> yet to have had my home visited by the breeders of my pedigree dogs! 

There are many breeders out there who do visit the premises of puppy buyers, I have gone to the homes of puppy buyers and if I don't hear from them regularly I have just turned up on their doorstep with no prior warning. Another breeder friend had a puppy buyer out in Switzerland, she actually went to Switzerland to check him and his property out before she would allow the puppy to go. Over the years she went out several times to make sure the puppy was ok and there were no problems.

I know you go to a Breed Club, but how do people find out about this.  On the internet if you put in say poodle puppy it does not come up with the Poodle Breed Club, but various puppy selling sites and local newspapers.  You must remember that for a lot of people breeding dogs is for money. 

I think that what I am trying to say albeit badly is that too many magic words "accredited breeder" "KC registered white labradors" "registered breeder puppy pack" "free insurance" are used and people are confused and as you well know who can resist a puppy.  Therefore, you get bad press about a minority of breeders which makes the television and newspapers, but nothing about any Tom, Dick or Harry who can make a quick buck.

Of course for your advert to come up first on a website you have to pay and this is only going to make breed clubs harder to find out about.

You are right but to be hoest the people who could help to change that are people who write for dog magazines aimed at the pet buyers and the TV companies who are happy enough to criticise but do nothing to show pet buyers how to find the good breeders.
Today the RSPCA have launched a web site called get puppy smart which is designed to help puppy buyers.
http://www.getpuppysmart.com/ It is a very basic guide which all good breeders and the KC have been saying for some years. It is nicely a presented cartoon and ends with a screen which suggests people go back in February 2011 for more advice, (it is February today but I did not see any differences). Unfortunately it does not give guidance on how to find a good breeder although the guide lines for what constitutes a good breeder are pretty much what I would expect a breeder to do. Perhaps it is a case of watch this space? It could be a step in the right direction as it educates as much as anything.

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?

Oh how I agree JH.

I recently suggested that concept on another thread but most people (breeders) who replied were against it.

I pointed out that several years ago trainers were facing a similar problem to what has emerged within breeding.  A minority  of harsh and/or ineffective trainers were giving the field of training a bad name.

Some organisations sprung up offering membership to those 'trainers' who understood the basic concepts, theories and principles of how dogs learn and who operated under a phylosophy of kind but effective methods.  Many trainers didn't like the idea of having to be 'tested' themselves to prove their ability, knowledge and experience but others did.

More and more academic qualifications, coupled with proven experience  are required and deemed necessary in order to train dogs as is shown in the KCAI schedule.

I cannot see any reason whatsoever why breeders should not have proven academic knowledge of canine genetics as a must, together with knowledge of the breed and lines of the breed they want to be involved in before being allowed to operate as a 'breeder'.

If we want to be seen to be 'professional' in our chosen field then we should accept that we should have proven academic knowledge and an understanding of said field.

> 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<
And maybe at the same time, insist that ALL people who produce puppies of any sort or size (and let's face it, Jemima, somebody has to produce the puppies that you rescue) do likewise!

Suzieque wrote: "I pointed out that several years ago trainers were facing a similar problem to what has emerged within breeding.  A minority  of harsh and/or ineffective trainers were giving the field of training a bad name.

Some organisations sprung up offering membership to those 'trainers' who understood the basic concepts, theories and principles of how dogs learn and who operated under a phylosophy of kind but effective methods.  Many trainers didn't like the idea of having to be 'tested' themselves to prove their ability, knowledge and experience but others did.

More and more academic qualifications, coupled with proven experience  are required and deemed necessary in order to train dogs as is shown in the KCAI schedule."

God forbid that breeding should go down the road of training and "animal behaviourists" - the market is absolutely flooded with charlatans plying their trade amongst naive dog owners. If you find one effective trainer in 100 you would be doing very well.

> God forbid that breeding should go down the road of training and "animal behaviourists" - the market is absolutely flooded with charlatans plying their trade amongst naive dog owners. If you find one effective trainer in 100 you would be doing very well. <IMG class=qButton title="Quote selected text" alt="Quote selected text" src="/images/mi_quote.gif" width=20 height=10>

That was why I disagreed with the posters well intentioned ideas of having breeders qualified in genetics/breeding.

My friend has been running training classes for 30+ years and has no paper qualifications, she came though the ranks of Obedience competition with her husband competing up to test C and judging Obedience.

She keep up to date with all the latest ideas and adapts them to her classes.

Her main experience comes from being a dog owner of mainly rescues as many as 16 between them at one time, now down to 3 GSD (all rescues), collie re-home, Sheep killing Farm collie (nightmare) and a 'Foster Failure' (fostered by her but decided she couldn't let him go) supposedly a Yorkie (about Russel size), due to reduced health.

>I cannot see any reason whatsoever why breeders should not have proven academic knowledge of canine genetics as a must, >together with knowledge of the breed and lines of the breed they want to be involved in before being allowed to operate as a >'breeder'.

>If we want to be seen to be 'professional' in our chosen field then we should accept that we should have proven academic >knowledge and an understanding of said field.

There is a world of difference between having proven academic knowledge and an understanding of a field of knowledge and being a good breeder.

Some people gain paper qualifications quite easily, but fail to have the necessary ability to apply what they know.   Some would take the qualifications simply to 'look good or better than others' but have no intention of following what they know.  

This hasn't only been apparent in the field of animal training and behaviourists, one only has to look at the field of finance to know this is true - every man, woman and child in Britain is now paying for the way Highly Qualified Bankers have 'lost' Billions of pounds  - yet the Bankers still give themselves bonuses which would run a small country.   They appear to have no conscience for what they have done.

As long as someone else pays.

And this is the main problem.

Good breeders have been working for years - one breed club I know of has been working and paying for 30 years - to improve the health of their breed through genetics, testing and breeding.  They also work and raise money to fund breed rescue, yet very few, if any, of their own pups/dogs ever need the help given. 

Why should breeders who are doing everything right be expected to take the rap for those who don't?   Why should they have to 'prove' via qualifications how good they are.  Are their pups and healthy, tested adults not proof enough that they have the knowledge of what they are doing?

>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.

Then the puppy farmers and backyard breeders have already won!

Where do you think these dogs and puppies come from?  Certainly not the breeders who health test and breed carefully.  Each one of their pups is precious and would be welcomed back if the owners couldn't keep them.  They usually have homes waiting and a network of people who know of homes waiting.

Puppy Farmers and BYBs never look back - and rescues pick up the pieces :(    Indirectly and inadvertently supporting the indiscriminate breeding of dogs on a commercial basis :(

If commercial puppy farmers and backyard breeders had to take back and be responsible for the puppies they bred, they'd be a lot more careful of what, and how many, they bred and who they sold to.

That was why I disagreed with the posters well intentioned ideas of having breeders qualified in genetics/breeding.

And anyone can set themselves up as a breeder with absolutely no idea of what they are doing and  to the detriment of our dogs.

At least if there is some sort of professional, academic requirement, which the KC is trying to provide with its KCAB scheme, then it sets those breeders with the forethought to research and understand genetics apart from those  who breed based on nothing more than a whim.

It also offers some sort of protection to Jo Public as he can choose to go to a 'professional' breeder with proven experience and knowledge, rather than a BYB or PF.  It also offers protection to our dogs as they would be bred from a position of knowledge and understanding which should eradicate many of the problems highlighted by PDE.

And in reply to the person who thinks the market is flooded with people calling themselves 'behaviourists' without the qualifications to go with the title we already have a market flooded, according to this thread, with PFs and BYB. What sets them apart from the 'responsible breeders'?

A few years ago the market was full of 'quacks' but at least Jo Public knew that in going to a qualified GP he had a better chance of  receiving good medical advice than to go to an unqualified person! 

Who would you rather choose to represent you  in a court of law?  A professional lawyer or the man next door who had once appeared in court himself. 

Sure sometimes it goes wrong even when consulting a professional but that doesn't mean the idea is not worth implementing.

As a footnote, but too late to edit, I've seen many instances on CD of posters referring people whose dogs have behavioural issues to COAPE and APBC and for those with training difficulties to APDT or KCAI to ensure they get a 'reputable' behaviourist or trainer.

Who would they refer those looking for a reputable breeder to?   We all know that the KC holds lists of breeders but how do people differentiate between a qualified  and an unqualified breeder from a 'list'?

The KC are attempting to make their register of breeders more than just a 'list of breeders' with the introduction of KCAB.  But why is there only one such body trying to ensure breeders are somewhat regulated and qualified in what they do? And why such resistance amongst breeders to get recognised qualification?  Isn't it their own interest?

And this is not meant to upset anyone who considers themselves a responsible and knowledgable breeder.   But there were many trainers out there who also knew their craft and felt they shouldn't have to quantify their knowledge with proven academic certification.  However,  in doing so they affiliated themselves to responsible, recognised bodies and agencies to whom people could safely be referred such as those referred to at the top of this post.

No-one has to get qualifications to be  a trainer, and many that have paper qualifications are in practical terms useless.

Good breeders by the nature of doing it properly will be educating themselves, they don't need to be forced into it, ditto good trainers.  The results speak for themselves.

Good breeders do not individually need to have extensive genetic knowledge if they use the information that those that have do.  We use Vets, Breed Clubs and Scientists to back up our interest and experience.

> Who would they refer those looking for a reputable breeder to?&nbsp;&nbsp;

The breed clubs.  Those who join breed clubs have a deeper interest in their breed and are able to access all the stored and actual knowledge of fellow members and educate themselves about their breed. 

Those who are journeymen/apprentice/novice breeders will be being mentored helped and supported by their seniors.  This was my experience,a dn what I myself have tried to do with those who have gone on to breed from my stock.

This is the point by being part of an organisation we are none of us working in a vacuum.

Yes as in a y club or organisation there may be the odd disagremetns power struggles unrelated to theri purpose, but in the main it works.

> But why is there only one such body trying to ensure breeders are somewhat regulated and qualified in what they do? And why such resistance amongst breeders to get recognised qualification?&nbsp;

Because the only way to have uniform standards is to ahve oen governing body.

Why resistance, because our lives and activities with our dogs are meant to be a hobby.

No-one has to get qualifications to be  a trainer, and many that have paper qualifications are in practical terms useless.

But when Jo Public is looking for a trainer he knows if he gets one recommended by one of the recognised organisations he is more likely to get a 'good' one than a bad one.

Why resistance, because our lives and activities with our dogs are meant to be a hobby.

I can and do sympathise with your point of view, which is fine until the objects of that hobby  are living creatures with long term health and welfare implications and which are being sold for not  unsubstantial sums of money.

I also appreciate that you can be referred to breeders through breed clubs but one point that was very apparant in the PDE programme was the very close ties between breeders, the showring fraternity, judges and breed clubs with many individuals being involved in all areas and swapping 'hats' for various occasions. 

When people are so closely involved it becomes difficult for them to remain objective about the breed, its appearance, the interpretation of the breed standard, relative health issues etc.  I remember the gentleman who was asked about the appropriateness of the GSDs with the over-sloping hindquarters and being shown a picture of an earlier GSD where the slope was much less pronounced.  This gentleman was both a breeder and judge I think and he was quite adamant that the 'show' GSD was anatomically the correct version of the dog!  Quite clearly, these dogs could hardly walk let alone function as they should as a utility breed.

Likewise another breeder and shower of Basset Hounds was shown a picture of an earlier Bassett where the legs were slightly longer so supported the back more and this breeder's response was if he bred a dog like the earlier version he would never breed another.! To him, the dog he bred (and won the show with?) could not lift its chest and stomach off the floor because the leg length was far too short to support the back length but to him that was OK.  So if breed clubs consist of likeminded people who see these exaggerations as 'correct' and acceptable, how is change going to happen and how does that help Jo Public?  Jo Public might get a dog whose parents are health checked but he may also find with maturity that the dog  is actually totally unfit for purpose because it has been bred to the breed club's  'accepted' but totally over-exaggerated traits to match someone's interpretation of the breed standard?  Such closeness can stifle objectivity.

You will have shades of opinion within any group of people, and there are just as many who do not hold the opinions you quote, with a more moderate but at least by belonging to a group with common interest and knowledge gives a good basis.

The back yard breeder who is free to breed any which way they want with nothing to stop them, not reputation, peer pressure, or ethics will continue as they are, and it is these that actually produce the majority of puppies, along with the commercial breeders.

So even if everything in the KC show/work camp was perfect, it would only be the tip of the Iceberg and hardly noticeable by the general public who in the main are still buying or breeding badly.

I saw the article and thought the picture of the old Bull Terrier terrible, weedy and roach backed.  I have seen much nicer moderate ones in an old film about a fighting Street dog whose father was a champion, and eh got into the show and beat him, might have been an old Disney one, 1940's probably.

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.

ahhh but we all know that the theory and the practice often do not match up - that's why it was so disappointing to have such an over respresentation of genetic and other scientifuc experts on the new Dog Advisory Council and no experienced breeders of numerically and genetically small breeds .....it's only when those that delight in 'highlighting the malparactice' are able to produce the goods themselves that we will really trust their 'expertise'

Yvonne

I saw the article and thought the picture of the old Bull Terrier terrible, weedy and roach backed.  I have seen much nicer moderate ones in an old film about a fighting Street dog whose father was a champion

And that might well be so but surely, when we reach a point where what we see as cosmetically or aesthetically acceptable in a breed is actually detrimental to the dog then our priority should be to work in the interest of the dog and not our own.  To do otherwise is both cruel and exploitive.  Humans have a very powerful position in that they have most control  over the breeding of pedigree dogs. 

Surely we humans have a duty of care to the animals we have brought into our lives and sought control over and should not misuse that power.

And this is why we need people to look at the history of the breed (the average person is in dogs for 5 years) so they can see where it developed and that the breed is changing and if it is becoming too exaggerated then a step back needs to be taken, and more moderate individuals selected.

I don't know of any health issues directly connected to the heavier bone and more pronounced curve of the bull terriers foreface other than the eyes are somewhat deeply set and small, and for my eyes becoming less attractive.

The fact that many are kept extremely overweight to fit the owners idea of gladiator, when in fact it makes them look more like a 'Sumo wrestler'.

I much prefer a breed that requires to be moderate.  Unfortunately there seems a human fascination in the outlandish and different.  I would imagine these people drawn to these breeds then want to accentuate these characteristics more.

Strangely these more exaggerated breeds are hugely popular (if no-one wanted them they would not be bred), where as my hardly changed breed is barely surviving in this country, with Registrations no better than in the 1920's, and 20% of what they once were.

You should take a look at some of the Goldfish varieties!!!

I have never understood why pictures from dogs of yesteryear keep being trotted out  and taken as gospel that these dogs were healthier, lacking problems etc.  What proof do we have of this?  A lot of the pics I have seen, including those of Bassetts and Pugs, almost invariable show animals with very poor fronts indeed, often out at elbow, queen ann shape - not conducive to a dog capable of moving with ease.

Found the film with the Bull Terrirs much handsomer in my eyes: http://www.datahopa.co.uk/host/training-english-bull-terriers/english-bull-terrier-media.htm#films based on the book 'Bar Sinister' called 'A dogs life' an Old 1955 film.

Lots of more athletic looking dogs of various breeds.  A lot of dogs were fitter along with the people I suppose.

And that might well be so but surely, when we reach a point where what we see as cosmetically or aesthetically acceptable in a breed is actually detrimental to the dog then our priority should be to work in the interest of the dog and not our own. To do otherwise is both cruel and exploitive. Humans have a very powerful position in that they have most control over the breeding of pedigree dogs.

Absolutely and many of us try to do this, with countless hours of research and sleepless nights! :-)

>Absolutely and many of us try to do this, with countless hours of research and sleepless nights!>

Exactly!  Well said Jeff.

That's partly why some of this makes me so cross - because as much as excellent breeders make the aforementioned effort, I also believe the more 'informed' of us that are just owners are making that effort too.
Not by way of breeding and trying to improve a breed, but by way of selecting WHO we buy from and educating ourselves as much as we can.

Hope that makes sense!

And that might well be so but surely, when we reach a point where what we see as cosmetically or aesthetically acceptable in a breed is actually detrimental to the dog then our priority should be to work in the interest of the dog and not our own. To do otherwise is both cruel and exploitive. Humans have a very powerful position in that they have most control over the breeding of pedigree dogs.


And this is why good breeders sell pups as 'not for breeding'.  To protect both the breed and the actual pup sold and their immediate offspring.   Yet it is ignored by many people who have no interest except money and they often put a poor or over-typed example of the breed to another one exacerbating the problem - and who gets the blame? 

I've seen so many overcoated poodle-crossbreeds lately it's tragic - owners can't cope and the dogs look really uncomfortable in hot weather even when clipped - clearly their breeders don't care about the welfare of the pups, just the size of their bank balances.

And anyone can set themselves up as a breeder with absolutely no idea of what they are doing and  to the detriment of our dogs.

At least if there is some sort of professional, academic requirement, which the KC is trying to provide with its KCAB scheme, then it sets those breeders with the forethought to research and understand genetics apart from those  who breed based on nothing more than a whim.

It also offers some sort of protection to Jo Public as he can choose to go to a 'professional' breeder with proven experience and knowledge, rather than a BYB or PF.  It also offers protection to our dogs as they would be bred from a position of knowledge and understanding which should eradicate many of the problems highlighted by PDE.

JP already has the opportunity to go to a good breeder with years of expieriance...however in so many cases he chooses to purchase from anyone, It is education of the puppy byers that is sorely needed. If JP bothered to do a little homework, speak to breed clubs and be a little more carefull in his purchase the BYB and Pf's would loose out. Educating the public should be a priotirty. In all hobbies there are the ones who like to cut corners, make something a bit "special" but with some reserch it is possible to find the proper ways to do things.

Strangely these more exaggerated breeds are hugely popular (if no-one wanted them they would not be bred), where as my hardly changed breed is barely surviving in this country, with Registrations no better than in the 1920's, and 20% of what they once were.


A few months back when i went to my brothers house his wife was saying about how terrible it was that some breeders were ruining some breeds by breeding exargated dogs, and i know she likes basetts so i found a photo of a working basett and a photo of a dog who in my opion had way too much excess skin. i showed her them both and her reply was "eww thats ugly! id rather have that show one" eventhough she had just been complaining abut exargrations.

If people only wanted pups from parents who arnt exagerated then the breeders who breed them would be forced to think again.

if people only wanted pups from parents who are'nt exaggerated then breeders would be forced to think again
Yes they would, but how do we do that? perhapes the KC needs to change, and the judges. So dogs with exaggerated features can't be shown.

Puppy farms are other problum, people want a puppy, cheap and now, they don't want to pay a lot and they want it now, they don't want to wait.
They don't realise it will probaly die in a few weeks time.
I wonder if the KC, or Defa, or the RSPCA produce a lealet warning about puppy farms. If so they could be put in supermarkets, free papers etc.
Does anyone know?

As a member of 'Joe Public' I'd just like to make one point in their defense. It isn't always the 'want it and want it now' mentality which drives them to a PF or BYB. They're buying a puppy so presumably dog lovers in some sense? So I doubt they'd be delighted to know how some breeding 'stock' are treated and would surely not knowingly by a sick puppy?
It's ignorance that does this.
Therefore wholeheartedly agree that puppy buyers need mass education. Surely this is the root to the whole issue?
It's unfortunate that the only thing to touch the 'public' heart in recent times has been PDE, it seems. So their current education consists of avoiding pedigree dogs and buying cross-breeds. Which is being exploited in some areas and has harmed those who are doing the very best by their breed. It certainly hasn't enlightened the public to responsible breeding practices and the availability of health tested and responsibly bred pups (pedigree or cross breeds).
Whether or not that was the intended outcome of the programme, it seems to be the over-riding result. From my own personal experience anyhow.

It isn't always the 'want it and want it now' mentality

No it's not always that, another reason that I have heard lots of times is that they felt sorry for the pup.
 
Education is what is needed.

> As a member of 'Joe Public' I'd just like to make one point in their defense. It isn't always the 'want it and want it now' mentality which drives them to a PF or BYB. They're buying a puppy so presumably dog lovers in some sense? So I doubt they'd be delighted to know how some breeding 'stock' are treated and would surely not knowingly by a sick puppy?
> It's ignorance that does this.
> Therefore wholeheartedly agree that puppy buyers need mass education. Surely this is the root to the whole issue?
> It's unfortunate that the only thing to touch the 'public' heart in recent times has been PDE, it seems. So their current education consists of avoiding pedigree dogs and buying cross-breeds. Which is being exploited in some areas and has harmed those who are doing the very best by their breed. It certainly hasn't enlightened the public to responsible breeding practices and the availability of health tested and responsibly bred pups (pedigree or cross breeds).
> Whether or not that was the intended outcome of the programme, it seems to be the over-riding result. From my own personal experience anyhow.<

Katien, you have hit the nail on the head!   Jemima Harrison has done Joe Public, good breeders and dogs themelves a great disservice by her programme.   Puppy farmers and people wishing to make a quick buck by breeding "cute-sounding" cross breeds have all jumped on the bandwagon - "we're not associated with Kennel Club/ pedigrees, our dogs aren't KC registered - therefore our dogs are healthier than those nasty pedigree snob dogs".   Sadly I think hell will freeze over before JH accepts this point - and an article in a dog magazine - with absolutely no press publicity in newspapers/on tv - does not go far in rectifying this point.

> It's unfortunate that the only thing to touch the 'public' heart in recent times has been PDE, it seems. So their current education consists of avoiding pedigree dogs and buying cross-breeds. Which is being exploited in some areas and has harmed those who are doing the very best by their breed. It certainly hasn't enlightened the public to responsible breeding practices and the availability of health tested and responsibly bred pups (pedigree or cross breeds).
> Whether or not that was the intended outcome of the programme, it seems to be the over-riding result.

Well said Katien - I agree completely. I am not and never have been a breeder so no axe to grind. I do believe that some breeds have gone 'beyond the pale' when breeding for particular visual traits to the detriment of health. However what is needed is a "Good Breeders Explored" programme not another PDE.

If the public don't know what they should be looking for in a breeder then they will have no idea what to look for. Not all puppy farms or bad breeders have filthy premises with multiple breeds and hundreds of (often sick )puppies. Many look clean, almost clinical - as with the doodle breeder LJS was asking about just last week. Just as many are the 'had to have a litter before we got her spayed but I'm not a breeder and I would never show my dog so I don't need health tests' type.

What is needed is a programme the GP can latch on to that concentrates on 'How to find the best breeders'. Rather than blaming one small part of the dog world for all problems in pedigree dogs, giving the impression that only cross breeds are healthy specimens with great breeders, show the differences between good and poor breeders - tell the GP what to expect, be up front about the issues and, more importantly, what is being done to ameliorate them. That is a programme I would watch and support.

> Yes they would, but how do we do that? perhapes the KC needs to change, and the judges. So dogs with exaggerated features can't be shown.
>
> Puppy farms are other problum, people want a puppy, cheap and now, they don't want to pay a lot and they want it now, they don't want to wait.
> They don't realise it will probaly die in a few weeks time.
> I wonder if the KC, or Defa, or the RSPCA produce a lealet warning about puppy farms. If so they could be put in supermarkets, free papers etc.
> Does anyone know?

The KC are moving ahead with your leaflet idea, and I am surprised nobody has mentioned it here yet. They have joined forces with a major pet shop chain (not sure if I am allowed to tell you which one on the forum) They have put a list of Kennel Club Accredited Breeders in each shop. All Accredited Breeders were asked if they would like to be in the directory or not, in areas were dog theft is rife some did not want to be included understandably.

A friend of mine bred a litter of shelties, they were thoroughly health tested and all passed the health tests which were for sire and dam of the litter and then the litter passed their health tests which included vet check up and eye screening for inherited disease under the British Veterinary Scheme. A lady I worked with at the time asked me to recommend a litter, so I sent her to this litter. About a month later she told me she had bought a puppy and was very pleased with her purchase. She said she was 'not ripped off' and the breeder was not like my friend who wanted a lot of money for a puppy. Instead she had gone to another 'breeder' who charged a lot less. When I asked her if she had followed my advice and asked about health testing she said her pups breeder had told her that this was not necessary as she had never had a health problem and did not therefore need to test and she did not show her dogs. As it turned out the pup she bought was sadly affected by CEA. Had she bought a pup from my show breeder friend she would have had a healthy puppy which was screened for CEA before sale and had passed it's test.

> I agree completely. I am not and never have been a breeder so no axe to grind. I do believe that some breeds have gone 'beyond the pale' when breeding for particular visual traits to the detriment of health. However what is needed is a "Good Breeders Explored" programme not another PDE.

I think most good breeders would like to see something like this being aired, however it is not likely to happen as it is not sensationalist enough to provide the programme maker with their 15 minutes of fame which they can wheel out for a fee to every newspaper and tv or radio programme at every Crufts or similar event.

I have never understood why pictures from dogs of yesteryear keep being trotted out  and taken as gospel that these dogs were healthier, lacking problems etc.

I think the reason why those pictures were intorduced is to show that through selective breeding over  comparetively recent years that certain features have become exaggerated.  With this exaggeration has come health issues directly as a result.  EG the exaggerated sloping hindquarters in the GSDs has lead to more HD and frankly dogs unable to wlak, or as in the bulldog, heads so massive that none can give birth naturally or with the pug that the face is so squashed up that it has terrible respiratory problems and easily damages the eyes or the Bassett that is so low slung on short legs that it has serious back problems.  These issues would not have arisen in the earlier dogs simply because the features were not exaggerated.

This is a separate issue than the hereditary health problems as a result of close/inbreeding etc.

I've seen so many overcoated poodle-crossbreeds lately it's tragic

But it isn't only reserved to crossbreeds.  I have recently had this point raised on another thread.  I have a pedigree with a coat that is totally over the top and not only requires a lot of grooming but it makes life for the dog almost unbearable.

But again, you only have to go back 6 generations (I have all the photos of his breed lines) to see that such extensive coats was not the norm.  What can also be seen is that with each generation the coat has got longer and thicker.  The very first of this 6 generation and every successive dog in the line was a champion so the breeders were not looking to add anything to the breed line that was missing - everything was there.  Correct body conformation, coat colour, gait, eye colour, height etc.  The extensive, long thick  coat was bred  to catch the judges eye to produce the next champion to the point where this dog (and other show lines like him) can't bear the summer due to the heat or the winter due to the wet and whose lives are ruled by their coat and its care.

It is totally un-necessary and also totally unacceptable to ruin a dogs life for some cosmetic purpose.

Absolutely and many of us try to do this, with countless hours of research and sleepless nights

And with a few letters after your name for all that hard work and study it gives Jo Public a clear indication as to how responsible a breeder you and others like you are.

There's no way BYB and PFs would go to that amount of trouble so all 'qualified' breeders would have the edge and with hightened awareness amongst the public of the KCAb or similar, PFs and BYB would be on a hiding to nowhere.

There is tons of info on the KC website http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/ lots of guides: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/doginformation and yes the KC are asking judges to avoid exaggerations http://www.fitforfunction.org.uk/ have several times over recent decades changed the wording of breed standards where the interpretation was for excessive features and detrimental to health and soundness.

Can be a bit hard sometimes to find what you want.  have found using the search facility works, by putting in th topic, the putting it again into search this site.

I've just had what I've heard referred to as a "light bulb moment"!

When I've bred a litter, I have never had to advertise the fact - they have sold through breed club/kc listings (last litter was bred before KC accreditation came into existence).   Good breeders have no reason to advertise their litters as word of mouth is the best advertising.

Therefore, Joe Public has very little knowledge of the fact that Brainless/KayC/Marianne/Perrodueaga/and every other good breeder on here do breed excellent dogs - until they come on to this forum/look at the Breeders' Section here.

So - how can we raise the profile of good breeders??

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?

I find it funny how she has gone quiet since you have asked this question,, i would be interested to have a answer for this.

Just read this weeks main article in our dogs about her publishing a leaflet about shar peis full of none truths, perhaps thats why shes hiding...

So - how can we raise the profile of good breeders??

We have no need for qualifications or letters after our name!  The word that needs to be spread is that if people want a decent puppy from a breeder who does their very best with what's available, then they should contact the breed clubs.  Potential owners who care about the puppy that they're buying do this already. 

I've never had any problems finding good, caring families for my puppies either through recommendation from people who have had my pups before, or through other exhibitors.

Owners who don't bother to research look in local papers or free websites and as far as I'm concerned, we all have a choice.  They make theirs and have to live with that choice for the next 12 years.  What is the phrase "Buy in haste and repent at leisure"?  Those who make the most noise about bad breeders tend to be those who have done little research before handing over their money.  Always ready to blame someone else.....

I do the best that I can for my girls, their pups and the breed.  I'm not responsible for the decisions that others make...........

Sorry - I've just realised that when I wrote "how can we raise the profile of good breeders" I didn't put the point clearly enough - as you say, good breeders have no need to raise their profiles - what I should have said is "how do we alert Joe Public to the existence of good breeders".

So - how can we raise the profile of good breeders??

Well, its been said on here that people go to the KC listings or Breed Clubs when sourcing a breeder so, perhaps info could be given out here  as to what qualifications breeders can and do have.

In general the KC could raise the profile of the KCAB scheme.

Any formal  qualifications could be added to any individual breeder's website and as you so rightly said, a good breeders reputation is spread by word of mouth.  So if formal qualifications/scheme membership  are added to the breeders profile it raises general awareness of what Joe Public should/could  be looking for.

Breeders quals could also be added to Show Results listings etc etc  There must be loads of ways to raise public awareness.

And anything that sets good breeders apart from PFs and BYBs must be a positive.

> In general the KC could raise the profile of the KCAB scheme.

I did post earlier perhaps you missed it, the KC is promoting the KCAB and has as part of this joined with a large commercial pet shop chain which now has directories of KCAB's listed. You can go into the shops and ask to see them.

> Therefore, Joe Public has very little knowledge of the fact that Brainless/KayC/Marianne/Perrodueaga/and every other good breeder on here do breed excellent dogs - until they come on to this forum/look at the Breeders' Section here.
>
> So - how can we raise the profile of good breeders??

This is why I argue that good breeders need to be listed on all the puppy sites so that they can be an alternative to the usual back yard/puppy farm fodder.  A website that gives details of health results etc that is regularly updated will come to the fore on Google when people search for the breed.

This is something breed clubs need to ensure that someone updates their site weekly so that it is one of the first likely to be found, and also that they are listed with all the search engines possible, using the right tags helps.

Puppy farming leaflets are available here.

http://www.puppylovecampaigns.org/posters.shtml

Somebody also said on here about people having to live with their wrong choice of puppy for 12 years, unfortunately they don't. Much easier to get rid of it and get another one.

http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2011/7448.html

> http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2011/7448.html

"One in five puppy buyers no longer have their pet two years later"
That's grim reading - but then why are we so shocked?

"One in five puppy buyers no longer have their pet two years later"
That's grim reading - but then why are we so shocked?

I bet that VERY few of those were bred by responsible breeders!  WE can't be responsible for what other people do! :( 
And WE wouldn't want those owners anyway!

> I've just had what I've heard referred to as a "light bulb moment"!
>

Lokis mum. You are so right. I have two BH's and have loved the breed for the last fourty years and think I am one of the few owners who regularly visit CD.  Found this site one evening by chance and my first unfortunate post to which there was not one response was about breeders (sorry) but was probably upset by yet another visit to our vet. I have come to realise that those who are regular posters are passionate about their dogs,  relevant health issues and by nature of the forum I guess you would have to be that way to constantly be around to give the sort of advise that is given.

I think that in some breeds such as mine (described some time ago as a car crash) it is very difficult to know where to go for a healthy pup and there is the problem. We did our research (or so we thought) and still got caught out, and please don't like my vet suggest that the breed has so many problems that it should not be here at all. Yes it always had an odd shape but what has been done to what was once a hound bred for the field is in my mind obscene. I'm also sorry to say that some breeders that I wouldn't recommend are listed very close on this forum.

So there lies the problem where does Joe Public go?

In general the KC could raise the profile of the KCAB scheme.
I believe that the RSPCA? used to put an ad at the top of Yellow Pages/ Thompson Directory headings saying that "Pups should always be seen with their Mother" and people still chose to ignore that and accept puppies delivered in laybys. :(

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink! :(  It's the attitude of the irresponsible public that needs to be changed.

> But it isn't only reserved to crossbreeds.&nbsp; I have recently had this point raised on another thread.&nbsp; I have a pedigree with a coat that is totally over the top and not only requires a lot of grooming but it makes life for the dog almost unbearable.
>
> But again, you only have to go back 6 generations (I have all the photos of his breed lines) to see that such extensive coats was not the norm.&nbsp; What can also be seen is that with each generation the coat has got longer and thicker.&nbsp; The very first of this 6 generation and every successive dog in the line was a champion so the breeders were not looking to add anything to the breed line that was missing - everything was there.&nbsp; Correct body conformation, coat colour, gait, eye colour, height etc.&nbsp; The extensive, long thick&nbsp; coat was bred&nbsp; to catch the judges eye to produce the next champion to the point where this dog (and other show lines like him) can't bear the summer due to the heat or the winter due to the wet and whose lives are ruled by their coat and its care.
>
> It is totally un-necessary and also totally unacceptable to ruin a dogs life for some cosmetic purpose

Is your dog a rescue or did you buy him as a puppy? If the latter can I ask why you bought him then if the coat wasn't as it should have been? If people stopped buying dogs that have been bred for exaggerated traits there wouldn't be the market for them. All the time people accept the over exagerations those breeders will continue to breed them. Some research beforehand might have shown the type of coats that were being bred in that line?

Of course he may have been a rescue and not chosen by you as a puppy :-)