> Why do you show people put down breeders who do not show, even if they do all the health tests for there breed.

Because standards require interpretation which is not easy for an individual to do.  Showing not only gives you the opportunity to obtain a concensus of opinion as to whether the standard is being following correctly but also gives you the opportunity to learn from many different experienced mentors and network to enable you to use better lines that simply won't be available, in many cases, to bitches that have not been shown.  I don't much care for showing either.  Competition is not always a nice thing but it is possible to disengage from the darker side of these things and concentrate on what must be done to ensure you are breeding to the best possible aims.

Wow, what a poor view of the public you have.

  Such sweeping generalisations are being made here. But then I suppose you also read the Daily Mail...

> clearly Isabel, you have far more faith in the GP than I

Not often been accused of giving too much faith to the GP :-D but I guess I must be in this instance because it seems so obvious to me :-)

Sorry Isabel, I'm with minnie mouses on this one.

Regarding showing you say "Because standards require interpretation which is not easy for an individual to do." I've seen many "winners" that I don't think follow "breed standards" as they are written. Short-legged, big-headed GRs are winning in the show ring, they don't follow the breed standard. Showing is soooo subjective, what one person prefers would be thrown out with another judge. Same dog, same breed standards. I would only breed a dog that had been health-tested, had a 110% temperament and DID look like the breed it was supposed to.

How many Cav breeders will get the MRI scan now?  I heard yesterday it costs about £200 - is that right?  I have just read that you can beed affected with clear - but that clear dog would have HAD to have the MRI scan surely?

Poppet, who are you addressing your post to?

> Showing is soooo subjective, what one person prefers would be thrown out with another judge. Same dog, same breed standards.

This is an arguement for showing.  It clearly demonstrates how one persons opinion is not sufficient.  You need to obtain the benefit of a concensus.

"because people wanting to buy a Ridgeback will NOT want one without a ridge.

That is completely untrue and what a sweeping statement!"

Rach85 - I'm afraid that it is you who is guilty of making a sweeping statement!  You are basing your statement one your knowledge of ONE person who wanted a ridgeless pup.  I've had RRs for over 20 years and really do think that I am more qualified to talk about what people ask for when they make an enquiry about buying a puppy. By far the majority of people who enquire want a correctly marked puppy, with a colour fault coming second, a mismarked ridge coming third and a ridgeless last of all. 

That said, I am NOT condoning culling ridgeless pups.  I have never done it and never will.  And by the way, I charged far, far less for her than for her ridged siblings - but in retrospect, I'm not so sure that I should have done :)

Isabel. If each judge is judging to a breed standard, surely they SHOULD all see the same thing? Everyone will prefer different aspects of different dogs and I would choose to mate my bitch to a dog that met the criteria I preferred and suited her, not the criteria judge A, B, C preferred - all would be different. I agree, you probably need to go to shows to see what is about, but you DON'T need to show to be able to do that or to be able to tell whether your bitch is a good/bad example of the breed.

The vast majority of show dogs are also pet dogs, living in the home like any other dog. They just happen to accompany their owner to shows at the weekend, rather than be left at home while the owner goes out, like 'purely-pet' dogs.

yes this is ture but  alot dont let there dogs be dogs because thay dont want there coats getting scruffy or dirty thay keep them in the home or creat alot ,i know this and ive seen it !!!!!!!!

> but you DON'T need to show to be able to do that or to be able to tell whether your bitch is a good/bad example of the breed.

I disagree.  What if Minnie mouses is that breeder that could not see that their dogs had strayed from the standard either because they could not personally seen it or because they had some peculiar preference.  It is not sufficient just to go and look at other dogs you have to allow others to examine yours too to avoid this.
I don't say that some breeds have not strayed as an entirety but the solution has to lie in an adjustment at club and, through them, judging level.  Judges will always show normal human variences in their opinions but again this is more of an arguement for showing under several rather than rejecting any outside opinion at all.

Wow, what a poor view of the public you have.

  Such sweeping generalisations are being made here. But then I suppose you also read the Daily Mail...

If that remark was aimed at me, then I shall ignore it with the disdaiin it deserves.

It is based on the countless pet owners I meet and have met day in day out over the years.  The vast majority would not even think to do anything but the most basic research.  They want a family pet not a show dog, so don't see the need. 
I'm not saying they are right, but I've heard it over and over again.

isnt the ridge a form of spinal bifida? if thats how you spell it?

Ridgielover
Rach85 - I'm afraid that it is you who is guilty of making a sweeping statement!  You are basing your statement one your knowledge of ONE person who wanted a ridgeless pup.  I've had RRs for over 20 years and really do think that I am more qualified to talk about what people ask for when they make an enquiry about buying a puppy.

So because I dont breed I am not allowed to voice an opinion?
And how do you know I had expierance of only 1 person? Just cause I said I have a friend doesnt mean I dont know other people who own them or breed them?
My statement is no more sweeping then yours and I didnt appreciate the belittling of me in your statement either, please be a bit more aware that what I post doesnt mean that is ALL I know and all my expierance, I have much expierance with many different breeds and have actully seen more ridgless pups then ridged maybe theres a breeder near me who has ridgless pups in her lines who knows, but the dogs are just as healthy so really dont see what the fuss is about anyway, its a healthy perfect pup minus a ridge whcih doesnt deserve to be culled for me that if final and end of.

Hi Rach85

I'm sorry - I have obviously hurt your feelings and I most certainly didn't mean to.  But it was you who first made the accusation of making sweeping statements!

Of course you can voice your opinions - this is a discussion forum.  But I can too :)  And I stick by my comments (made as an experienced and caring breeder, with a good reputation) of what people ask for when they contact a breeder wanting a Ridgeback puppy.

And I didn't say they should be culled, did I?  But perhaps the result of NOT culling ridgeless puppies is that you are seeing more ridgeless than ridged puppies???  I have seen people advertising a ridgeless dog at stud - stating that he will produce ridged offspring (not necessarily true, he doesn't carry the ridge, but IF the bitch carries a double ridged gene {very rare} then the pups will be ridged) and people wanted a stud for their ridgeless bitch.  This should not be happening - they do not meet the breed standard.

And no to Hayley, the ridge isn't a form of spina bifida, it is just hair growing the wrong way, but RRs can suffer from dermoid sinus (as do some other breeds and some thoroughbred horses) but the clubs are funding research into this in an effort to eradicate it.

> Hi Rach85
>
> I'm sorry - I have obviously hurt your feelings and I most certainly didn't mean to.  But it was you who first made the accusation of making sweeping statements!
>

Thats ok no harm done, just wanted to get the air cleared :)
No more accusation then yeah? Were all friends here lol  ;)

It could be that their not being culled and I would prefer it that way!
Like you said puppies shouldnt be culled and Im relived there are some RR breeders which dont even consider it, I mean how could you anyway when youve helped the pup into the world, cared for its dam only to say ''No ridge, no good!! pts!''
If I was looking for a ridgeback I could honestly say if there was a ridgeless one and it chose me I would have it as pups choose you to most degrees and I couldnt say no just because it hasnt got a line down its back! But thats just me :)

I wonder what happened to 'a dog is for life '? Don't we take these animals on with the knowledge that we will be there through thick and thin? Maybe these Cavaliers were going to be turfed out anyway but the owners just hadn't found the right excuse. Jumping the gun a little with no symptoms showing maybe?

I told my OH about the people allegedly turning Cavs in 'in case they get ill' and said I didn't think they deserved Cavaliers. His response (from someone usually on the opposite side of breeding / showing questions from me) was 'I don't think they deserve another dog ever!'

And yes, MRI scans cost about £175-£200. My hope is that the public will start to ask breeders if they scan before buying the puppies - as I said earlier, I had a litter at the beginning of the year and only a few people knew to ask about hearts, and nobody asked about SM.

> And yes, MRI scans cost about £175-£200. My hope is that the public will start to ask breeders if they scan before buying the puppies - as I said earlier, I had a litter at the beginning of the year and only a few people knew to ask about hearts, and nobody asked about SM.

Small price to pay to ensure your dog and litters and safe and sound for the future :)

> If I breed which I don't I would prefer my pups to go to pet homes than being stuck in a kennel

This is where I feel that a lot of people misunderstand the vast majority of people who show/work and breed.  Our dogs are first and foremost pets.  Few people these days keep their dogs exclusively in kennels, most who do have kennel facilities use these to rotate the dogs (bitches in season, more than one stud male that do not get on etc).  Many like myself keep one sex or other as indoor dogs, with perhaps a kennel to use when pups are running around, or to sleep some of the dogs in.

My dogs are Pets 365 days a year, show dogs maybe at most 12 - 20 times a year and breeding animals maybe 3 times in their lives for 9 weeks pregnancy and 8 weeks rearing each time.

I agree that I would support our Kennel club having similar rules and restrictions, then I would not be lumped together in the general public's eyes with all the puppy farmers and back Yard breeders, and almost have to apologise when people ask me if I breed.

> I agree that I would support our Kennel club having similar rules and restrictions, then I would not be lumped together in the general public's eyes with all the puppy farmers and back Yard breeders, and almost have to apologise when people ask me if I breed.

sad isnt it that one programme can change the views of so many and now registered honest breeders are seen as the bad people and puppy farmers as the good as they dont breed peds, I would like to see a programme on puppy farmers to even it out a bit so joe public can see how much time, love and money is pumped into producing sound healthy litters from pedigree breeders and then see the difference from how pups are raised in  puppy farmers kennels and pet breeders sad excuses for whelping quarters etc, it would be a wake up call wouldnt it?

sad isnt it that one prgramme can change the veiews of so many and now breeders are seen as the bad people and puppy farmers as the good as they dont breed peds,

This is what it so worrying.  The morning after airing, I met a number of local dog owners out walking who were outraged, including one who was extolling the virtues of his terrier cross that he had bought from the local pet shop...:-(  a shop that is well know for selling unhealthy pups bought in from puppy farms.

> Regarding showing you say "Because standards require interpretation which is not easy for an individual to do." I've seen many "winners" that I don't think follow "breed standards" as they are written. Short-legged, big-headed GRs are winning in the show ring, they don't follow the breed standard. Showing is soooo subjective, what one person prefers would be thrown out with another judge. Same dog, same breed standards. I would only breed a dog that had been health-tested, had a 110% temperament and DID look like the breed it was supposed to

The shows though (and in some breeds the working arenas) give the potential breeder a chance to see many dogs together and to see what different dogs and lines are producing.

So if you think that the trend in Goldens is for short legs and big heads and wish to breed to the standard avoiding this trend you will choose the dogs that do not have these traits you do not want to perpetuate and make sure they are not from or producing dogs with these traits.

You cannot breed properly in a vacuum.

When I am breeding and choosing dogs to keep I am looking at the breed as a whole, looking at the trends and trying to compensate for any negative ones based on my and those whose opinions I value understanding and interpretation of the standard.

I think theres dangerous times ahead for us repsonsible dog owners, we are gonna encounter a massive infloux of badly crossed mongrels which people have paid hundreds for rather then go to rescue :(
I know Im here to stay for the peds and Ill defend them to my death as they are well bred dogs and yeah they may have genetic defaults, but if you think about it a cross has 2 dogs in it so thats DOUBLE the amount of genetic disease which cant be tested for!!
Wheres the sense in that?!

> If I breed which I don't I would prefer my pups to go to pet homes than being stuck in a kennel.

Are you suggesting that people who show keep their dogs in kennels and that pet homes always offer better care?

> And yes, MRI scans cost about £175-£200.

That is the same as people pay for Hip scoring and various other tests, if it needs doing it should be done simple.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree Isabel.

<What if Minnie mouses is that breeder that could not see that their dogs had strayed from the standard either because they could not personally seen it or because they had some peculiar preference.>

and

<Judges will always show normal human variences in their opinions but again this is more of an arguement for showing under several rather than rejecting any outside opinion at all.>

Both those points could refer to both parties - the judge that prefers big, domed heads or the owner that prefers big, domed heads. That dog could be shown and do well under certain judges but would be thrown out by others. I can't see what difference it would make if the said dog attended 20 shows or 2, it still needs to closely match the breed standard. I agree all breeding dogs should be assessed by others to avoid kennel blindness but you don't need to show to do that. I know a fair few people in the Goldie and Dobe world, attend shows but don't show, and respect their opinions, and I CAN see good and bad points in all my dogs.

Hi Brainless.

By attending shows, but NOT showing, I can see what's going on, it just doesn't mean I HAVE to show. I agree totally with your last statement just disagree that you must show to do it.

> And yes, MRI scans cost about £175-£200.

That is the same as people pay for Hip scoring and various other tests, if it needs doing it should be done simple.

So true Brainless, if you cant afford the breed then dont breed it!!

After this programme it has thrown into dispute everything that those of us in the dog world have tried to hold dear.

When you go back years and think about showing what was the purpose of it all to begin with?

It was to show dogs of good pedigree and for judges to through careful selection choose the champions of those breeds, something that was held dear by the handler/owner/breeder that they have a champion dog, that dog and others who did well in the process of the competition were and are quite rightly viewed as the best breeding stock they have proven their worth.

These dogs then became the foundation stock for many more champions to be bred from and those not to be used for breeding were sent to pet homes, (usually without their papers) when I was a child you couldn't get a KC registered dog from anyone but a show breeder, that is where they came from, cross breeds were always around and they basically formed many pet homes, usually in my day from farm BC or Labs.

It used to be an honour to own a KC registered dog, it used to mean they came from show winners.

I still hold those thoughts that pedigree pups should come via a show winner, I still believe that they should, other wise what is the point to it all, nowadays anyone can breed, they don't work hard, showing or working their dogs to show what good stock they are, but just 'health test' (sometimes) and then put two dogs of the same breed together.............. It's all a big mess. :-(

And it is an even bigger mess now after that programme, as even 'Show' people are not being true to what KC and showing is supposed to stand for.

No wonder the public are confused, I'm confused!!!

If I could have my way, I would turn back the clock and only KC winners and FTCH's would be breeding stock once again and the winners would be healthy and only the best of the best.

At the moment the whole dog world is in a serious mess, from the Show world, to BYB's to puppyfarms................ very, very, disheartened.

And most of all for the beloved dog!

If I could have my way, I would turn back the clock and only KC winners and FTCH's would be breeding stock once again and the winners would be healthy and only the best of the best.

*shocked smilie* the number of FTCHs made up each year is in single figures (and that's in the breed with the largest gene pool)... if only FTCH were bred from it would mean the 45000 labs bred each year would come from a very few dogs... not only bad news, but an impossibility.

What I hope will come from this programme is that the Accredited Breeders Scheme will be improved to actually mean something, those guardians (judges and breeders) of the breeds who ARE breeding exaggerated unhealthy breeds need to take a long look at themselves, and hopefully it will act as a warning to the vast majority of breeds that are more moderate of what can happen when breeders/judges become so immersed in the breed that they are blind to what they are producing.

8-0 the number of FTCHs made up each year is in single figures (and that's in the breed with the largest gene pool)... if only FTCH were bred from it would mean the 45000 labs bred each year would come from a very few dogs... not only bad news, but an impossibility.



8-O I was trying to work out what that meant?  **shocked smilie**  :-D

I know that you are talking literally, and specifically with numbers, but this is how pedigree dogs used to come about and new breeds, then matings with sons and daugters of winners to sons and daughters of other winners, it does not take long for generations to soon become hundereds, thousands I agree would take a............. while. :-D

But we do need a clamp down from somewhere and that has to come from the KC.

I won't mention the breed, (incase the breeder happens to be on CD, you never know :-D )  But a friend of mine had a KC pup last year and was so pleased to have a pedigree (she had had a rescue cross before) she happily took out the pups 5 generation pedigree, do you know how many champions there were on the whole 5 gen paper. ONE, ONE! I had to triple bite my tongue as she was so happy, but ONE  champion and it was way back too.

Obviously signifies Pet, to Pet to Pet to Pet........ this is not what the KC should stand for.

I have always believed that the KC should bring in a two tier scheme on the lines of an 'A' listed breeder (someone who does all the relevant health checks for their breed, and 'B' listed breeder (someone who doesn't). Then let the public decide whether they possibly pay a little more for their puppy or buy a slightly cheaper pet from a breeder who won't abide by the health checks.
The health checks are there for a reason and any breeder that buries their head in the sand or is too arrogant to do the health checks for the sake of health and welfare in their breed do not deserve to breed.
I do not go along with the Accredited Breeder scheme as to my knowledge and belief it is just another money gathering scheme for the KC.

I have always believed that the KC should bring in a two tier scheme

I like that idea. :-) And it should show on the 3, 5, gen pedigree's too aswell as the transfer of ownership.

In theory, that is the intention of the Accredited Breeder Scheme. I say theory, because in practice it makes no difference whatsoever. The ABS should be the "A" system and INSIST on health checks, the "B" system registers the rest.

Then it is down to educating the public!

Isabel. If each judge is judging to a breed standard, surely they SHOULD all see the same thing?

If only life was that simple. :) Breed standards are not as precise to exactly spell out what is wanted so there is always room for individual judges' interpretations. I have been involved in writing breed standards for other animals and know how impossible it is to exactly describe a look with words. What does for instance "Large eyes" mean? How do you specify the exact size? You can't on points like that -that's only really possible for height and similar.

> when I was a child you couldn't get a KC registered dog from anyone but a show breeder, that is where they came from, cross breeds were always around and they basically formed many pet homes, usually in my day from farm BC or Labs.
>

This is where I feel our KC has become a victim of it's own success from the commercial point of view.

As you say back in the day those breeding KC registered dogs were the show and Field Trial competing p-people, and they were breeding for those purposes, what our KC didn't recognise until it was too late, by which time they liked the revenue, was the advent of the commercial breeding of dogs for the Pet market.

Younger Kennel clubs in Europe and especially Scandinavia made sure that those using their registration system were the real breeders breeding for the breed standard, health etc, and never really started taking money from the commercial element so don't miss the revenue they never had.

Our KC would like it's cake and eat it.

I would love to know if they restricted registration to health tested (let alone show or trial winning dogs) how much their revenue would fall by.  I might guess by 80%????

I realise that Marianne. But what I like and what you like may be completely different. That's why I said "SHOULD" all see the same thing if they follow the breed standard, that is what they are basing their judging on. You've had Goldies for years, just like me, and I'm sure you'd agree there is a great variation there.

> I have always believed that the KC should bring in a two tier scheme
>
> I like that idea. :-) And it should show on the 3, 5, gen pedigree's too aswell as the transfer of ownership.

I really hate that idea, either they are KC registered and from good health tested stock or they are not KC reg.  Basically they are trying to do a two tier system with the accredited breeder scheme, and it is not popular with good breeders by and large, with many so called breeders playing minimal lip service to the scheme to try to cover up that they are really BYB's.

either they are KC registered and from good health tested stock or they are not KC reg.

Yes, I also agree with your point. :-)  More than anything I want KC to mean something too. Like it use to. KC should mean health tested, good stock, it should.............

Trouble is the KC just will not stop registering litters from untested parents,  if they would it would cease many problems, as they won't, all we can hope for is something to show the differences between breeders.

The accredited breeders scheme for many reasons having to pay extra for a start is not popular, we need something better to show who is who when it comes to breeding.

sounds good to me. its a lot of hoops to jump through but i certainly wouldn;t mind, and i'm sure most of the others on this forum wouldn;t either

Please do not judge these people by short, carefully selected clips on a sensationalist television programme.  They truly believe that it is the best thing FOR THE BREED, not for themselves personally, to cull ridgeless puppies.  You cannot say that they do not "give a damn" because they abide by these principles.

Ridgielover, to answer this, as the thread was locked.

This breeder let the side down very badly with her most awful attitude, high and mighty and as if the puppies meant nothing, and being so annoyed with the young vets because they wouldn't do her bidding. her attitude was disgusting and she really didn't seem to give a damn about her puppies that she killed, her only excuse was that they didnt go to fighting homes....well she shouldn't sell them there then! Silly excuse to something that cannot be defended, as with the Cav breeder who refused to test her cavs by MRI, as well as the show woman who blatently lied, and all those other breeders who backed her. This attitud was disgusting. Yes, they and the Kc people were caught with their pants down, its exposed a lot of bad apples and attitudes that the general public wouldn't have expected by people of such high standing in the dog world. The Kc people have high positions, they are well educated, and to be honest should not have been caught out so easily by direct questions. They should have defended their hundreds of excellent breeders far better than being mumbling grumps with red faces. Maybe a lot is left out on the cutting room floor, but they did little in interviews and they should have been prepared for many questions, especially the in-breeding ones. Thankgoodness they didnt get asked about the fact they register thousands of puppies from puppy farms, because they would never have been able to talk their way out of that one.

As to breed shape changing, the skuls show what has happened, there is no way that is untrue, its there to be seen, along with conformation that meant a dog could move and work, and the breed that now cannot mate or give birth naturally, that would no longer exist in the wild. Why are these breeds that now have these problems being bred in this way, its disgusting.

The program was an eye opener. It shouldn't have been, but it was in many aspects. And thats a shame.

I would love to know if they restricted registration to health tested (let alone show or trial winning dogs) how much their revenue would fall by.  I might guess by 80%????

I fear you are so right, hence the problems of today, and the true reasons behind them not putting their foot down. :-(

>What if Minnie mouses is that breeder that could not see that their dogs had strayed from the standard either because they could not personally seen it or because they had some peculiar preference.>
> and
>Judges will always show normal human variences in their opinions but again this is more of an arguement for showing under several rather than rejecting any outside opinion at all.>

> Both those points could refer to both parties - the judge that prefers big, domed heads or the owner that prefers big, domed heads.

No it wouldn't, you pursue several if not many opinions when you are showing thus diluting the danger of fixing on one exaggerated opinion. 
But in truth pet breeders rarely have any vision of what they are trying to achieve, exaggerated or not in my experience.  I have owned my breed for over 25 years and in that time I have met and chatted to hundreds, if not getting into the thousands, of fellow Cocker owners that you meet, as I am sure most of us do.  More often than not the source of their pet is discussed but I can always predict whether they are going to tell me theirs came from a show breeder or not.  I cannot remember the last time I saw a truly decent, typey pet bred Cocker.

> I agree all breeding dogs should be assessed by others to avoid kennel blindness but you don't need to show to do that. I know a fair few people in the Goldie and Dobe world, attend shows but don't show.

If these contacts are all willing to come to your home and give you that independent assessment then you are very fortunate but how many non showing people have a decently sized network like that and if they have why don't they just meet up with them in the ring? :-)

Not sure if this has been mentioned but I think the KC should introduced a system like the Swedes have were a stud dog can only be use X amount of times a year.   I personally think we would see an improvement in health for a couple of reasons, I am not saying that the stud dog is unhealthy but:

He can be carrying polygenetic and recessive faulty genes when then 2 generations down the line have to be doubled up on due to his continual reappearance in the pedigree up comes all the faults.

I think this method also increases the quality of males due to demands of good males which can only help a breed.

> I do not go along with the Accredited Breeder scheme as to my knowledge and belief it is just another money gathering scheme for the KC.

It runs at a loss Alison :-)

> The ABS should be the "A" system and INSIST on health checks

It does, the health checks recommended by the breed club anyway.

> fear you are so right, hence the problems of today, and the true reasons behind them not putting their foot down.

Caroline Kisko was quite open about that in one of the interviews I saw.  They are opted with a gradual approach and I think that probably is the best choice even if it is frustrating.

Just because people have ' purely-pet ' dogs it doesn't mean they are left at home while we go out.
What a silly statement to come out with.
You arn't trying to say show people take all their dogs to shows with them are you?