Why pick on bulldogs and not otterhounds?

* the bulldog is the 16th most popular breed in the UK - 3,500 registrations a year as opposed to the otterhound's 50.
* otterhounds have a normal anatomy, can breathe freely, don't drop down dead from heatstroke, can swim without sinking like a stone and can mate and whelp naturally
* otterhounds live almost twice as long as bulldogs
* almost half of all bulldogs in the KC/BSAVA health survey were suffering from one or more conditions

Interestingly no bulldog in the UK has scored the worst score possible, unlike so many other breeds.

So now you're citing the BVA stats to try to prove a point, when before they were too unscientific for you? And did it not occur to you that the discrepancy (a very small one given that the max otterhound score is 106 and the max bulldog score is only 10 points less at 96) might have something to do with the fact that 200 otterhounds have been scored but only 22 bulldogs?

>Given that the above would suggest that they have potential to live until 14, why do you think they're dying so young?

I have no idea, and wouldn't be so arrogant as to hazard a guess.

So you have not actually researched bulldog health/causes of death (whereas I have) and yet you feel able to claim that it is unfair to tar them with being an unhealthy breed?

Jemima

> If, for instance, you have a bulldog I think it's acceptable for you to be 'tarred' with having an unhealthy breed. If, however, you have a border terrier  I'd say it was an unfair charge.

Singularly the most thoughtless sentence I've read on this forum in a long time.

>>Interestingly no bulldog in the UK has scored the worst score possible, unlike so many other breeds.
>So now you're citing the BVA stats to try to prove a point, when before they were too unscientific for you?

LOL! Typical journo-speke! Where did I say that the stats in general were too unscientific? Answer - nowhere. I said that the bulldog stats (seeing as you're writing off the whole breed, despite some individuals being perfectly fir and healthy and long-lived) were too small to be scientifically reliable. With other breeds, where large numbers have been scored, such as GSDs, labradors, golden retrievers, rottweilers etc, the sample is large enough to give a very reliable average. The reason I said it's interesting is that a breed that's supposedly so 'natural' has (so far) got worse individuals than a breed that's (supposedly) a disaster area.

>And did it not occur to you that the discrepancy (a very small one given that the max otterhound score is 106 and the max bulldog score is only 10 points less at 96) might have something to do with the fact that 200 otterhounds have been scored but only 22 bulldogs?

Yes of course - and that's exactly why I wouldn't use hipscores from two such disparate samples for comparison and draw the conclusion that one is healthy and one isn't. They're both pretty terrible!

>almost half of all bulldogs in the KC/BSAVA health survey were suffering from one or more conditions

Those conditions referred to include kennel cough, cystitis, lameness, colitis, sarcoptes, ear mites, infected anal glands ... all of which can happen to any dog and should be ignored when considering the health of a breed. So many people neglect to read the details ...

But to get back on topic ;-) which is 'are crossbreeds healthier than pedigrees' and not comparing specifics, the logical answer would be "It depends on the health of the parents". To say 'yes' or 'no' would be wrong.

"You obviously missed the bit where I said I didn't think it was right for anyone to abuse anyone in the street, JeanGenie.  But, as ever, you will believe as you wish and it is pretty pointless getting into a debate with you"

This is indeed a sage comment, to MANY contributors of this thread, do all try and keep an open mind.

Jeff.

This is getting increasingly like knitting fog.

I didn't cite the BVA stats for the very reason we are both agreed on - they don't mean much in the case of the bulldog because so few have been scored in the UK.  Indeed, you state: "that's exactly why I wouldn't use hipscores from two such disparate samples for comparison and draw the conclusion that one is healthy and one isn't". And yet you're still trying to do exactly that when you say: "The reason I said it's interesting is that a breed that's supposedly so 'natural' has (so far) got worse individuals than a breed that's (supposedly) a disaster area." You really can't have it both ways. It can't be interesting if the stats aren't valid.

As you can see if you read back, I cited the OFA stats, where 461 bulldogs have been scored. Result: 73.2 per cent dysplastic. (Otterhounds, btw, seeing you mentioned them, score better than bulldogs in the US: 52.1 per cent dysplastic). Clearly, otterhounds have pretty dreadful hips, too. However, even if it was the other way round (or turns out to be when more UK bulldogs are scored), it's only part of the health story as detailed above. As it happens, otterhounds are suffering from being unpopular and being very compromised genetically, so in that sense are suffering too. Although I don't suppose that's someting that a member of the public would shout out at an otterhound owner across the street.

But to get back on topic ;-)  which is 'are crossbreeds healthier than pedigrees' and not comparing specifics, the logical answer would be "It depends on the health of the parents". To say 'yes' or 'no' would be wrong.

I agree that qualification is needed - and have never claimed otherwise - and, indeed, I have spelled out those qualificiations further up the thread.  As it happens, both my answer ("overall, yes they are") and your answer ("it depends on the health of the parents") are both right - but obviously not the whole story. For instance, the science would support a claim that two unhealthy dogs of the same breed are likely to produce unhealthier pups than two unhealthy dogs of different breeds. That's because most problems are recessive and two dogs of the same breed are more likey to be carrying the same recessive genes. But, again, that's just an overall conclusion.

As it happens, I've asked Guide Dogs for help with this question because they breed both crosses and purebreds (about a 50/50 split); both have all the relevant health tests and they keep very careful health records.

Jemima

>Katien, there are some breeds that are, fundamentally, unhealthy, hence why I asked what breed you have.

Going by Katien's previous posts on here, she has at least one Weimaraner. I'm sure she'll clarify the matter when she gets back online - obviously she has better things to do on a Bank Holiday weekend than we do! :-D

(I've just noticed that there are no otterhound responses to the KC/BVA survey for comparison. What a pity.)

Well I am managing to eat cheesecake at the same time... :-)

A peculiarly female kind of multi-tasking, I fear.

Jemima

Sadly though hardly any UK Bulldogs are hip socored and those that have been don't have fantastic scores, and would apear to reflect the OFA results..

same with pugs

Jeangenie, yes I do have at least one Weim. Not a particularly unhealthy breed as far as I know. In fact I have two of them and a Valhund (who's 16 now in case anyone wondered)...
The reason I didn't mention it is precisely because of Jemimas response - that if I had a bulldog it was ok for someone to shout at me that I have an unhealthy breed. Which is one of the most ridiculous thing I have read. Why is it ok to tar anyone with that brush? Even if I had a bulldog, there's nothing to say it isn't a reasonably healthy example of the breed and nobody but me would know how much research I'd done when buying it, whether the parents had been health tested or not, etc etc.
Jemima do you not think that your response was a little short-sighted?

I think here is where I stop. I am so completely disappointed that someone who could have so much influence (if PDE is anything to go by) and could use it to do so much more has decided that painting pedigrees as unhealty is the only way to go. No matter what is said on a dog forum (albeit a public one), the general public will only remember what they saw on that programme. And now it seems that 'oodles' and 'poos' are being touted as more healthy. If they're being bred by the same people that exploit pedigree breeds for a fast buck then I very much doubt this is always true.

>I do have at least one Weim. Not a particularly unhealthy breed as far as I know. In fact I have two of them and a Valhund (who's 16 now in case anyone wondered)...
>The reason I didn't mention it is precisely because of Jemimas response - that if I had a bulldog it was ok for someone to shout at me that I have an unhealthy breed. Which is one of the most ridiculous thing I have read.

Exactly. The PDE programme editor allowed Mark Evans' remark that "pedigree dogs were mutant freaks" to remain, thus tarring all pedigree dogs of whatever breed as sickly, unhealthy creatures, despite the known fact that the vast majority live long, healthy lives. The fact that Jemima thinks it's okay to despise the owners of certain breeds says a lot more about her than it does about dogs.

Katien, please look back through the thread and read what I actually wrote, rather than what you think I wrote.

1) I do not think it is OK for someone to shout abuse at you (even if you did happen to have bulldogs).
2) I think bulldogs as a breed are unhealthy. So, in my opinion (based on a lot of research) it is OK for someone to 'tar' someone who owns bulldogs as having an unhealthy breed. But that "tarring" should not include shouting abuse at them in the street. Because I think that is wrong.
3) In my view, there are other breeds apart from bulldogs that are also inherently unhealthy, either because of the level of genetic disease in the breed, or because of their conformation or both. This isn't just my opinion - it is supported by the three independent reports into dog-breeding that followed PDE.
4) I am not touting "oodles' and 'poos' as more healthy except in a very general "overall" sense that needs the qualifications that I give above. I have never said that it is "always true". Indeed, I agree with you that "this is not always true" and have made that plain in several of my posts.
5) I do not think that "painting pedigrees as unhealthy is the way to go". Above, you'll see that I say the border terrier is a pretty healthy breed. But I do think that many breeds are unhealthier than they should be - and that the level of unhealthiness in some breeds is unacceptable. I also believe that if we don't do something now about the way we breed dogs that we will lose a lot of breeds in the next 100 years because the current breeding paradigm is unsustainable. This doesn't mean I think dog breeds should be consigned to the dustbin; it means that there needs to be much more effort to find ways forward - proper, big, breed-wide solutions, not just the ad hoc one of some responsible breeders doing the right thing as they see it.

Part of that is a recognition that there is a problem. And, really, anyone who tries to suggest that the bulldog as a breed IS a healthy one, is in the kind of denial that is doing dogs a real disservice. I'm not saying people deliberately bred the bulldog to be a wreck; it's something that has happened, for many different reasons, over the years. But we now have the awareness and the skills to change things and it is time we did.

Jemima

JeanGenie wrote: The fact that Jemima thinks it's okay to despise the owners of certain breeds says a lot more about her than it does about dogs.

But of course I never said that. Please, JeanGenie, don't just make things up to discredit me. I'm sure there's lots that you can find that I really did say to beat me up with if you so wish.

Jemima

>>The fact that Jemima thinks it's okay to despise the owners of certain breeds says a lot more about her than it does about dogs.
>But of course I never said that.

That's certainly what "If, for instance, you have a bulldog I think it's acceptable for you to be 'tarred' with having an unhealthy breed. If, however, you have a border terrier I'd say it was an unfair charge." sounds like. Perhaps you should have worded it more carefully.

Any idea why Katien's weimaraners should have caused her to be abused in the street following your programme, other than that they're clearly pedigree dogs, and the programme told the public that all pedigree dogs were unhealthy freaks?

Jemima you are not direct with your accusations but most of us on here are can see your veiled critisms and snide comments for what they are, just because they are delivered in a politician like way does not make them anyless cutting.
No one need make things up to discredit you you do a good enough job everytime you get drawn into a showdown on this board.

Jemima,
I agree, you did say that you do not think it's ok for someone to be shouted at in the street. You do think, however, that it's ok to tar any example of particular breed deemed as 'unhealthy' as not being a healthy dog. As I said in a previous post, I think this is very wrong and totally unfair to someone who may have gone to considerable lengths to find a healthy example of a breed, to then have the dog deemed unhealthy by association only.
I am not arguing about the fact that some breeds do have issues - they clearly do and there are many, many threads on here in which people agree with that in some shape or form. But, as I said earlier, saying these things on a forum is one thing, but PDE left the general public with the impression that all pedigrees are unhealthy - and I think that the fact that someone is prepared to yell at me for having Weims just backs that up.

You say many huge things in your post about how to change things. And that's great. But I don't think leaving people with the impression that pedigrees are all unhealthy was a particularly good kind of 'awareness'.
A couple of questions:
1) do you disagree that PDE left people with the overall impression that ALL pedigrees are unhealthy? If you do disagree, can you explain my experience?
2) do you agree that there are people who have, since PDE, exploited the idea that crosses are more healthy by advertising their particular cross-breed for sale as being 'more healthy than a pedigree'?

One final thing. Your comment:
'I am betting, however, that you don't have a border terrier.'

Could you explain that to me?

> the bulldog is the 16th most popular breed in the UK - 3,500 registrations a year as opposed to the otterhound's 50.

and isn't that part of the reason for the problem - bulldogs are popular therefore they are bred by any old puppy farmer or BYB who thinks that they can 'earn' a few quid by breeding. They don't care about health testing, pedigrees or anything else , they are only interested in making money. Yet these are the very breeders that the programme encouraged puppy buyers to visit by putting them off buying from anyone who registers puppies with the KC!

This prgramme was an excellent opportunity to educate the dog buying public to find the best breeders of the breed they have chosen and it squandered that opportunity on a witch hunt, tarring all breeders and all pedigrees with the same tainted brush. Perhaps educating is not as newsworthy as scaremongering?

I wonder how many people, as a result of your programme, have taken the opportunity to produce 'designer crossbreeds' often from breeds whose traits are totally incompatible? Do you make room in your rescue kennels for the designer crosses that are impossible to live with? Do these breeders take their stock back if the owners have difficulty? - I think not! This is not a simple issue of crossbreed healthy/ pedigree breed not. By actively encouraging the production of crossbreeds (with no guidance as to how this could be done sensibly) your programme may be responsible for many more dogs ending up in rescue with behavioural issues that owners can't cope with. As we all know from the programme on Battersea dogs home these dogs won't be given a second chance - there are simply too many to cope with! Wonder if Mr RSPCA vet really thought of that little scenario when he grabbed his 5 minutes of fame?

Dakkobear:

"bulldogs are popular therefore they are bred by any old puppy farmer or BYB who thinks that they can 'earn' a few quid by breeding."

I think the same thing happens on and off to many, many breeds after a bit of publicity of some kind...but can and does also happen with cross breeds. Like you say, I'm sure that many these crosses we keep seeing are largely bred for earning a quick buck or letting little petal have a litter. But the question is, would the opportunity for exploitation of cross breeding exist in the same scale as it does now if it hadn't been so widely publicised that crosses are healthier than pedigrees? Or is this an acceptable outcome of such a programme as long as everyone now knows the problems that exist within cavvies or RRs?

> But the question is, would the opportunity for exploitation of cross breeding exist in the same scale as it does now if it hadn't been so widely publicised that crosses are healthier than pedigrees? Or is this an acceptable outcome of such a programme as long as everyone now knows the problems that exist within cavvies or RRs?

I don't think the market for crossbreeds would have been there had the programme not told everyone how healthy crosses are compared to their pedigree parents. I wonder how long it will be before someone crosses a CKCS with a heart problem to a pug with breathing problems expecting the puppies to be healthy simply because they are crossed? No doubt it has been done already by some unscrupulous person somewhere, these are popular breeds so some unsuspecting, ill-informed puppy buyer will be expecting a 'healthy' crossbreed and will be sold a pup in more ways than one!

someone crosses a CKCS with a heart problem to a pug with breathing problems

Why bother. Most pugs with BOAS usually develop heart problems as a result of the strain on their respiratory system.

Because crossbreeds are healthier ... we've been told so.

I have no doubt you have done your research (now) regarding Pugs and undoubtedly know far more than I however the point re the crosses is well made even if you don't agree with the two breeds used as an example. 

Jeff.

> I have no doubt you have done your research (now) regarding Pugs

meaning?

Katien wrote:
A couple of questions:
1) do you disagree that PDE left people with the overall impression that ALL pedigrees are unhealthy? If you do disagree, can you explain my experience?

We did point out in PDE that some breeds had only minor problems and, obviously, we only focused on a handful of breeds where it was felt there were serious issues that needed to be addressed. But I don't disagree with you - I think most people watching the film came away thinking there was a serious problem with pedigree dogs - or rather not pedigree dogs per se, but the way we breed them. So the next question is: was the film right to do that? Are pedigree dogs in that much trouble? I'm afraid I think the answer to that is "yes".

2) do you agree that there are people who have, since PDE, exploited the idea that crosses are more healthy by advertising their particular cross-breed for sale as being 'more healthy than a pedigree'?

Yes, I know they're doing this and they're wrong.

One final thing. Your comment:
'I am betting, however, that you don't have a border terrier.'

Could you explain that to me?

I assumed (clearly wrongly) that you had one of the breeds featured in the breed  - probably a bulldog or a basset or a cav or a show GSD.  So I have to confess I was really surprised that you have a Weim. I've been thinking about this since you told me and, although it's a guess, I think the people that shouted at you probably thought your dog was a ridgeback. Or you really did just encounter a nutcase.

Jemima

Jemima wrote - We did point out in PDE that some breeds had only minor problems and, obviously, we only focused on a handful of breeds where it was felt there were serious issues that needed to be addressed. But I don't disagree with you - I think most people watching the film came away thinking there was a serious problem with pedigree dogs - or rather not pedigree dogs per se, but the way we breed them. So the next question is: was the film right to do that? Are pedigree dogs in that much trouble? I'm afraid I think the answer to that is "yes".

Yet you showed my breed having an epileptic fit and made no mention of the heart problems that ARE in the breed.  Could that have been because a) the video of the fitting dog was more 'sensational' and b) if you had mentioned the heart issues, you would have had to talk about the work being done to eliminate them?  You also chose not to mention that my breed completely wiped out Progressive Axonopthy (PA) by the removal of affected/carrier dogs from the breeding programme.  

Just what it says.
Jeff.

I wonder how long it will be before someone crosses a CKCS with a heart problem to a pug with breathing problems expecting the puppies to be healthy simply because they are crossed? No doubt it has been done already by some unscrupulous person somewhere, these are popular breeds so some unsuspecting, ill-informed puppy buyer will be expecting a 'healthy' crossbreed and will be sold a pup in more ways than one!

But you have to be careful about making assumptions here. You have to look at the mode of inheritance of the particular conditions to know what the risks are to the pups. So let's use your 'pugalier' as an example and broaden it out to include the two best known health problems in the individual breeds...

CKCS
Mitral valve disease: inheritance unknown (but probably polygenetic). A condition found in several breeds but not (as far as I can find) in pugs. So you may not be doubling up on the genes for MVD even if you were stupid enough to breed from a cav with a heart murmur
SM: inheritance unknown. Again, not a condition that has been reported in pugs as far as I'm aware. But there have been reports of SM in one or two cavalier crosses (and there may be more out there) so this would be a risk in a pugalier (but it would be less than the risk for a a pup from two SM-affected purebred cavs).

PUG
Brachycephalic airway syndrome: inheritance unknown but clearly strongly linked to conformation. Given that F1 crosses are fairly predictable (usually - but not always - a half-way house) the pugalier puppy is unlikey to have a such a flat face. It should, therefore, have fewer breathing problems than its breathless pug parent (but more breathing issues than its cav parent).
Hemivertebrae: a recessive condition in the GSP and GSD, but unknown inheritance in the pug. However, HV is strongly linked to the  pug's screw tail (nature does not always put the twist in the right part of the spine). A pugalier is unlikely to have a screw tail because, I think I am right in saying, the straight tail of the cav parent would be dominant. The pugalier pup, therefore, should be at a lower risk of HV.

So clearly there are risks with this cross but it does have a fair chance of being healthier than either of its unhealthy parents. Please note that I am not suggesting that this justifies such a mating. If you're going to do it, you should use a cav without MVD/SM and a pug that doesn't suffer obviously respiratory distress/HV.

Jemima

But that is exactly the kind of detail that the programme did not go into Jemima. The programme said crossbreeds were healthier not that some might be healthier but some might not. Just as the public hear that all pedigree dogs are unhealthy freaks, they also hear that all crossbreeds are healthy and that simply isn't true. If it were then surely no labradoodle should have any degree of HD - that is the way the public thinks - we aren't all clued up on our genetics and incidence of inheritance etc but this programme sent prospective owners away from the very people who are clued up about it (ie the responsible breeders) and into the arms of money grubbing puppy farms who only care that their breeding stock make them more money than they cost to keep!

Olive1 - I know nothing about either breed I only used them as they are examples of popular small breeds and they were both shown on PDE.

>The programme said crossbreeds were healthier not that some might be healthier but some might not. Just as the public hear that all pedigree dogs are unhealthy freaks, they also hear that all crossbreeds are healthy and that simply isn't true.

That's exactly the message that was put across by the programme; that all pedigree dogs - especially KC registered ones - were unhealthy; from that the general public extrapolated that non-pedigree dogs are healthy.

Just what it says.

Ok, with your assumption that I did no research Jeff, please tell me as a new prospective pug puppy buyer, where I should look and to whom I should speak to regarding their health?

Or alternatively, I've now done my research. I believe most pugs health problems are down to the way they look. So I come on here and voice my concerns before I go ahead and find a reputable breeder. Wonder what reaction I would get (again).

Your assumption Olive1. Do you now know more about Pugs and their problems than when you purchased yours? If so then I have assumed nothing.
Speaking of assumptions-I don't disagree with your observations re Pugs but the anti- ALL- pedigree phobia that has been created is not, in my opinion, the way to do things. We have a habit in this country of going for the easy target and although the KC undoubtedly does deserve some of the brickbats it is receiving (I have criticised them very heavily over the years) we still have: countless puppy farms,
poorly bred crossbreeds (fashionable or not)
poorly bred pedigree dogs both KC registered and elsewhere.

and as far as I can see only one of these problems can be tackled by the KC straight away because as long a the general public have a "want it now" attitude ALL the others will continue to find buyers. Education is all well and good but people need to WANT to listen

If you found insult where there was none then please accept my apologies but do not assume anything about me, as you don't know me.
Jeff. 

I have to admit I had a number of people call me because I have pedigree dogs after that programme.  Didn't matter that all dogs in our breed have to have certain health tests etc. before being bred from and that in reality the huge majority are very healthy.

Surely *most* people who breed designer crosses are after money and not about the welfare of the dogs they are breeding or the lines, therefore probably have no health tests and no consideration as to the stud or bitch they are using. I find it hard to believe those dogs could be healthier

> the anti- ALL- pedigree phobia that has been created is not, in my opinion, the way to do things

Absolutely agree with you!

Good- common ground :-)
jeff.

It's funny because I think at the end of the day we all share a common interest in improving the health and welfare of all dogs be them pedigrees or cross breeds

I think/hope this is true but what is acceptable collateral damage to one is not to another hence the disagreements.
Some believe the means justify the ends regardless of the cost.
Jeff. 

>2) I think bulldogs as a breed are unhealthy. So, in my opinion (based on a lot of research) it is OK for someone to 'tar' someone who owns bulldogs >as having an unhealthy breed. But that "tarring" should not include shouting abuse at them in the street. Because I think that is wrong.

If it is ok to "tar" someone for having a bull dog but not shouting abuse in the street, is it OK to incite others to shout abuse in the street?

After the MPs expenses scandal broke, some MPs were verbally abused in public.

Reckon that was OK, Kayc?

Jemima

Hi Jemima,

No that is definitely not OK and a very slippery road upon which to travel.  As an example of this- after the World Trade Centre attack some Muslims were abused in the street- reckon that was OK?

Jeff.

> After the MPs expenses scandal broke, some MPs were verbally abused in public

Why do people try and change the subject when a discussion is going on?
Sorry but I have no idea what this has to do with what is being spoken about? We are talking dogs on here and to change the tact/direction is not a reasoned argument imo.

My father does this when he knows he is on a loosing end, it has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

> After the MPs expenses scandal broke, some MPs were verbally abused in public.
>
> Reckon that was OK, Kayc?
>
> Jemima

This is relative to an innocent dog owner, how?

ERm... did you not understand the question Jemima?

would you like me to repeat the question?  re-phrase it perhaps?

Jeff - I think you are correct, to a certain extent this is about collateral damage and what people view as acceptable. And as I said before this will all depend on where you are coming on. To someone who owns, breeds shows etc pedigree dogs that they have gone to the trouble to select carefully, breed responsibly etc etc the fall out probably isn't seen as acceptable. To someone who believes that dramatising the problems within some breeds is the only way to get through to people about the problems they face - it's probably perfectly acceptable to have people pulled up for owning a pedigree.

What bothers me is that all this has pedigree dog breeders up in arms, puppy farmers rubbing their hands in glee at a new way to make a quick buck and all those people who are relatively knowledgeable about dogs can debate this until the cows come home. But the general public don't have access to all the information (or choose not to search it out), they don't understand they whys and wherefores of genetics and ultimately there are still thousands upon thousands of dogs (of any kind) being bred and homed with a complete lack of regard for their welfare. THIS is a massive issue and it isn't being given the time and attention it deserves.
Everyone knows it's there and how bad it is but has this been 'exposed'? Doesn't feel like it to me...

I haven't joined in this discussion due to the fact that I do not have the depth of knowledge that many of you have but, I am the owner of a breed that once was an active hunting hound that now struggles with health and structural problems.

Changes are being introuduced but in my opionion and for the health of the dog, too slowly. The point raised that the public needs to be educated sounds fine but many will still believe that problems will not happen to them or their pup. How many times in our lives has rational and reason, been overruled by a choice of the heart. Choosing a pup in a number of breeds is a minefield of concerns. Even then if we do manage to find a healthy example to join our family what about all of the others, where are they going to end up?

Yes as I said I know changes are being introduced but the one thing that I believe would really help (sorry to go off topic) in the health of all dogs is accountability. Puppies should have some form of permanent ID, that registers them back to a breeder. I understand there will always be individual health problems but when a breed starts to have issues surley accountability is a better way to bring about changes and improvement.

Hi Lacy,

I don't think any responsible breeder would disagree and most do already attempt to keep track of pups bred by them. I also agree that change does need to be quicker but not change just for the sake of it- good changes that actually work. The problem for any legislation is that it generally only effects those that will comply anyway and we, as a country, don't have the money to "police" it effectively. Sure there will be a few high profile cases and then the next fashionable outrage will come along and things will slip back to how they were before.
Until the man in the street realises that buying a pup on a whim is wrong there will be people around to sell it to him. Look at the amount of money the RSPCA claims to have thrown at the problem with, as far as I can see, no real results.
Everybody is responsible and that includes puppy buyers.

Jeff. 

> Until the man in the street realises that buying a pup on a whim is wrong there will be people around to sell it to him.

Jeff,  Yes any legislation only applies to those that comply but it is a start, and you don't have to buy a dog on a whim to get into problems. In some breeds ,more than others. To the public and to those who try their best to be informed it is very difficult to tell the diference between responsible and reputable even those holding positions at the top within their breeds come out with what they what you to hear.

I think I get your drift, so if you are saying we need a KC with real teeth that acts in the common interest then we agree! :-) I bet we both know many people who bought something, be it a dog or a new car, and since their purchase have found out much more about it than they did before. The information is out there but people either don't bother to look or don't know where to look- of course any rules etc could only work with the second group but the information should be more readily available and more transparency is needed. Those holding top positions in a breed that act in the manner you have described should be ousted, no argument from me.
As far as education is concerned I think we have a much bigger problem, the advice of "don't buy a puppy from a pet shop" must have been repeated for at least 30 years, I can remember it on Blue Peter from my childhood. So to dump all pedigree dog breeders into the same basket is not the way forward as it just creates opportunity for others to make a fast buck with no regulation at all. By all means run the bad ones "out of town" but how? I don't know the answer. If they are struck off the KC register many will continue anyway and the various organisations that are calling for change can't cope with the bad breeders they know about now let alone a new influx. Every year of the many, many puppy enquiries I get at Discover Dogs, Crufts or online the vast majority never ask about health issues, that works in my favour as it enables me construct a short-list but every year I see the very same people out and about with their new puppy, not necessarily my breed or even something similar, and they then proceed to tell me all about it's many trips to the vet- not all fall into this category but too many do.   
If we could come up with good, workable rules that are not intrinsically flawed they should be enacted but another problem is that many (not all) of those making the laws either have their own agenda or have no real interest, this weeks DEFRA minister could be next months Foreign Secretary.
jeff.

OK, so everyone (so far) agrees it wasn't right for people to abuse MPs after the Telegraph exposed the expenses scandal.

So the next question is: given that some innocent MPs suffered abuse as a result of it, perhaps the Telegraph should not have exposed the scandal?

I am sure you now see where I'm going with this. I asked the seemingly-random question because Kayc asked: "If it is ok to "tar" someone for having a bull dog but not shouting abuse in the street, is it OK to incite others to shout abuse in the street?"

Clearly, Kayc is suggesting that PDE incited this abuse (and am sure others would think this too).

Now I am guessing that most of you would think that the exposure of MP's expenses was a good thing. It has, in fact, been horrendously painful for some MPs and some are suffering financially a little unfairly as a result of it -  but I think most of us would agree that it has led to much-needed reform of the system.

My point is that you cannot judge something by the reaction it provokes in some people.

Jemima

Hi Jemima,

I agree with you on this point however surely the basis for these "reactions" should be balanced, factual and unbiased? Therein lies the problem with so many things, when we have a section of the public that fire bomb a Paediatricians house because they can't tell the difference between that and a paedophile any public debate must be balanced and informed or innocent people suffer through no fault of their own. 
By the way you did not answer my question re Muslims.

Jeff.

Now I am guessing that most of you would think that the exposure of MP's expenses was a good thing. It has, in fact, been horrendously painful for some MPs and some are suffering financially a little unfairly as a result of it

Because they have had to pay back money they wrongly claimed so that is their own fault for trying to work the system so no sympathy at all for them No unfairness there I think and any 'horrendous pain' is purely down to their greed as the ones that didn't have any questions raised about their expenses can hold their heads up high.

My point is that you cannot judge something by the reaction it provokes in some people Yes you can Jemima if the reaction is based on only part of the story as you failed to show the whole story.