>I think that those who make all the noise would better direct their efforts if they tried to do what they keep talking about and >breed some perfect dogs.  Then they'd find that genetics is about probabilities and not black and white facts that they think they >are quoting.  I don't think that any of them are actually trying to improve any breed are they?  Just complaining about those who >are - that's the easy bit!

>...yep that's my feelings as well - if we're doing such a bad job then let our detractors have a go - let them 'save' the pedigree >dog world by producing heathy well constructed dogs of excellent temperaments who look like their breed - perhaps if they can >show us how 'easy' it is to do we might have a bit more respect for their opinions !

I can't understand why Jemima, and those who support her, haven't already done this?  They have shouted enough about it.  Jemima claims to have been trying to change things for years, yet has never bred a healthy dog herself - or she'd be telling the world about it.

Time to put their money where their very loud mouths are.

When they've proved to the rest of us how very easy it is, then obviously we'll all follow suit as they will be able to tell us all exactly how they did it so that we can repeat their successes.

:)

here's also juvenile renal dysplasia being investigated, following some worrying puppy deaths,  and after testing at the Champ Show last year revealed a frighteningly high rate of flatcoats carrying the JRD gene. As it happens, I am not sure the current panic about this is justified as there is a question mark over the validity of the test being offered. Given the small gene pool (every flatcoat in the Cambridge study went back to a single common ancestor), monitoring the situation rather than culling would appear to be the most sensible approach.

Would it not be more accurate to say that over 50 breeds were tested for JRD and every breed produced a result saying 75% are carriers, than to imply it is only Flatcoats in whom there is a high incidence?   I'm just wondering how such a round, and high, figure is possible in over 50 breeds.

Btw, who caused the panic?  If memory serves me correct it was you, Jemima!

Jemima reading through all of the posts here (not in one go) may I ask a question?  Do you realise how much damage you have caused to pedigree dogs, and just how much of a get out of free card you handed to the puppy farmers?

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.

Jocelyn, can you please confirm whether the puppies you have bought have come from health tested dogs.

> flatcoats are healthier in terms of eyes (and hips too) and this is undoubtedly testament to very vigilant breeders who have embraced testing and the breed not being as popular as goldies and labs.

ie not yet in the 'production line' for BYB and puppy farmers!   which is when you get problems as a result of the indiscriminate breeding they do.
Chris

Jemima reading through all of the posts here (not in one go) may I ask a question?  Do you realise how much damage you have caused to pedigree dogs, and just how much of a get out of free card you handed to the puppy farmers?

I agree that some unscrupulous, fast-buck breeders have used PDE to flog poorly-bred, un-health-tested crossbreeds, particularly. But don't forget that this trend started way before PDE and it is even worse in the USA where PDE has had much less impact.

But overall and overwhelmingly.. I believe that in highlighting the damage done by selection for looks and inbreeding within a small gene pool that there will be a huge long-term benefit to pedigree dogs - one that is already being felt by the much greater emphasis on health and in more care being taken to not reward exaggerations; by the change in breed standards; by the pretty revolutionary move (if not far enough) of the KC to introduce vet checks at Crufts/champ shows; by the increase in KC funding for health; by the huge increase in breeders contacting the AHT since PDE wanting help with the development of new DNA tests; by empowering health reps within breeds to get tougher with those club members who ignore health; by publicising the Imperial study which the KC had decided to keep quiet about despite its devastating findings regarding genetic diversity; by encouraging the KC to get tougher with intransigent breed clubs (eg the pekes); by demanding that the KC considers outcrossing more often as a viable solution for some breeds (eg Dalmatians); by empowering the veterinary establishment to toughen up; by making the KC ban the mating of first-degree relatives and to develop Mate Select which will further discourage close mating; by raising the issue of the damage done by popular sires and by putting pressure on the KC to improve the ABS.

Could this have been done without the uncompromising stance taken in PDE? Could it have been achieved by, for instance, the much softer "Good Dog/Bad Dog"? I don't think so.  Critics have been trying to raise the alarm for decades. They were being ignored. I am by nature far more nuanced that PDE might have you believe and I wish we had had longer than 60 minutes to explore the solutions rather than just the problems. But we had an hour of primetime telly and I (and everyone else involved with the production) felt the situation was just so serious that it justified our approach.

I accept that it has created some problems too and that there is some pain to go with the gain. But I honestly believe that PDE will go down as the moment it changed for the better for pedigree dogs. Clearly, many here feel differently. But while taking on board some of what you say here, I also get a huge amount of positive feedback from elsewhere (including from other breeders) - and of course what we said was the problem has been fully backed by three independent reports into dog breeding, including one co-funded by the KC itself.

And if I keep coming back here to get beaten up by you lot, it's because it always generates PMs from those who agree/want more info and because I hope that by batting on about it the message does seep through. I realise I'm very single-minded about it and it ain't to everyone's taste, but then I feel strongly that you - the good responsible breeders who DO care passionately about your breeds - need to be doing more, particularly as regards safeguarding the future of your breeds by looking at the bigger picture.

Jemima

Would it not be more accurate to say that over 50 breeds were tested for JRD and every breed produced a result saying 75% are carriers , than to imply it is only Flatcoats in whom there is a high incidence?   I'm just wondering how such a round, and high, figure is possible in over 50 breeds.

Btw, who caused the panic?  If memory serves me correct it was you, Jemima!

Actually, Heddwyn, I didn't know that over 50 breeds were tested for JRD and that such a high percentage across the board were found to be carriers (or more correctly they should be called 'affecteds' as DogGenes claim it is a dominant condition with incomplete penetrance). But if you're right, it makes me even more sceptical about this test.  The researchers either have the wrong markers, or there are so many other genes exerting control over its expression that the test is of very limited value. I do know that very few dogs have died of this - and while any dogs are of course a concern - an enormous amount of care needs to be taken before culling.

I don't remember causing panic over JRD. Very early on in the discussion on my own flatcoat list there was input urging extreme caution from a breeder I rate + trust from another breed who had gone through the same scare in her breed. I have repeated those concerns a couple of times.

Jemima

Actually, Heddwyn, I didn't know that over 50 breeds were tested for JRD and that such a high percentage across the board were found to be carriers (or more correctly they should be called 'affecteds' as DogGenes claim it is a dominant condition with incomplete penetrance). But if you're right, it makes me even more sceptical about this test.  The researchers either have the wrong markers, or there are so many other genes exerting control over its expression that the test is of very limited value. I do know that very few dogs have died of this - and while any dogs are of course a concern - an enormous amount of care needs to be taken before culling.


I must have missed something, because I don't recall having read about culling being recommended

I don't remember causing panic over JRD. Very early on in the discussion on my own flatcoat list there was input urging extreme caution from a breeder I rate + trust from another breed who had gone through the same scare in her breed. I have repeated those concerns a couple of times.


What you actually did was, out of the blue, announce on your list that 75% of Flatcoats proved to be carriers, thus setting the cat among the pigeons.  You may have diluted the message eventually, but not before the original message was circulated.

You made an extremely good program about dogs detecting cancer, such a pity the same can't be said of your follow up work and these random 'darts' you fire.

I mean culling as in the "not breeding from" sense. There is an often misplaced kneejerk reaction from breeders to not breed from carriers and that can cause major problems in a small (genetically) breed.

In the interests of accuracy, here's what I actually wrote on my flatcoat list:

I hear that 75 per cent of flatcoats from which DNA swabs were taken at the Champ Show have been found to be carrying the gene for juvenile renal dysplasia.

This is a dominant condition (meaning dogs only have to have one copy of the mutant gene to be affected) and extremely serious. Thankfully, it has low penetrance, meaning that even in dogs carrying the gene only 2-5 per cent of dogs will show clinical symptoms.  However, it is important to know the DNA status of breeding stock because dogs that appear to be clinically unaffected can, if carrying the gene, pass on the disease to their offspring.  That said, if three-quarters of the breed is carrying the gene, it will be be very difficult to breed away from it.

Does anyone know if this is true? Also, how large the sample size was?

Has anyone here had a dog affected with this condition?

I can't see anything wrong with this although no doubt it caused consternation among those who were trying to keep it quiet (an approach that absolutely infuriates me, particularly when I hear there was discussion to try to make sure I didn't get to hear about it.).  My post raised the issue, attempts to qualify it and asks for more information. The subsequent discussion very quickly raised doubts about the validity of the findings.  And, actually, the fact that I DID raise it allowed input from those in other breeds who gave really useful information - info that should have helped allay some fears. This is one of the benefits of open and honest discussion about health problems.

I just don't buy the "you-caused-panic" argument. It's a condition, like all the others, that flatcoat owners should be aware of, even if the information we have about it and the gene test is currently incomplete. Fortunately, there were some in flatcoats who felt similarly and so contacted me.

Jemima

>I agree that some unscrupulous, fast-buck breeders have used PDE to flog poorly-bred, un-health-tested crossbreeds, particularly.

At last! This is the first time you've conceded that this happens, and that your programme fuelled it. For acknowledging that you are to be congratulated. The problem is, how to right that wrong?

>Could it have been achieved by, for instance, the much softer "Good Dog/Bad Dog"? I don't think so. 

This is where I disagree fundamentally; I believe so much more could have been achieved if you'd shown the alternatives. By simply saying (and this is the message received by the general public) "All breeders of pedigree dogs, especially KC registered ones and, even worse still, show dogs, aren't interested in health and their dogs are almost guaranteed to be unhealthy" and not editing out the appalling statement from the (thankfully ex) RSPCA vet that pedigree dogs are all "mutants" you immediately turned people into the hands of 'random' breeders and puppy farmers. Such a waste - if you'd shown the efforts some breeders go to, by health testing, DNA testing, researching pedigrees and all the rest of it before breeding a litter, you could have shown people what they should be looking for when searching for a puppy to join their family.

The vast majority still don't know that such tests even exist - why you didn't educate them about it I'll never understand.

And if I keep coming back here to get beaten up by you lot, it's because it always generates PMs from those who agree

Well, I too could send you a PM Jemima but I won't.

I'll say it publicly - You have my support 100% and if I could do more than just agree with what you've done to highlight the problems that were emerging years ago in pedigree dogs I would do it.

I have just re-watched  PDE and when I see the reponse, of both featured breeders and KC representitives alike, to the problems identified  in the breeds that featured I feel physically sick at their ignorance and dismissive attitude.

I hope you never give up on raising public awareness of what was and is still happening.

> when I see the reponse, of both featured breeders and KC representitives alike, to the problems identified  in the breeds that featured I feel physically sick at their ignorance and dismissive attitude.
>
>

How an interview is edited can alter hugely what is put accross, not the same as a live piece.

How an interview is edited can alter hugely what is put accross, not the same as a live piece.
After watching that program, only the naive and dog ignorant wouldn't understand that.  Those of us who have dealings with journalists certainly understand.

After 3 interviews from my local newspaper about different dog related items, I refused to see them anymore because what they printed bored no resemblance to what was actually said.  Television editing is even more misleading.

You can con some people all of the time but those that know better .... no way! :)

But surely this whole argument was about the negative effects on the general public, who want a pet dog. That dog breeders understand the background to it, and understand the things that weren't said is irrelevant really if Joe public is now under the impression that ALL pedigree dogs are unwell, breeders are con men and they are better buying something with no paperwork and not buying from someone with a 'mutant' show strain.

Totally agree with you Jeangenie. As I have consistently said the programme was tabloid red top paper sort of  programme causing a knee jerk reaction and driving the public into the hands of the puppy farmers and back yard breeders.

>I can't see anything wrong with this although no doubt it caused consternation among those who were trying to keep it quiet (an approach that absolutely infuriates me, particularly when I hear there was discussion to try to make sure I didn't get to hear about it<

With Jeangenie's comments in mind perhaps this "secrecy" you seem to think is going on in flatcoats is merely a conspiracy theory you have dreamed up? Bringing the attention back to focus on you? As I said earlier
"Regarding the JRD issue we are following the guidance and advice of our breed club health committee who are very wisely proceeding with caution and making information known to members at each step along the process".

Perhaps by setting yourself up as the "judge" of pedigree dog breeders, you have forgotten that working together works better, had you not considered joining a breed club, before trashing the member breeders? If you had perhaps you would see much more clearly what is going on and not have to rely on hearsay, which it seems you clearly are. Full information on any health aspect of flatcoats is delivered to members at the AGM by the health committee and is later published in the year book. Obviously we cannot comment on the health committees report as we have not had the AGM yet. Maybe you should be asking your questions after that?

I find it interesting that you have used the word "culling", and yet when used by breeders in your programme you never explained what breeders meant by culling stock from a breeding programme, leaving the public at large with the idea that dog show breeders regularly kill cute little puppies because they have bred puppies which are not as good as they wanted for the show ring. Double standards?

And finally as Jeangenie says: >The vast majority still don't know that such tests even exist - why you didn't educate them about it I'll never understand.<
When will you address the general public's lack of knowledge? Perhaps the final push is to stop judging those who do try to do the right thing, and call us silly names like "nay-sayers" and to educate the public about the health tests, so that when they go to buy a puppy or decide to breed from their dogs because think little flossy is such a nice dog or it would be cool for the children to see a litter being born you might actually start to change things, as there is nothing more powerful to bring the bad breeders into line than a knowledgeable public.

Think about it... would you buy a car if the garage owner said "Well it's totally clapped out, done more miles than the Apollo spacecraft and if you can get it off the forecourt you'll be lucky, but hey I can give you a push if you like" or from a garage owner who could tell you a full history of the car which may have just only been 2 or 3 miles in it's life time?

As I have said before Jemima you keep saying the same over and over, there is lot that most breeders here would agree with you if you gave them a chance AND listened to what they have to say. You might find things to write about on your blog and in the magazines and newspapers (particularly around Crufts when pedigree dogs are bought into the public eye) but as you keep saying the same thing time and time again people are beginning to ignore what you are saying, the reaction tends to be "OMG there she goes again..... yawn.... boring". Try a new line, educate people about the health tests and the research going on and people will want to know more.

Maybe you do get a lot of emails and private posts from your visits here, but I would not mind betting I get many more because when I do write something I try to explain things so that people can feel comfortable enough to ask questions openly and you would be surprised at how many pet owners write because they have come across CD asked questions on the forum and then privately asked me to explain in more detail.

Thank you for answering my questions Jemima I'm not going to persue your answers as I can only lead a horse to water as they say.  I do however, wish you would put as much of your passion and energy into producing a programme that leads pet buyers to the correct places to purchase their puppy, making informed choices and help fight the good cause of getting rid of the horrid puppy farmers that many people are now turning towards.

How an interview is edited can alter what is put across

What about the film of the GSD going off his legs in the show ring or the Peke with the deformed face, altering the editing can not change what you see. Both those dogs won, so the others must of been even worse.

I also support Jemima, she is right not enough is being done.
We are still seeing dogs like the GSD and the Peke.

Do the owners buy dogs like the ones I have mentioned who are champions from puppy farms?
No I did'nt think so.

before you all start to twist my words I DO NOT support puppy farms

Jocelyn can you answer my question about whether the parents of dogs that you have have been health tested. Also, from your previous statement I cannot work out whether you breed or not.

I do however, wish you would put as much of your passion and energy into producing a programme that leads pet buyers to the correct places to purchase their puppy, making informed choices and help fight the good cause of getting rid of the horrid puppy farmers that many people are now turning towards.

People are working on this.

RSPCA campaign about to launch. Dogs Trust also close.

I am also working on something (but do have a television career and a rescue making demands on my time). My focus is also on pressuring the KC to stop registering untested dogs from unchecked breeders - some of them producing huge numbers of puppies of different breeds. Hell, there's even an ABS breeder of pugs that had 15 litters last year. Not a single health test req'd for pugs under the ABS - as there isn't for 60 per cent of KC breeds. When KC registration really means something, there'll be somewhere to point people. Until then, it's incredibly difficult.

Remember that every day I have people coming to me with tales of woe.  Just this week.. the former Chair of one breed club using a stud dog from a litter in which three of the litter sibs have died young for intractable idiopathic epilepsy. These people often have very plausible websites.  I accept this probably skews my view but how on earth is Joe Public supposed to be able to differentiate when there are people behaving badly at the very top in some breeds. (And I'm sure you could all name some in your own breeds.)  This kind of inside info is really not available to the puppy-buying public.

Jemima

People are working on this.

RSPCA campaign about to launch. Dogs Trust also close.

But not you? Mind you when I mentioned obscene puppy farms you felt the need to reply 'obscene' as if it was a wrong statement to make, I was very surprised.

Can you tell us why you are always going after the KC & breeders who use the KC and not the breeders who register with the other two registers? Are the other two registers whiter than white? Is the KC really the worst register?

Alison, please... why on earth would I think puppy farms are not obscene?

Jemima

Can you tell us why you are always going after the KC & breeders who use the KC and not the breeders who register with the other two registers? Are the other two registers whiter than white? Is the KC really the worst register?

I've covered this before, Polly, and you know the answer. It is the KC and KC breeders who claim to the breed guardians. They're the ones who should be getting it right - but they're not.

Make KC dogs the real pride of Britain. Make the choice for puppy-buyers a total no-brainer. 

Jemima

> and you know the answer.

I'm not sure I do I thought you were concerned about all dogs and their welfare. If you don't tackle all the registers you are like the boy sticking his finger in the dam not realising it is about to collapse around him. What happens when all the good breeders give up? They will if they keep getting slated, I know of several who have given up, so then when you have destroyed the only thing people want to work with what will you be left with... Oh yes the puppy farmers... the back yard breeders and numerous little registers every where... oh but by then your dim friends at the RSPCA will be ordering compulsory registration of all dogs and charging people to own dogs..... and this gets us where exactly??? We all know what happens with car tax the responsible pay up if they can afford to run a car, the irresponsible don't. So once again dogs are done a bad deal.

Surely it is better to make it compulsory for people to to take an ownership test like a driving licence test and then you can educate them so they they have some knowledge about dog health and welfare before going out and buying a puppy. How often do you hear of dogs being sold into the wrong types of home? I recently helped with a rescue of a large dog who had been sold to somebody living in a flat in London, who worked all day. The poor dog was sold as a puppy and was totally untrained never got out of the flat and at two and half years of age was being given up because it spent it's time destroying everything. When on the RVC stand a few years ago at Crufts a lady came to the stand she said "Where can I find one of those sweet little grey dogs I have seen on the telly?" It turned out she was talking about a weimaraner. She said when I suggested they were unsuitable for a flat in a city that I was definitely wrong as she had seen the owner pick the dog up and cuddle it and that it was very small.

Surely it is better to make it compulsory for people to to take an ownership test like a driving licence test and then you can educate them so they they have some knowledge about dog health and welfare before going out and buying a puppy.

I have no problem with that.

And perhaps we could also make it compulsory for breeders to educate themselves - or pass a test - before meddling with the canine genome?

Tonight, someone has left this comment on my blog:

"Cavaliers where a short nosed dog that was bred to be long nosed again , perhaps this is why they have problems such as long palates, SM. Short nosed dogs also have a different heart structure to cope with less oxygen. what is an advantage to one dog may cause problems for a dog of a different body / head type.
The short nose is caused by faults in the genes and they are still going to be there if the nose is bred longer . if you want to "recreate" a breed as they did with the cavalier, use dogs that are already close to the shape you want , dont try and backtrack, you may end up with an unfortunate mismatch"


I am guessing (but hope to god that I'm wrong) that this a breeder.

Jemima

> How an interview is edited can alter hugely what is put accross, not the same as a live piece. <br />After watching that program, only the naive and dog ignorant wouldn't understand that.  Those of us who have dealings with journalists certainly understand.<br /><br />After 3 interviews from my local newspaper about different dog related items, I refused to see them anymore because what they printed bored no resemblance to what was actually said.  Television editing is even more misleading.

I have had the same experience.  I did a newspaper interview and didn't recognise the resulting newspaper piece at all, it was so different to what I had actually said.   And I agree,  TV can be even more misleading - especially as it's easier to alter digitally these days.

actually I agree on this point... the ABS requirements should be the 'bottom line' for Kennel Club registration - would'nt this make it all a whole lot clearer for prospective puppy buyers ?- yes I know that breeders not prepared to comply would go to other registers but let them go and  make KC REG a benchmark of quality.

Yvonne

>It is the KC and KC breeders who claim to the breed guardians. They're the ones who should be getting it right - but they're not.

There you go again, generalising with sweeping statements, damning all and sundry.

Why don't you emphasise how it should be done? Publicise the health tests and promote the breeders who use them, instead of tarring everyone with the same brush?

Just to change the subject slightly Jemima... Can I ask how much you have donated to health research funding? I mean personal money not money via your company? Also when your flatcoats have died how many have died young? and were any of those dogs taken to Cambridge as many flatcoat owners do? or had an autopsy to confirm cause of death? or had tissue sent to Cambridge? I am just trying to work out if you support research in words only or are you actively funding or contributing to research yourself?

Then why did you feel the need to reply 'obscene'. I have had a puppy farmed Golden Retriever and believe you me that is why I am so against puppy farms and the damage they can do to a puppy. I never want to have a Golden Retriever like that again. She was the most frightened, aggressive and temperamental Golden Retriever imaginable, but we still loved her and cared for her for the 11 1/2 years that we had her. I would not wish a dog like that on anyone. I swore that my next one would be a well bred dog and I have been so delighted with the breed and cannot see why you would want to trash good breeders the way you do. You keep saying that yes, there are good breeders but you are not prepared to do a follow up and repair some of the damage you have done. I was shocked at some of the footage in PDE but by the end of the programme I was completely dismayed that you had trashed even good breeders, and yes, you did, whatever you keep saying. You have opened the floodgates for all the puppy farmers to 'cash in' on you programme. I myself had people ringing within two days of the programme asking why we breed Goldens with cancer after your comments on the programme. Until you are prepared to do a follow up AND do a programme on the puppy farmers then you do not have my support.

It is the KC and KC breeders who claim to the breed guardians

No, No, No, how do you ever come to this conclusion!!!!

People who enter shows are not the breeds guardians,
Anyone can enter a show if they have a dog good enough to win, they don't need to have knowledge, or even understand the history, genetics or lines of their breed. They are not the 'guardians' of the breed.

Anyone can buy a KC dog and find another KC dog to mate with, a 16 year old living down the road can do it! They also have no knowledge but because they have bred a KC dog they are now the breeds 'guardians?'

The truth is most people who own, breed and many who show know nothing, your knowledge far outweighs there's.

A KC dog is open to anyone! which is why there is irresponsible breeding everywhere.

But, then there are the responsible breeders and the people who care and battle for their breeds welfare, they have been doing it for years you need to give credit to these people, we are as incensed about the state of the dog world as anyone!

Hear hear Carrington

All a KC dog is, is a dog that is registered at The Kennel Club which shows it's a pedigree. It's a way of knowing that you have a pedigree dog. The ABS is a step in the right direction to improving on that and is doing, breeders should all be ABS, but in no way at present does KC mean you have a healthy dog, the same as none registered pedigree dogs, cross breeds or mongrels, none of these ways of breeding offer a healthy dog.

Breeders who state health tests and show proof of these with knowledge of their breed are the only people anyone should ever think of getting a pup from.

Just because a family can show you their family tree doesn't mean their children are healthy. :-D This is what needs to be put across, good, responsible breeders, it doesn't make a jot of difference whether you have a KC pedigree, none reg pedigree or mongrel they all need the health tests.

A KC dog is open to anyone! which is why there is irresponsible breeding everywhere

Quite right.
My puppy farmed bitch was bought from a large pedigree dog shop in Manchester (we all know where that is)
She was ill from the day we brought her home. We spent more time at the Vets than anywhere and her pedigree was all Welsh farmer. That is why we researched into the breed and found out about puppy farmers. No wonder she had her problems, she had been dragged from a farm and brought a long distance in a van to be sold from a room with a glass door on so that the 'vendors' could look at cute puppies. I know in our heart of hearts we 'saved' her but there should not have been that need. If a strong programme was done about puppy farming and researching a breed and health tests then there would not be people as naive as we were and there would not be an income to be gotten from these poor animals. Pity someone isn't doing a programme like that!

Forgot to say that she was KC registered.

Just out of interest Alison, did you ever contact the Kennel club and tell them she had been sold though a dealer which is against KC policies?

We had people that were breeding KC reg pups and selling them to this outlet have their registration privileges taken away in our breed.  Didn't stop them breeding, but at least they were no longer KC reg, and interestingly an alternative was set up by someone formerly owning this place.

So many people are duped into thinking they have a registered dog.  We get enquiries to our breed club all the time looking for studs for the alternative registered bitches, and they are very suyrprised thsi does not ewquate to 'proper' KC regsitration..

Posted by Jemima Harrison
I am by nature far more nuanced that PDE might have you believe and I wish we had had longer than 60 minutes to explore the solutions rather than just the problems. But we had an hour of primetime telly and I (and everyone else involved with the production) felt the situation was just so serious that it justified our approach.

not read the last page (late for work) so if you have allerady been asked this sorry but
Have you considered doing a follow up maby? showing the solutions, what good breeders are doing ie healt testing, traviling hundreds of miles for new studs, not breeding for exgerations (can never spell that word) ect, and showing where not to get a puppy from?

Yes we all know there is still room for improvment (i like so many would love to see all dogs health trested befor pups being able to be KC reg) but it would help so much more if the general public knew where to find a dog with the best chances of being healthy.
I know people who dont see a problem with buying petshop pups as the shop says the breeder is licenced so they think its a good caring breeder who health tests not a breeder only doing it for the money.

That is an excellent idea Jo, I was brought up to believe in 'hybrid vigour' 'mutant showdogs', I stumbled across Champdogs when looking for help with various training problems and as a by product ended up learning a lot about how the good guys do things, it completely changed my thinking about breeding not just dogs but any animals very quickly. My next dog is definitely going to be a well researched pedigree and if I don't get grilled by the breeder thoroughly then I'll be looking elsewhere!
It would be brilliant if a good television program were made to show 'ordinary' folk like me the right way to find a dog.

> I can't understand why Jemima, and those who support her, haven't already done this?  They have shouted enough about it.  Jemima claims to have been trying to change things for years, yet has never bred a healthy dog herself - or she'd be telling the world about it.

I don't know about Jemima, but I would be too concerned about the far too high numbers of dogs already in existence to consider adding to it.

I have often thought that I would like to breed dobes "properly" - to be the breeder I have yet to find, who tests for thyroid in every dog in my line annually, and for DCM annually, as well as vWD and so on and so forth.

But whenever I think about it, I go on to remember the thousands of pups being produced every year - of every breed and crossbreed - that are already looking for homes, and the thousands of adults not finding homes that need them, and I honestly don't think I could ever bring myself to purposefully bring more pups into the world.

Not everything is about leading by example - and doing the research and highlighting mispractice is just as important as showing the world how it should be done.  Not all of us are born to breed dogs, we have our uses in other ways :-)

Suzieque - once again I applaud you, and agree wholeheartedly.  I too believe the reaction to PDE has been vastly OTT - yes, more could have been done to highlight the good breeders, but perhaps that would be material for a follow-up program looking at what has been done to improve things?

Perhaps more of us should make useful suggestions for the future rather than just shooting down the actions of the past and berating those who are trying to help in whatever way they are.

Jemima - you are way behind with your information about JRD in flatcoats - there are some serious anomalies with the 'test' that you should be aware of - can keep you up to speed if you email me privately

Jo

Actually, we are having to do our own research to find out the true facts, Polly.....

Jo

Labdadoodles are NOT a "breed" and it is misleading to say that they are: They are a cross for which the stupid pay well over the odds and then moan that they have a "mad" dog. Most Labradoodles are the wildest dogs on 4 legs and never seem to grow out of it. I run dog training classes so have some knowledge of the behaviour of these dogs. If people want a "non-moulting breed" why don't they buy a poodle? (Rhetorical question which I could answer myself!)

if people want a "non-moulting breed" why don't they buy a poodle?

agree entirely and the irony as you already know is many doodle/oodle/snoodle dogs do moult!

Kennel Club Accredited Breeder, We have a wonderful litter of yoodles for sale,

this made me want to scream! how can an accredited breeder breed crosses? do the kc know about this?

cross posted this because it seemed relavent to this subject

> Actually, we are having to do our own research to find out the true facts, Polly.....

We will be getting the updated report and Society health committee report at the AGM in April. It would hard for the health committee to write to every member individually and cost a lot of money which would have to be found from somewhere, perhaps the health research into cancer budget? So the best option is to give the full report to all members who can choose to hear this by attending the AGM or as you say they can do their own research.

The information put on Facebook today is I believe very out of date by at least two years as was the information put out not so long ago.

Needs reporting to the KC, it may be untrue, or they may be going against the rules.

We will be getting the updated report and Society health committee report at the AGM in April. It would hard for the health committee to write to every member individually and cost a lot of money which would have to be found from somewhere, perhaps the health research into cancer budget? So the best option is to give the full report to all members who can choose to hear this by attending the AGM or as you say they can do their own research.


Blimey. We live in the age of the internet! The Society has a website - why can't the Health Committee keep people up to speed there? The latest info is needed by all who are breeding now. And what about all those people who are not members of the Society? They need to know as well.

Jemima

How do people know where to buy a puppy from.  Yes we have all heard of puppy farms, but when you arrive there is no big sign saying puppy farmer.  There are many sites on the internet saying accredited breeder since but no mention of accredited by who.  It is easier to buy a puppy from a breeder than get a dog from a rescue centre.  I have yet to have had my home visited by the breeders of my pedigree dogs! 

I do not understand how you can you have a working type and a show type of the same breed.  Surely the breed should do what it was bred for.

> How do people know where to buy a puppy from.

You go to the BREED CLUBS.   They will also tell you which tests the parents of the pups should have and what the results mean and also whether the pups should also be tested before leaving their breeder.     Some Breed Clubs have health information on their websites and some breed clubs are working together to ensure Health information is available to puppy buyers and breeders alike.

Breed Clubs and their contacts are at the bottom of the page on each breed on the KC website.

Ah Jemima you are there did you see my earlier post? I was just wondering if you had as I don't see a reply.

Yes we do have the internet, but at the AGM we do have experts who give us the chance to question them and we have the time to ask questions of the committee and health committee, posting info on the Society website denies us this opportunity as the Society website is not a forum like Champdogs is, I thought you knew that.