> Data, data, data. Badly, badly, badly needed - because it will help you make better breeding decisions.
>
>

Reliable verifiable Data can be very hard to come by.  For a start Vets don't keep records of which dogs really are pedigree and which are jsut thought to be (take Staffies for example). 

Also no matter how often I insist,  every Vet practice I have used insists on registering yoru dog under it's pet name whcih makes sending copies of BVA heaklth certs to them pointless, as they don't know to which dog they refer.

Some of these posts just show a complete lack of understanding about what dog breeding is all about.  There is absolutely no comprehension from those who have blinkered views or have read a few articles posted by whoever on the internet, that there are many, many breeders who are working under the guidance of our top specialists to improve the health of their chosen breed.  Even with the guidance of specialists, they are struggling to make progress.  If only it was as simple as they think it is.
May be if we switched to making robots rather than deal with genetics and then we might produce perfect pets that would satisfy all the armchair critics.
As I've said before, the vast majority of problem dogs and bred from poor quality pets by people with little interest in breed standards.  GOOD breeders don't want to produce unhealthy dogs - they also don't want the worry and Vets' bills.

fantastic post !! - dog breeding is simply NOT an exact science - after all we are dealing with a living organism not flat pack furniture - but to all our critics I'll simply say - if you think you can do better then go ahead and breed completely healthy structurally sound, good tempered dogs within their individual breed gene pool and down many generations -no -one is stopping you - all you need is a passion for a breed and the dedication to turn your life over to maintaining 'your' breed -

Yvonne

You don't understand. I love pedigree dogs. I just don't like the way they're too often bred for form rather than function within closed gene pools that are diminishing with every generation.



breeding for 'form' i.e the appearance of a breed is very often what defines it - after all  Norwich and Norfolk Terrriers are distinguished only on the very slight dfferences in 'form' as are Cardigan and Pembroke Corgis,  and dare I say it Flatcoat and Golden Retrievers !!- if we don't breed for 'Form'  we might as well simply have generic types-as it's often only the appearance which distinguishes one breed from another within the same group.

also - tell me how we are to continue maintaining the 200 individual breeds currently recognised in the Uk WITHOUT using closed gene pools ? - in some breeds there may well be unregistered 'types' that could be used ( in Border Collies for example )  or varieties of the same breed  ( BSD and Dachshunds etc ) but what is similar enough to  a Dandie Dinmont or a Great Dane or a Puli that could be used without losing the characteristics that make those breeds what they are  ?

It's just not good enough to say " I love pedigree dogs" and then slam the very method by which they are maintained - tell me how someone who breeds Schipperkees ( for example )  can continue to breed the very individual look and character of their breed without using a closed gene pool -

.....except of course that no-one ever does answer this question - because there IS no other way !

Yvonne

> luckely it is still a much valued farm dog so will still be bred ramdomly with the collie from the next farm or a friends dog.
>
>

How do you think that makes for a wide gene pool?

If you use the neighbours dog, and then down the line the neighbour uses yours etc you end up with a small gene pool.

Just because the names aren't written down you may assume they are not related, but any localised population will become very inbred if fresh blood is not brought in.

A lot of people who breed casually would never dream of travelling for a stud.

I can't figure her out, she wants a pedigree I.e purebred but not with any health tests yet we are all monsters for trying to breed in a ethical way but it's ok if we breed with dog next door???? Hhhmmm not sure I want to breed my js with next doors GSD thanks.

> This is very interesting, but going off thead a bit because we are debating breeding. I too have always had border collies. I would never buy a 'pedigee ' one.
> luckely it is still a much valued farm dog so will still be bred ramdomly with the collie from the next farm or a friends dog. So the gene pool remains wide.
> Border collies are meant to work not be paraded around a show ring.

Before I had gundogs I had border collies. I had them long before they were KC registered. A properly bred farm collie will be ISDS registered and the breeders will go to the best working stud dog NOT the dog down the road. The ISDS collies are all health tested too. They have pedigrees written down over many generations. So are you saying you would not buy as ISDS registered border collie either then as you believe that randomly bred unhealth tested dogs are better?

Border collies are meant to work not be paraded around a show ring.

Granted the BC's in my family at present are working dogs, but it's the attitude you take on being paraded around a show ring that I take hinderance to.

What kind of life do you think dogs whose owners enter shows have? :-( It saddens me that you have this perception.

Dogs enjoy being with their owners, many take them to their place of work too, they are trained to do what we want them to do, whether that is as a working dog, agility etc or show dog, dogs which do activities with us spend even more time with their owners, they are being engaged with. A dog doesn't know it is entering a competition :-) it just knows it is in a place outdoors or indoors meeting people and other dogs and doing what it is trained to do.

If a dog is not happy or under stimulated that comes through in it's behaviour and body language, such a dog would make a very poor show dog and an owner would withdraw it from this activity.

Speaking for myself I can tell you that whether our family dogs have been working, show or just pets they all have exactly the same home life, they all jump and splash around in mud and water, they all enjoy running and playing in woodland and fields and they all have their minds stimulated, the only differences are the activities they may do which we know they enjoy by the wagging tails, at the end of the day they thrive on being with us that's what has always made a dog it's happiest.

If a dog is stimulated, enjoys being with it's owner and has a full 'doggy' home life why do you think it is not happy and not leading a fulfilling life?

Why are we defending ourselves against lazy journalism using our material?
Why are we bothering to discuss anything with them?
How many times have we seen misquotes and misinformation used to support the author's own pre conceptions, rather than the realties we all work with daily?

I no longer post much on here purely because I'm wary of such forms of journalism using our experience and shared knowledge to beat us about the head for its own benefit.  We see it in the reptile hobby stupid headlines, misidentification of species let alone sub species to me Journalism is nothing better than the town gossip of old!

VERY wise Schip! :)  I'll join you. :)

Just popped on to apologise to shaynlola, read back and really not a clue why I quoted you as writing that about crossbreeds on the first page!  Bizarre.

> VERY wise Schip!  I'll join you

I already have.I have no wish to be bundled up, classified and labelled  "The crew on CD".

Jemima Harrison and her totally biassed "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" programme has been a disaster for dogs in the UK. As a result, we now have the puppy farmers, backyard breeders and naive/greedy "pet" breeders proudly producing litter after litter of poor quality, pups from un-health-tested parents all quoting PDE and saying our dogs aren't KC registered so they must be healthier than those nasty show dogs. We have the same, or similar unprincipled, unethical commercial "breeders" producing litter after litter of crossbreeds - again from untested adults proudly boasting that their "designer dogs" are healthier than those nasty show dogs.
Yes, of course there are issues within the pedigree dogs world - there always have been and there always will be, but within that world there are many totally ethical breeders who are doing their very best to ensure that the pups they produce will be healthy, longlived and fit for function.

The whole "Hybrid vigour" argument so beloved of JH and the puppy farmers she is (perhaps unwittingly) supporting, is complete nonsense when applied to purposely (but randomly) bred crossbreeds whose breeders' motivation is simply commercial. The so-called "scientific" evidence we are shown about the contrast between pedigree dogs and crossbreeds is far from scientific. To have any scientific credibility, like has to be measured against like and this does not happen in any of these studies. Most of the studies are from the stats of veterinary surgeons. From my own anecdotal experience in my own neighbourhood (a working class urban area) the likelihood of a crossbreed owner taking their dog to the vets is much, much lower than that for a pedigree dog owner. In our area, we seem to function as the veterinary equivalent of the Chinese "barefoot doctor" and when people have health problems with their dogs, we tend to be consulted first. Out of perhaps 25 occasions last year when we were asked for advice by crossbreed pet owners, we suggested taking the dog to the vet on 20 occasions. Actual number of times when the dog went to the vet - 0. It was either too expensive or, when we suggested the RSPCA or PDSA clinics, too far away. As a result, about half of those (healthy crossbreds benefitting from "hybrid vigour") died uncomfortable deaths with no veterinary care. Now I am not saying that this situation can be extrapolated across the whole country, but it does seem clear to me that if say 85% of sick pedigree dogs visit the vet, and only say, 25% of sick crossbreeds visit the vets, then the vets' statistics will be unscientifically skewed in favour of crossbreeds and the "hybrid vigour" fallacy will appear to be "proved" when in fact the opposite might well be the case.

When ever I have a look at this forum its full of -

Apart from show brags, nobody is going to post and say "my dogs are all healthy and have no problems with behaviour either" -it's boring and not what this forum is about. Also nobody is ABLE to post and say "I have just had a litter born, all are doing fine" as that is not allowed -you can only post about litters if you have a QUESTION.

But maybe we should all turn CD, for just a day, over to only posts about our pedigree dogs that have NO problems? Could be quite interesting to see how many we get. :)

My pedigree Labrador has perfect health scores and health, she's incredibly lithe and muscular, and she's a lovely soft natured girl.  The vet gets to see both mine once a year for their boosters, and loves going over them as they are two of the nicest dogs he sees.  :)

My old Labrador x collie rescue was the unhealthiest dog I've owned, out of four; she had terrible joints, wobbly detached dew claws on all feet, an infected skin tag on her stomach which was removed, a deformed soft palette which meant she had to be walked on a harness so she didn't choke herself, but worst of all, she had an unpredictable temperament. 

Will that do for starters ;)

> Will that do for starters ;-)

Love it

Peanuts

>Just popped on to apologise to shaynlola, read back and really not a clue why I quoted you as writing that about crossbreeds on the first page!  Bizarre.

No apology required, Nikita...I'm guilty of skim reading myself, and occasionally commenting in what I think I read rather than what was actually written :) 

>The so-called "scientific" evidence we are shown about the contrast between pedigree dogs and crossbreeds is far from scientific. >To have any scientific credibility, like has to be measured against like and this does not happen in any of these studies. Most of >the studies are from the stats of veterinary surgeons.

And those stats are skewed from the start.  I rarely take my dogs to the vet.   They are healthy, so I can't see the point, if they were ill or had a problem, I'd take them, but with consultation fees being so high in this area I feel it's pointless to pay to be told they aren't ill, while also exposing them to the risk of catching something from other dogs also in the waiting room.   However, if they don't see the vet for a specified time, then they are removed from the vets patient list. and therefore wouldn't show up in any statistics for healthy dogs.  I had to re-register my 181/2 year old pedigree cat to have her PTS, so where and how would she have been recorded? 

In addition, whilst pedigree dogs bred in large commercial establishments are likely to need a lot of veterinary care, how many carefully bred and reared dogs from ethical breeders also need veterinary care?    Do vets keep records separating out the different dogs? How would they know which was which?   How many owners even know the difference?   

On the subject of the highly emotive subject of cancer.....and in spite of billions of pounds worth of research we are still no closer to finding a "cure" and yet there are tribes still living on earth who have no incidence of cancer and are living to be well over 100 years old. Tribes like the Hunzas and the Okinawans.....diet and nutrition is the key to their longevity and health

I am not sure that all the genetic research...and the study of an animal (or person) cell by cell is going to make the picture much clearer....after all billions have already been spent....for very little result... :(

For anyone interested there is a book called "Why we're still dieing to know the truth"...whilst it is about cancer in people I have no doubt that the vested interests of the big pharmaceuticals know that our animals are also a huge market...and that a "cure" will be a long time in coming....

Why we're still dieing to know the truth
Phillip Day: "The profit margins in conventional cancer therapeutics are immense. As such, doctors are trained to think only in pharmaceutical terms. Rarely are they even aware of non-patentable alternatives other than hearing from their peers they are 'useless', 'dangerous' and 'quackery'. Amazingly, in spite of the fact that the human body becomes what it absorbs, doctors receive no formal training in nutrition, yet it is nutrition which lies at the heart of cancer prevention and recovery. When a cancerous body cries out for a nutritional solution, damaging pharmaceuticals are administered instead, leading many patients to a worsening of their condition, and often death."

(Like I say its a highly emotive subject and I have no wish to offend anyone who may have family or animals who are suffering in this way)

> diet and nutrition is the key to their longevity and health
>
>

I would also imagine that the harsh law of survival of the fittest plays a large part.

Cewrtainly talkign to my granmother who was from a large family, few of ehr siblings survived childhood, those that did did live well into old age.

Those people or animals that manage to survive illness injury and live in a clean environment are more likely to survive into old age better than others who might share the same lifestyle.

> there are tribes still living on earth who have no incidence of cancer and are living to be well over 100 years old. Tribes like the Hunzas and the Okinawans

No doubt they have an extremely limited gene pool ...

Although we need scientific evidence, we can also see before us evidence of what damage humans are doing to pedigree dogs by inbreeding and breeding exaduated features.

why breed pugs (and other's) with short such muzzels, so they have differcuty breathing? and with prominate eyes prone to ulcers and injury, when there is no need to.
Why breed german shepherds with week sloping hind quaters? so they 'go off' their legs when there is no need to.
Why breed bearded collies with coats so thick they get to hot?

I could go on and on, these dogs are being carefully bred by so called ethical breeders who are carefully breeding these features into the dogs so they can win prizes. (I am not saying all breeders, not at all)

You do not need scientific evidence to see all this, although it most certainly helps. You do'nt need a degree in genitics, to see it, but some understanding will help.

Oh by the way, I do'nt get my information from a 'couple of articles' off the internet, I have studyed genetics, and I work full time with dogs.

Not all vets remove patients from the list, my vet does't unless you tell them to.

Can I ask why you have chosen to not reply to my post, especially as you claim to have studied genetics? i will repeat my earlier post for you:

> This is very interesting, but going off thead a bit because we are debating breeding. I too have always had border collies. I would never buy a 'pedigee ' one.
> luckely it is still a much valued farm dog so will still be bred ramdomly with the collie from the next farm or a friends dog. So the gene pool remains wide.
> Border collies are meant to work not be paraded around a show ring.

Before I had gundogs I had border collies. I had them long before they were KC registered. A properly bred farm collie will be ISDS registered and the breeders will go to the best working stud dog NOT the dog down the road. The ISDS collies are all health tested too. They have pedigrees written down over many generations. So are you saying you would not buy as ISDS registered border collie either then as you believe that randomly bred unhealth tested dogs are better?

I am saying a wide gene pool is better.

If breeders all use the same stud dogs then the gene pool becomes smaller, then the problems start.

I belive dogs that are closely related such not be bred together.

As for health testing I did not comment on that.

I think you have missed my point. Do you know what an ISDS registered collie is?

Whether from a community of randomly bred dogs as you describe or not surely it is still better to have a puppy from a health tested dog and bitch?

I am saying a wide gene pool is better
Completely wrong!  It's the quality of the dogs that's important and the genes good and bad that they're carrying that's important NOT the size of the gene pool. 
A large gene pool with the majority of dogs having a similar genetic fault can never be good. 
A small gene pool with healthy, well balanced dogs is the way that rare breeds keep going and they rarely have any problems.

If breeders all use the same stud dogs then the gene pool becomes smaller, then the problems start.

I belive dogs that are closely related such not be bred together.

So how do you explain that Malinois have a BMS of just 9, and have no known health problems in the UK when they are probably one of the more inbred breeds due to a tiny genepool? We eye test for HC but I've yet to hear of one being affected by it even when old. Could it perhaps by that by linebreeding you strengthen what GOOD there is as well as what bad is lurking -and if there is nothing bad.........

> I am saying a wide gene pool is better.

Possibly. But breeders have to use what they have available. I know of situations that have arisen (in other species) where outcrossing was taken to an extreme and the animals suffered badly as a result. Everything in moderation.

> If breeders all use the same stud dogs then the gene pool becomes smaller, then the problems start.

Only if the problems were in the gene pool to start with!

> I belive dogs that are closely related such not be bred together.

Fair point. It's not always necessary. But "closely" needs precise definition.

> As for health testing I did not comment on that.

It's relevant, though. I understand that since the ISDS [International Sheep Dog Society] brought in mandatory eye-testing, hereditary eye issues in farm-bred registered border collies fell dramatically.

just wanted to say to MickB

what a great post, it sums the whole argument up

Heres some data for you-

A pet insurance plan did a study on 3,126 dogs.
The median age of death for all dogs was 12 years.
Breeds with the longest livespan with a median age of death of 14 years were the whippet, the Bedlington terrier, Miniature Poodle, Miniature Dachshound, Toy Poodle, and Tibetan terrier.
Large and Giant breeds were found to have much shorter median lifes, the St Bernard just 4.1 years, Irish Wolfhound 6.2 years.

I would say where I found it but not sure about the legalities of doing that. You will have to take my word for it thats it 's reliable and not 'off the internet', or not, which ever you like.

What it shows is large breeds have a very short life on advange.

>Large and Giant breeds were found to have much shorter median lifes, the St Bernard just 4.1 years, Irish Wolfhound 6.2 years.

The KC/BVA survey has the median age of death for St Bernards as being 7 years (maximum age reported 12 years 9 months), and the Irish Wolfhound also 7 years (the oldest reported being a whopping 17 years and 7 months).

The median age at death for Whippets was 12 years and 10 months (maximum 18 years 2 months); Bedlington 13 years and 5 months (maximum 18 years 5 months); Miniature poodle 13 years 11 months (maximum 18 years 6 months); Tibetan Terrier 12 years 2 months (maximum 18 years 3 months).

The overall median lifespan is 11 years 3 months.

You can check more breeds here.

Thanks for the link, all the surveys done are bound to vary a bit. Depends how many dogs and how many years the survey is done.

I think from both surveys it can be said that the adverage life span of large breeds needs to be addressed,   4.1 or 7years is not good enough.
If breeding them smaller will improve the lifespan then why not?

If only all our dogs would live for 17 years and 7 months that would be wonderfull.

>all the surveys done are bound to vary a bit. Depends how many dogs and how many years the survey is done.
>A pet insurance plan did a study on 3,126 dogs.

The KC/BVA survey represented 36,006 live dogs.

Ok I'll go with that them.

7 years is a very short life span.

Maybe so, but it's almost twice the length claimed by the insurance company.

I'm not rising to it, to late at night!

It's nothing to rise to, it's simply a fact.

>> You can check more breeds here.

Very interesting.
Considering we are being told that developmental diseases due to rapid growth/overall size are the reason for short lives in giant breeds, I am very suprised to see death toll due to musculoskeltal problems:
2 deaths out of 53 in St. Bernards (3.7%)
2 out of 171 in Great danes  (1.2%)
10 out of 169 in Newfoundlands  (5.9%)
0 out of 47 in Leonbergers (0%)
24 out of 180 in Bernese (13.3%)
1 out of 112 in Irish Wolfhound (0.9%)

I would have thought the deaths due to developmental diseases would be very high, especially as we are being told the giant breeds hould be made smaller to over-come such a major problem!

>I would have thought the deaths due to developmental diseases would be very high, especially as we are being told the giant breeds hould be made smaller to over-come such a major problem!

It seems that the facts are at odds with people's perceptions!

thats typical, why is my breed not on there?

I'm really pleased that you have found some factual data here ML, it's just not rung true for me that size is the reasoning for giant breeds like the St. Bernard. (Which appears to have the shortest lifespan.)  If it were to do just with their size or skull weight (there are smaller breeds with large skulls too) then surely they would suffer greatly from neck, back and leg joint problems and from organs being suppressed under frame weight which you have highlighted as being uncommon here. So I feel size is not the main cause for their short lifespan and to push for the breeds concerned to be smaller IMO wouldn't make a jot of difference.

I would be interested to hear from St Bernard breeders as to whether the dogs and bitches below breed standard size and weight have had an improved lifespan?

I know a guy who always has rescue St. Bernards, when one passes over he gets another. IMO it seems that their genetic body clock over their evolution is just wired differently from other breeds. Just as a rat, hamster has a built in genetic lifespan of approx 2 years, a guinea-pig approx 7 years, a lion approx 16 years.(in the wild) I just feel the St. Bernard is wired differently, the ones that I have known by the time they get to approx 6yrs they just seem to start winding down, getting slower and slower, like a grandfather clock you've forgotten to wind up, they don't appear to me to be suffering from a genetic health problem that I can see, they are just aging much quicker, it's hard to undo a genetic clock.

So before people start jumping on the bandwagon of it's the size, much more research needs to be done and St. Bernard breeders are the ones to be doing that IMO not just speculation.

Just as a rat, hamster has a built in genetic lifespan of approx 2 years
Maybe they should selectively breed them bigger so that they live longer and don't break childrens' hearts when they die so soon? :)  Now there's a thought!
This thread really does show how gullible Joe Public are with so little experience.

Just as a rat, hamster has a built in genetic lifespan of approx 2 years
Maybe they should selectively breed them bigger so that they live longer and don't break childrens' hearts when they die so soon? :-)

And maybe Jemima should start shouting at the rabbit fancy. After all, breeds like the British Giant, the Continental Giant, the Flemish Giant and the French Lop normally have a life span of just 4 to 5 years, whereas the smaller breeds like Netherland Dwarf and Polish and similar can make it to 10 or so. Sound similar to dogs??? Oh and wait, some rabbit fanciers EAT their rabbits -isn't that worth a TV programme? In hamsters, males live longer than females, so we should perhaps breed only from males?  But hang on a minute -BIRDS. Zebra Finches live around 5 years, twice that if you're really lucky, but big parrots can live many decades. So let's get rid of all small birds and only allow parrots. And horses! Shetland ponies only from now on, they can live 30-40 years, a bigger horse may only live to 20 or so. Disgraceful! Never mind the fact the Shetlands can only be ridden by children, we shouldn't exploit animals so we shouldn't ride them.

It really would be laughable if it wasn't so sad Marianne! :(  Talk about just get a bee in your bonnet. 
It reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes - the song that they used to play on children's radio when I was small.  If you keep saying the same thing, SOME people will believe you even if it's obviously not true. :)

This is not aimed at anyone's post in particular - just voicing a few thoughts that I've had as I've been reading through :-)

Being a large breed shouldn't automatically cause problems with lifespan, so I am skeptical about how healthy they are.

Look at the Anatolian Shepherd - average lifespan for these is 15 years, they are a very healthy breed, and the height according to breed standard is 28-32" between the sexes.

What they do show is that the behaviour of us as breeders has a significant effect on the health of our dogs - HD has never been a problem for these dogs but recently is has started to increase.  Why? Because breeders aren't screening for it because the breed is so healthy.

It seems to be, then, that it's pointless arguing over what causes poor health or poor longevity, because it's a combination of all the factors - no-one can say what one thing is causing some breeds to grow larger, because it's more than one thing; likewise no-one can suggest what one thing will improve the situation.

A thought on rats - that built-in genetic lifespan has very little bearing now; so many rats are bred with no forethought now that the lifespan overall - at least round here anyway - is decreasing.  I've had dozens of rats in the past that averaged 2.5-3yrs; yet the rats I've had in the last few years rarely made it past 2.  The quality is getting poorer because rats are being overbred and bred badly, and it's having a knock-on effect on their lifespan. 

Same situation as in dogs, as I see it - take my beloved dobes.  Because so few people test for heart problems, the incidence of DCM in the breed is frighteningly high - almost a 60% mortality rate now.  Yes, it's often a late-onset problem so hard to detect early; but if people had been routinely testing for it, annually, since it first became a problem, we would now be able to look back to the ancestors of the breeding stock and identify lines with it in, which dogs to avoid breeding from etc.

Carrington, I think you make a valid point. There is quite a bit of research about ageing in humans that points to a gene/s that regulates how quickly we age. The same has been found in other organisms. I think it is entirely possible that some breeds, by the process of selecting for their particular characteristics, are genetically programmed to age faster. If that is the case selecting for smaller St Bernards would not necessarily make them live longer.

It would be very useful to see if their is good evidence that smaller St Bernards live longer. One needs that information to make the size and growth argument begin to stack up.

See link   http://pharmacyebooks.com/2010/02/ageing-gene-has-identified.html

> And maybe Jemima should start shouting at the rabbit fancy. After all, breeds like the British Giant, the Continental Giant, the Flemish Giant and the French Lop normally have a life span of just 4 to 5 years, whereas the smaller breeds like Netherland Dwarf and Polish and similar can make it to 10 or so. Sound similar to dogs??? Oh and wait, some rabbit fanciers EAT their rabbits -isn't that worth a TV programme? In hamsters, males live longer than females, so we should perhaps breed only from males?  But hang on a minute -BIRDS. Zebra Finches live around 5 years, twice that if you're really lucky, but big parrots can live many decades. So let's get rid of all small birds and only allow parrots. And horses! Shetland ponies only from now on, they can live 30-40 years, a bigger horse may only live to 20 or so. Disgraceful! Never mind the fact the Shetlands can only be ridden by children, we shouldn't exploit animals so we shouldn't ride them.

Love this point, horses like dogs have been bred for different jobs over the years, draft horses, for pulling heavy loads, race horses for the sport of kings etc, they by the way are interbred for lines more so than dogs, then once their career is over it;s the knackers yard or dog food, thats worth a programme.

Peanuts

> thats typical, why is my breed not on there?

It should be if it is a recongnised breed and people replied?

> some rabbit fanciers EAT their rabbits -

I should hope so, what else would you do with the surplus when you have got your show prospect ;)

Very tasty too, and we kill and prepare them ourselves to.  Dear dear maybe they ought to be done at the abatoir, and sent to 'Gordon Ramsey' to be done properly.

> What they do show is that the behaviour of us as breeders has a significant effect on the health of our dogs -

Which is why I have said before that some not very fashionable breeds even with small gene pools, but very committed breeders manage to be largely very healthy, yet other popular/commercially exploited breeds, sometimes with huge potential gene pools are in a parlous state re health.

thats typical, why is my breed not on there?

It should be if it is a recongnised breed and people replied?

its standard schnauzer and i couldnt see minis either?