"...but if you were to cut out the 70 per cent of the said unhealthy dogs from today in that breeding program you are left with 30 per cent to breed from, now they could suffer from other issues so take off another 10 per cent to be fair you have 20 per cent left in the breeding program which are healthy the COI would shoot up".

And you can guarantee in which case, other serious health issues would crop up and probably destroy the breed once and for all. We need to WIDEN the gene pool not restrict it.
Average inbreeding coefficient is 5.2 % in the cavalier btw.

Treated horribly??? Lol if you put yourself in the firing line by picking on specific groups of people then you have to take the bullets, I read her blog which she controls what gets published and believe me the way her followers talk to the rest is asoloutly shocking.

I just think its an utter minefield buying a puppy.
I thought I was pretty savvy when went to get my girl.  accredited breeder-said all the right stuff-the stud a top dog from a person who writes guides to the breed. all health certificates there to see.
I got her home-fell in love and two days later at her first vet visit with me the vet took one look and said she had ingrowing eyelashes on all lids both eyes.  devestating.  I'd already fell for her and no way would give her up but was a huge worry for months until became clear it only thankfully gives mild irritation so not worst case senario of both eyes gone . still have to give drops on worst days but not as bad as could have been.
 
I  believe the breeder knew my pup had this condition. I think she knew full well. The litter had been checked by her own vet only couple of days before.
she acted a good act all upset but later i heard she bred the bitch again despite knowing she carries this horrible defect.and stud dog continued in use too.   That horrible condition is now running in how many dogs genes as they both decided to continue to breed?

next time I buy a pup I will be taking it IMMEDIATLY to a vet near the breeders to be fully examined before I have chance to fall in love with her- anything wrong that wasn't declared and discussed then straight back. I was decieved once and its not happening again.

Watched the programme was not very inpressed by it. Thought the breeders of the pugs and Bulldogs were not thinking of the well fare of there dogs. As for the cavaliers why do they not do outcrosses from health tested dogs to help.I think most show people care about there dogs but not all, if they did them they would not breed from them when they knew could be passed on to there puppies. Theey should have put more in the programme about  puppy farmers.

On the whole I thought this was much better. It was called Pedigree Dogs Exposed so that was the subject. As many have said we eagerly await Puppy Farms Exposed and Backyard Breeders Exposed. Being a cynical sort of chap I think the KC made a nice easy target so was an easy place to start, but that's just jaded old me. :-)
Another poster has mentioned our hatred for Jemima - I can only speak for myself but utter rubbish. I might find her exasperating but hatred? No. Indeed the ability to disagree without becoming disagreeable is something we seem to be loosing.
The first PDE was, imho, a tabloid production - and as I often tell students the PRIMARY goal of the tabloid press is to sell papers NOT report the news - but each to their own. This was much more measured, I thought.
The KC have done, and continue to do, a lot of good work so credit where it is due. I know very little about BYB or so called designer cross-breeds in any detail but I do know most of the people I know in dogs do their very best to breed healthy, happy dogs. Unfortunately the fact remains that there are a minority of people in some breeds who definitely know better yet who do not do the best by their breeds. Many of these people get nothing more than a slap on the wrist simply because of their standing in either the KC or the breed/breed club concerned. This HAS to stop and until it does any talk of the KC leading from the front is hollow.
Jeff.

     

> but they were still allowed to breed from them.

The Kennel club can't control what breeders choose to breed, they can only stop registrations.

They can also do very little about Judges decisions, other than what they are trying to do and that is stand over their shoulder and question the dogs they put up for BOB, in some breeds.

They are now able to see more what goes on with computer programs able to flag up certain things like dams ages etc.

I am sure once breeders become more aware of COI's (those without computers would never have been able to calculate them for themselves and will have only been able to have  a rough idea if a pedigree was inbred based on 3 - 5 generations.

I'd never used COI's when planning matings, but did calculate percentages of blood on any repeat ancestors, to gauge how big and impact they may have.  The average person involved in their breed enough to know what others were doing would only have a rough idea of other peoples health test results, and how often a stud was used.

Now that we can access some of this info more easily I am sure the KC will tighten things up, re allowable COI's, if they don't start coming down.  They may advise limiting stud dogs as the FCI does to no more than 5% of the previous 5 years puppy registration numbers (in my breed that would limit a dog to 4 - 5 litters in his life).

I think it would be useful to have easily accessible the numbers of litters a dog sires without the need of going the round about route  through the health test finder (which only works if the dog has tested progeny).

Why can't we have an open real time database like the Finnish Kennel Club, free to access.

When you input a dogs name you will be able to see what bitches he has been mated to, how many offspring, what the offspring's health test results, what the major show and hunting/working results for him/her, and the offspring were, show any number of generations of pedigree and the relevant COI's etc, all on one report with links to more details.

I did think it was more balanced than last time and I think it right to concentrate on the breeds suffering through exagerated conformation but I am not sure it is fair in its apportioning of blame. 
I also think it rather disingenuous to constantly refer to "after the programme this, that and the rest happened", implying it is all down to the programme with no acknowledgement that there has been review and adjustment by the KC to standards, for instance, for quite some time.  Now, I cannot say that the KC might have done things differently or faster due to the programme but, then, neither can JH :)

> Bulldogs were not thinking of the well fare of there dogs.

Just to pick up on one point....the programme didnt show the bulldog breeder who is featured in the kc film..he is doing positive things for the breed, welfare etc... so they arent all the same.

Breeding certain traits out takes time & 3 years hasnt been enough to see a remarked improvement on some things..maybe 10 years will make a difference in cases like longer faces, less wrinkles etc???

I agree alot of show breeders are health testing when required....we know the byb arent dont we!!

Actually it's more than three years as the KC were having dealings with the Breed Council long before the programme, although you probably wouldn't know it from the programme would you :), however I do think the KC need to get tougher on this particular breed. 

> Actually it's more than three years

I meant since the last programme!!!

But thats my point, changes to the Bulldog were being looked at and urged by the KC before the programme so it is wrong to say breeders have only had three years to work on this.

>Breeding certain traits out takes time & 3 years hasnt been enough

> But thats my point, changes to the Bulldog were being looked at and urged by the KC before the programme so it is wrong to say breeders have only had three years to work on this.
>

If you say so but 3 years or 'if you say longer' would be only one or 2 generations....10+ years would be more relistic of 3, 4 or even 5 generations where a remarked difference would be seen/noticable not just in bulldogs, any of the 'high risk' breeds....

If you say so but 3 years or 'if you say longer' would be only one or 2 generations....10+ years would be more relistic of 3, 4 or even 5 generations where a remarked difference would be seen/noticable not just in bulldogs, any of the 'high risk' breeds....

Again comparing to cats (sorry!) but I had the opposite in my cats. I encountered a health problem, and had to neuter my show quality cats (including Champions), and as it happened, the ones that were clear were the ones with the longer faces/not show quality.(Total co-incidence as it had nothing to do with looks.) So I had to start from scratch almost, setting me back many years. I could have neutered the lot and bought new animals, but I wanted to save MY lines. I had after all worked on them for many years. Anyway it took me roughly 8 years to go from long faces to flat ones and being able to show again (I had 5 years without showing at all as I had nothing), so I would guess it would easily be the same in dogs with the other way around -getting longer faces in certain breeds, and similar. Then you have to take into account that I breed roughly 3 litters of kittens a year -many dog breeders will not have as many litters as that in a year! So yes, it will definitely take years.

> Yes, the first programme could have been better  but I think this follow up proves that the 1st programme did do some good

Have to say I agree with you Jane.
It's extremely emotive.. and we (universal 'we') all have at times lost sight of the 'bigger picture' but in the interests of fairness and evidence in front of me I have to say you echo my thoughts also. Much better Journalism, some questionable 'expertise' but better, yes.
 
My only objection to the programme were the 'tea and medals' moments and still a sprinkling of sweeping statements... There is still a long road ahead of which we must alltake our turn in carrying the load, and 3 days/months/years (regardless) on, there is still not the time to 'crow' or alienate.

Although I think programmes like this are needed to flush out the bad breeders who breed to exaggeration. this program did nothing to help Jo public understand how to buy a healthy dog. From comments I have read on forums and groups, the puplics main comments after seeing this program are " I am  never going to watch crufts again " and I hate pedigree dog breeders". So, the program has done nothing to help  stop puppies being bred badly at all, all its  done is turn people against dog shows and pedigree breeders . Now they wont watch crufts and get there new puppy from the pet shop .  and they think this will solve the problems they saw on that programe .You cant show the bad and not show the good or everything looks bad. And people end up not knowing where to go or how to get a healthy puppy.  There was so much more this program could have done to help  stop bad breeding , but blaming dog shows and the KC was not the way to go IMO

Yet again, the programme focusses only on the show world and as you say, all it has served to do it alienate buyers away from show breeders. There are no guarentees that a pup bred by someone who shows is going to live to a record age and never see a vet, but the chances are an awful lot better than with a pup purchased from the local free ads which could easily be bred from neurotic, disease carrying related parents. If the buyer isn't given a pedigree and nothing is known or recorded then there's no possible way of knowing. The KC registered dog is an easy target simply because so much information is freely available in relation to its breeding. Can you imagine trying to trace the source of a kidney problem in 'doodle' crosses? It would be impossible to even start because there is no information. The statistics that vets and insurance companies provide for disease prevelance take NO account of the origin or even accurate breed status of a dog. A cavalier is one and the same whether it has won BOB at Crufts or is the 30th puppy from a worn out bitch on a puppy farm and not even pure cavalier. As a far higher proportion of the popular breeds are bred by people who have nothing to do with dog shows, have never even seen a breed standard or considered health testing, it is reasonable to say that their methods and outcomes will contribute far more to statistics than dogs bred by the minority that show. This should be of grave concern as the intention is to collect far more of this type of data and use it to make desicions about future policies on dog breeding.

A point that is often missed as well is that it's all very well blaming breeding practices and breeders for the rise is genetic conditions in certain breeds but until pretty recently, either conditions were not properly diagnosed, prevelance was unrecorded and untracked and there was also no way of following the mode of inheritance apart from surmise and unpalatable test matings. DNA has helped a huge amount but it's not a tool that's been around and available to dog breeders for very long. In a very short space of time, having DNA testing for certain conditions has made a massive difference to some breeds. However, they're usually the breeds that are more or less completely in the hands of a small dedicated group. Not in breeds that have widespread popularity and are being bred by all and sundry. Where problems have become apparent and there is a means of tackling them, the show community has done a huge amount, but if they are a drop in the ocean compared with all the general breeders out there then they really don't stand a chance of making any significant difference in the wider population. Cavaliers are so popular that is it any wonder the heart problems haven't been 'reduced' in the light of the tiny minority who are doing anything?

It is utterly confusing that the RSPCA's latest Born to Suffer Campaign works on the premise that if they can change the way 'show breeders' work then this will have an improving effect on other breeders. They seem to be under the impression that if show breeders set a good example then the rest will follow, yet they do everything they possibly can to discredit show breeders. Jemima works on the same basis, "If you improve things at 'the top' then naturally this leads they way for everyone else." I cannot therefore understand how they hope to achieve anything  by condemning the way in which show breeders operate.

The problem wasn't that the programme didn't focus enough on the 'good works' of responsible breeders. It was that it just didn't touch upon the far worse situation that exists in the wider world outside the show ring. PDE was never intended as a review of the actions of the show world. It was an expose of the problems in pedigree dogs and show breeders only constitue a tiny minority of all those breeding 'pedigree dogs'. It made gritty, shocking TV that all isn't wonderful at the top but the bigger problem is what's going on outside the world of dogs shows. Simply because of numbers bred if nothing else, non-show breeders have a far, far greater potential to cause problems with sick and unhealthy dogs and they are being neither educated nor regulated and certainly not condemned.

No one says the show world is perfect or a utopia for dogs and if the public were to read the canine press they would see for themselves how aware most breeders are that changes need to be made. However, it's singuarly disappointing that most of the critics of the show world do not appreciate that if the KC and shows were to disappear overnight, 'pedigree' dog health would not improve-it would take a heady nose dive.

Well said tri colourlover

Totally agree tri.

VERY good post Tricolourlover. I particularly agree that as the title all along has been "PEDIGREE dogs Exposed" as opposed to SHOW DOGS, it is not doing what it is meant to!

Looking today at all the posts on the blog the consensus is not to touch a pedigree dog they are all desperately sick and to get them from rescues as they are guaranteed not to have inheritable illnesses.... Big sigh

Oh well, it worked then !

to get them from rescues as they are guaranteed not to have inheritable illnesses....

Oh well, maybe the rescues better start breeding them as well then as they are all so healthy!! Personally I could never afford a dog from rescue again. Our last one cost a fortune in the 2 years she lived.

Great post, tricolor.  You raised some good points.

Not sure it was show breeders versus the world, more trying to point out that being KC registered is not a guarantee of the perfect dog.
When asked I will always tell people to research the breeder and avoid these puppy sites were possible, ok so rthey may have to wait but they stand more chance of getting a healthy dog, but like everything in life it's not guaranteed.
Not going to say what breed but a friend had always wanted a certain giant breed, got a pup from a local breeder and lost the dog at 2 years old, when she decided to get another she researched poperly and found that this particular breeder had huge problems in her lines due to infatuation with breeding show winning rather then healthy dogs, she had actually lost most of her line and was bringing in new stock to start again. 

It's such a shame that there are KC pedigree breeders out there that can't be trusted.  Buying a puppy theses days is one of the hardest things to do. You have to avoid pet shops, puppy farms ,and back yard breeders, you are left with getting a puppy from a pedigree breeder, but even that means sorting out who relay cares for there breed and who will turn a blind eye genetically just to get a look they like,   Or changing the way a breed should look to make it look more like a painting than the real thing. exaggerated features stand out in the ring and can look impressive. But thats all they are, exaggerated . better to turn to the dog that looks more like it should look. We have a lot of good judges and there is nothing better than getting placed under a good honest judge , but some are still not doing there job . I was angry  to see in that program, that some breed clubs would rather excluded a member than work with them if they have a breeds health  interest at heat. If a breed club wont suport healthy breeding who will ?  Maybe we should change dog shows so that every dog gets a reward based on its own merit. So you could have five firsts  in a class and not just one. Giving us a much clearer picture of what is a healthy dog, rewarding every healthy dog in the ring that is bred well, and showing not all healthy dogs are perfect.  I still think that the program just turned Jo public off dog shows and pedigree breeders, but what they need to know is, its bad judges and bad breeders. And if you want a healthy puppy you will need to put all your time in to researching breeders to the full. and if you chose to show your dog. make sure you dont suport bad judging

Maybe we should change dog shows so that every dog gets a reward based on its own merit. So you could have five firsts  in a class and not just one. Giving us a much clearer picture of what is a healthy dog, rewarding every healthy dog in the ring that is bred well, and showing not all healthy dogs are perfect.

Better in that way to use the continental grading system. The class placings then picked from those graded Excellent.

I thought it was more balanced the then the first one.
I  do think some breeds do look exaggerated and have changed so much over the years and not for the better and in some of the cases health is suffering too which is very sad to see in some breeds.

> I thought it was more balanced the then the first one.
>

I think if this had been the first one, then she would have had more people 'in dogs' on board.

The first one did such a job of alienating most good breeders and tarring in the general publics opinion all breeders with the same brush.

> The first PDE was, imho, a tabloid production - and as I often tell students the PRIMARY goal of the tabloid press is to sell papers NOT report the news - but each to their own. This was much more measured, I thought.

Which is why I didn't watch the programme, this time judging by comments I don't think I have missed anything significant.

> I know very little about BYB or so called designer cross-breeds in any detail but I do know most of the people I know in dogs do their very best to breed healthy, happy dogs

I have a 'designer' bred cavalier cross working cocker spaniel living next door to me, it takes more after the cocker in size and overall shape. Unfortunately is is a sickly dog and always at the vets, it is also on a special diet, as it has major gut problems.

I have a regular Wednesday night dog club and we have seen many so called designer dogs coming to us. Two Dalmatian x collies both of which were so aggressive we had to advise the owners to seek behaviourist advice, The male of this mix was people and dog aggressive and the family were frightened of him. The female was only dog aggressive, but nothing we did seemed to make any difference. We also have had back yard bred dogs, not all have been bad in fact some have been really good and have even done KC good citizens tests, although we have not had one with any health tests completed.

>> I think if this had been the first one, then she would have had more people 'in dogs' on board.
>
> The first one did such a job of alienating most good breeders and tarring in the general publics opinion all breeders with the same brush.

I completely agree :) and i felt the same watching the first one.