but those i do my partner loves the gsds so we always watch them.

then from what i've seen the german dogs seem a bit nicer than the british (jmo)

>The two GSDs featured have good hips !

Then that proves the folly of focussing too closely on one particular aspect to the detriment of others. As Malcolm Willis has often pointed out, a dog is more than a pair of hips!

> I don't see the dreadful rear ends in pet GSD's - only in the show ring....

but previously said

>>I had no idea that the GSD was bred as it was

so how can you know if all show GSD's are like that?

The ones in the programme were filmed at a championship show and at crufts.... That is where I saw them, are you suggesting the the dogs that are competing at crufts are NOT representative of the breed?

To be honest, there was a lot of positive things the programme could have said and didn't because the aim was to shock and a balanced discussion would not have done that.  There was a lot of clever editing, and I think the RSPCA vet came across as badly as as the kc, but ultimately the producer achieved her aim which was to reveal something that has been swept under the carpet for too long and hopefully the repercussions will cause some to reexamine what they are doing.

> how can the dog-buying public dictate what appears in the show-ring?  It is the breeders and judges that decide how to interpret the breed standard.

They can have some effect. If people stopped buying all the dogs with exagerated features and health problems then there would be little point in breeders producing them.

Bob's letter has now gone to the production company, thank you Isabel.

This was very much his opinion, as the actual breeder in the family I am aware of the educational process required for the public, everytime someone asks whether you will have a litter, generally it will be too long in the future for that buyer but you can advise them that certain health tests are essential for your breed and that they should not buy a puppy unless they will see all the health testing. I think many of us do this and recommend breeders we know and trust.Economic forces are powerful, just watch how quickly the puppy farmers change breed when the sales start to fall off in one of the breeds they churn out, labrador switches to labradoodle then to goldendoodle, then to cockapoo and mini doodle following the wishes of the public for increasingly small and cute poodle crosses. Surely we can mobilise the public mood to refuse to buy without the necessary tests being done. The cross breed sites are now fall of exhortations to make sure that the buyer sees the hip scores of the parents, to some extent this is working, well I know it is as we are now catching out breeders producing fake health documents or just lying about them, they are really torn apart for it on the forums as well!The buyer does understand that a sick dog can hurt the pocket very badly indeed.

They can have some effect. If people stopped buying all the dogs with exagerated features and health problems then there would be little point in breeders producing them.

But that's the point I'm trying to make - I don't see the exaggerated GSD's in pet homes - only the moderate straight backed ones.

Are these GSD's are a good representation of the breed then Moonmaiden?

Indeed a dog is more than just a good pair of hips, but when the dog is so crippled it can hardly stagger let alone walk, hips become a bit more important all of a sudden !