I was watching a program on purebreds on Tv about a week ago...

One was talking about the ridgeback that the ridge is actually a deformality(a mild form of Spina Bifida.) in the breed which plagues the dog with problems- and the puppies that are born with out the ridge are either culled or altered for pet- but these ones are actually more healthier...

Then there was one on the King charles which has a brain problem or something- kinda missed that part, but anyhow this dog wins best of show and has the same problem but yet the lady still breeds it- how could this dog win best of show with this problem to be passed onto his puppies- isn't that just foolish for a breeder to do that? I thought breeders try to better the breed to get rid of these things so not to pass onto the puppies- the lady would give no comment.

There was also a bit about the pug, bulldog- that they really cannot do what they were bred for because these dogs have been so altered for our desire and not for theirs....

Don't get me wrong i love the purebreds but I don't believe in inbreeding/cross breeding (sorry if I offend anyone)  well wolves don't do that only certain ones breed in the pack. We certainly would not do that with our own kind so why would we want to do that with our pets- I think its just wrong and you are just asking for trouble later on in the breed. Maybe if that was not done these animals would not have the problems they have today- the show just made me very angry and had me questioning purebreds!

I think this is it: http://www.thepetextraordinarium.co.uk/page.asp?id=90                If this is the case- then what are our breeders going to do to correct the breed so the dogs can be more true and not made to what we feel is more acceptable?

Sorry for the rant but it really angered me and made me sick! I feel so sorry for our beloved furkids, we are suppose to be making them happy and healthier not sad and sick!

edit to add this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7569521.stm  I almost cried after watching this, especially the King charles, shepherd and the pug...- why would people do this? This is what really makes me question our purebreds...

You're talking about Pedigree Dogs Exposed (these days usually shortened to PDE) -if you do a search you will find hundreds of posts on the topic. It was shown in the UK last year. You can also search the KC website for it and see all the press releases. It's not all black and white.

This was the PE which had us all up in arms over last year.

They never promoted the good that most breeders are doing in terms of health, it was a very one sided show which got most people annoyed.

I can't say much else but can't stand bad breeders on any level.

You have watched Jemima Puddleduck's(or whatever her name is) Pedigree Dogs exposed program. A program that set out to slag off with half truths about pedigree dogs.

For starters the Boxer that had epilepsy & the Cavalier(not a King Charles) with Syringomyelia are not KC registered & not bred by show breeders. The woman who had her dog with asymtomatic SM at stud did not breed the dog featured with the symptomatic SM(which has now been PTS)

The GSD the dog with the loose rear hock joints was not the dog that was Best of Breed @ Crufts(it was a 6 month old puppy & not even related to the other dog.)

The Ridge in RR's is not Spina Bifida. Absolute rot, In Rhodesia the hunters found that the dogs with ridges that they bred were better hunters than those without & so the dogs whilst being bred for ability developed the ridge as a norm.

Few breeders breed siblings or parents to off-spring it is no where need as frequent as it used to be years ago when the breeds were being developed.

Jemima set out to destroy the Kennel Club's reputation & has admitted that the program deliberately omitted all of the health testing/research that is being done to improve the breed, because it wouldn't have made such an impact & wouldn't have caused the problems it did(like perfectly healthy Cavaliers being handed over to rescues-returned to breeders because the owners believe that the dogs will develop symptoms & have to be PTS)

Dollface, do have a look at the thread, so long as you have a day or two to read it all. I agree with you totally, and aired my views along with everyone else in the thread. Some have axes to grind, others don't. Some spent a lot of time defending the indefensible. It makes very interesting reading.

IMO Jemima Harrison did something that was long overdue. The KC certainly weren't going to, and neither were most breeders it would seem. The KC have since (rather weakly I think) rewritten some of the breed standards, to try and address the problem.

Anyway - happy reading.

Yes we all were bitter about this one, now you can see why!

ChinaBlue:

I think I'll look for that thread and read it- I just watched this program last week and very angry after watching it- just couldn't believe what I was watching....

This really makes me question if I want a purebred or a cross that needs saving from the pound.

I have been pretty lucky with my Boston Terriers have not had much problems till now that old age hit- which is understandable...

Makes you wonder if mutts are healthier then purebreds because no one is trying to mold them into what they want, but lets nature take its course....

I always wondered why we are always trying to change the look of the dog then have it resemble the way it looked like years ago and for what it was bred for- how does that benefit the breed?

Just really questioning purebreds- Yes I personally see no need to inbreed/line breed (sorry) thanks I will check that out... So many questions and you no people either way will protect their breed. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the kennel club/breeders should be more about how the breed does for what its bred for not for beauty pagent so to speak- in all maybe we are ruining our breeds because of all of this so called look and feel the need to perfect it more when its actually making life more miserable for the animal... The bulldog we have designed this breed so ridiculas that the poor animal needs AI and C-sections- how does that better the breed? Don't get me wrong I love the Brack breeds but I think this breed would benefit more so going back to the way it use to look not on how we humans designed it. Yes I no people made the breeds we have now- but why do we have to make them so they def can no longer do what they are bred for, can't even breed on their own or free whelp, or their lil faces are so pushed in that breathing is a problem- how is that bettering the breed?   If these were our children (humans) would people be doing this sort of thing? The kennel club should be which dog does not carry these faults genetic/herditary defect those are the ones that should get best in show- cause really doesn't your animal have to be like 2yrs old before all tests are done? Then that should be the age the animal can be entered into show once all tests are done and passed- if not then guess it will never hit the show ring. These tests should be what helps one to get into the show with out them the animal does not get entered then maybe we can be sure that only the tested animals that are free from carrying and bad type gene would not be bred from and ones that are are fixed on the spot so not to pass onto the offspring....

For the breeders that are trying to get rid of defects in the breed like slipping knee's, epilepsy, hip dysplasia ect you deserve a pat on the back, and not trying to mold the animal to have the most tight lil feet, or pushed in face, or certain gait ect then you deserve a medal :-)

Dollface if you looked at the health tests done by the BVA, the American OFA testing etc. you will actually see that the "mutts or designer breeds" are no more healthier than pedigrees, if anything some are even worse, even with the lies their breeders spout!

I believe that if every mutt/pedigree was health tested before they could be bred from that an equal amount would have similiar health problems.  I look forward to the day when this happens so that the proof can be well and truly shown.

This company had a one sided view, the vast majority of show breeders health check their dogs and try and ensure that they are bred correctly.  Yes there are some that would wouldn't want to go anywhere near but that is the same in all walks of life.

Yes true its just sad...

I think animals should have to be tested b4 they ever hit a show ring- with proof of tests being sent to kennel club to prove this animal is a healthy specimen of the breed... If bred with out the tests or bred even after the tests and show they are carrying defects to plague the breed then that person should be kicked out of the kennel club and charged- maybe this way people who breed them with out considering the pain they are gonna cause the animal or even care maybe that will make a bad breeder think twice.... Just my 2 sense---- Iam not saying all breeders are bad just the ones who see nothing but money signs- which makes it sad because its the animal and new owner that suffer in the end :-(

If bred with out the tests or bred even after the tests and show they are carrying defects to plague the breed then that person should be kicked out of the kennel club and charged-

ANYONE can go to the KC's website and check if a particular dog or bitch has been health tested before buying a puppy -all you need is the name of the dog. Also as most breeders aren't members of the KC they can't be kicked out. Membership isn't open to just anyone.

> tight lil feet, or pushed in face, or certain gait

Dollface,

If you think this is so wrong, may I respectfully ask, WHY did you buy/choose the  Boston Terrier - probably one of the most man-made breeds there is?
You wanted a certain breed with a certain 'look' so now perhaps you will get a generic mongrel-type.

> I think animals should have to be tested b4 they ever hit a show ring

This would be very hard, as you can start showing your dog at 6 months of age, and some, if not most tests can not be completed until the age of 2 years.  The only conclusive tests for my breed before the age of 6 months would be a DNA screen for VWD and MPS VII (I think thats the one, maybe added one to many I's)

And then some things change during the life of the dog.  You CERF every year, and this years test may say that your dog is clear from eye issues, you breed a litter of pups, and then a couple years down the line, your dog gets CERF'd again and it now has a eye problem. 

Xraying for patellas, can change as well.  My dog could be clear today from Luxating Patellas, show no signs of it ever happening, and then tomorrow could pop a knee cap out.  Every vet I talked to, say that the xrays will only show a problem if the dogs kneecaps are out, not if they can ever come out. 

And I know a lot of people in dobermans, will breed a clear VWD dog to a carrier.  Should we stop that?

The programme was horrible, one sided, and misleading.  It has done a great dis-service to pedigree dogs.  Mutts are no healthier than pedigree dogs, and it saddens me that people think that they are. 

There are some dogs that never hit the show ring because they are not exactly the best looking dogs out there but many have thrown champions etc. 

After hearing what's happened to someone I know that was due to get a horse on Sunday, the dog world maybe a lot less bad as the horse one and a lot more expensive!

> IMO Jemima Harrison did something that was long overdue

spouting a pack of lies?

shes admitted that most of it was twisting the truth!

i agree with judging that should not lead to physical detriment, i am also in favour of manditory health testing before breeding though i doubt we'll see it, but i loath liars and spin doctors who spout drivel instead of fact.

people on this forum have received verbal abuse because of what that woman did simply because they own pedigree dogs- long overdue you say?

"shes admitted that most of it was twisting the truth!"

Er, no, I haven't actually. Absolutely, the film focused on the things that needed to change - rather in the same way as you haven't seen the Telegraph devoting double-page spreads to all those MPs who haven't fiddled their expenses. But what was there was accurate - except (as have previously admitted)  for us saying that the ridge on a RR is a mild form of spina bifida. We should have said that the ridge on a RR is "associated with" a mild form of spina bifida (dermoid sinus) and this has been corrected for the international version.

An internal BBC enquiry (tougher than you might think) has not upheld any of the accuracy complaints against the programme - including the Kennel Club's.

Jemima

Have you forgotten the part that ended up on the cutting room floor that showed breeder of KC reg Irish & Irish Red & White setters in a good light by insisting on DNA tested normal for CLAD dogs only being bred from ? Didn't make good sensational TV.

Of course you did forget to mention that neither the Boxer with epilepsy & the Cavalier with symptomatic SM were NOT KC registered & NOT bred by show breeders, that wouldn't have made good sensational TV either !

>An internal BBC enquiry (tougher than you might think) has not upheld any of the accuracy complaints against the programme - including the Kennel Club's.

I'm still waiting for the reply to my complaint regarding accuracy from the BBC

And what about the other points raised below Gemima? Were those corrected as well for the international version? Nah, didn't think so!

For starters the Boxer that had epilepsy & the Cavalier(not a King Charles) with Syringomyelia are not KC registered & not bred by show breeders. The woman who had her dog with asymtomatic SM at stud did not breed the dog featured with the symptomatic SM(which has now been PTS)

The GSD the dog with the loose rear hock joints was not the dog that was Best of Breed @ Crufts(it was a 6 month old puppy & not even related to the other dog.)

> Just really questioning purebreds- Yes I personally see no need to inbreed/line breed (sorry) thanks I will check that out... So many questions and you no people either way will protect their breed.

Funny many good working ISDS sheepdogs are in/line bred & that's not for the looks of the dogs. The motto of the ISDS is "Brains before Beauty"

I did talk to one breeder who said she bred mother to son to get real tight lil feet on her Boston's and well never got a pup off of her- I never had the internet when I got my first Boston 11yrs ago just racked up my phone calling long distance.... My husband wanted a Boston and it just went from there....

Iam not saying all breeders are bad- yes I kinda see showing as a beauty pagent but some people enjoy that and if thats what makes them happy- great :-) But I do not and will never agree with inbreeding since there is enough animals around to not do that- I think you will end up with more problems breeding ones so close. Don't do it in people because that would be incest and deformalities so animals are no different.

Sorry the program just outraged me- Iam sure not every breeders does this tests every year- either way why do people feel the need to perfect an animal so much that its has breathing problems, has to be AI and c-sections- to me yes thats not totally normal- thats extreme... The breeder I got my bostons off of was free whelped as with my puppies except for my last litter. I do love the brach breeds, but did people go to far with the bulldog?

Iam not trying to take a stab at people just on how I felt after seeing that program, that was all....

Iam not saying all breeders are bad- yes I kinda see showing as a beauty pagent but some people enjoy that and if thats what makes them happy- great

And what about the dogs? It isn't just about making people happy. It's all very well to say you are against any inbreeding of any kind but the fact is some breeds would be extinct without it. Your own in particular is one of the most inbred anyway which kind of makes your pretendy outrage a moot point.

>rather in the same way as you haven't seen the Telegraph devoting double-page spreads to all those MPs who haven't fiddled their expenses.

That's slightly misleading, Jemima. You're right that there were no double-page spreads of the 'straight' MPs, but each day there was a 'Saints' gallery' of them, and then of course there was the entire magazine devoted to the expenses of every single MP, good and bad.

That's why the Telegraph exposé was respected - it had balance, including the good as well as the bed.

"Have you forgotten the part that ended up on the cutting room floor that showed breeder of KC reg Irish & Irish Red & White setters in a good light by insisting on DNA tested normal for CLAD dogs only being bred from ? Didn't make good sensational TV."

A great deal of material ended up on the cutting room floor - both "good" and "bad". The IRWS's efforts to rid the breed of CLAD are terrific and I was impressed with the level of genetics knowlege among the show breeders I talked to. We were going to use them as an example of what can be achieved - hence why we requested the interview. Problem is that I then found out about the extent of other health issues in the IRWS, how much inbreeding there is and a refusal to outcross to either working IRWS stock ("too ugly") or Irish (red) Setters - disappointing given the incredibly small gene pool. I felt it would be hypocritical. We did, in fact, mention the mandatory health test for CLAD in Irish setters - albeit to point out that it was the only mandatory test that any KC dog has to pass before it can be bred.

"Of course you did forget to mention that neither the Boxer with epilepsy & the Cavalier with symptomatic SM were NOT KC registered & NOT bred by show breeders, that wouldn't have made good sensational TV either !"


So there's no epilepsy or SM in show-bred dogs then? Of course there is. And there's no evidence to suggest show-stock is any less affected than non-show stock.  Hopefully, this is something that will be addressed in the new disease surveillance schemes that should be up and running in the not-too-distant future. The boxer and the cavalier you refer to are both purebred dogs (with show-bred stock in their pedigrees) and were used representatively (as the commentary made very clear). Anyway, there certainly was a symptomatic KC-reg'd cavalier - the one at the start of the film. And, of course, there was the top-winning cavalier being used extensively at stud despite being told by the diagnosing vet to never breed from the dog. And then there were the show-bred bassets, GSDs, pugs, pekes... etc etc.

Re your accuracy complaint to the BBC, you should chase them as I was under the impression that all complaints have now been processed (except for one or possibly two where the complainant has chosen to take the complaint further to the BBC Trust).

Jemima

> Absolutely, the film focused on the things that needed to change

such as the bbc's need to consider whether its sensible to provide accusations of facism in conjunction with inaccurate, tainted and down right deplorable journalism?

> Er, no, I haven't actually

oh sorry, i must have misread a thread a while ago-didn't you admit that two of the dogs featured were not in fact show bred dogs, or that you were inaccurate about ridgebacks and any number of other things?

did you not say that you deliberately slanted the show to the dramatic (rather than the accurate...)

> An internal BBC enquiry (tougher than you might think) has not upheld any of the accuracy complaints against the programme - including the Kennel Club's.
>

given the quality of their customer service i very much doubt its tougher than i think.

And there's no evidence to suggest show-stock is any less affected than non-show stock.

What so upset people was that the programme implied that it was ONLY show dogs that were affected, and immediately after it was aired adverts appeared on the various dog ad sites claiming the puppies for sale were from "parents not show dogs so therefore healthy". Which is just as wrong. My 14 year old daughter has been shouted at in school for attending Crufts, with school kids telling her anyone taking part in Crufts is cruel -because that's the impression they got from the TV.

> What so upset people was that the programme implied that it was ONLY show dogs that were affected, and immediately after it was aired adverts appeared on the various dog ad sites claiming the puppies for sale were from "parents not show dogs so therefore healthy". Which is just as wrong

she doesn't seem to get this does she? the posters of champdogs are in the vast majority pro full and complete health testing, so on that shes preaching to the choir. its the dishonesty, the manipulation and the resulting misunderstanding about dogs thats the sticking point.

> My 14 year old daughter has been shouted at in school for attending Crufts

your poor wee girl :( is she alright?

>> What so upset people was that the programme implied that it was ONLY show dogs that were affected, and immediately after it was aired adverts appeared on the various dog ad sites claiming the puppies for sale were from "parents not show dogs so therefore healthy"

Absolutely spot on Marianne.

Nowhere in the program did the fact that the two GSDs that won at Crufts were both fully health tested & came from generations of fully health tested dogs. The owners of the Boxer & Cavalier bitch(that was PTS)have both stated that their dogs are/were NOT KC registered & not from KC registered parents. I have messages left on my guest book on my website(now removed as they were rude & used lots of obscene words)about my sick, crippled dogs & being an evil person for breeding such sick dogs(the last litter I bred was born in 1985 !!!!!)& selling them to pet owners for profit !(yes they have been reported to their ISP suppliers)

I'm sick of being told I should get a mongrel, cross-breed rescue instead of a pedigree puppy from fully health tested parents who do the job they are bred for(sheepdogs)

That Program was full of half facts manipulated to put ALL responsible breeders of pedigree dogs reg with the KC into a bad light along with the breeders who breed for money.

There was no mention whatsoever about the puppy farmers & pet breeders who churn out litter after litter of puppies of pedigree breeds that may or may not be KC registered for large sums of money. You did not supply advice on how to buy a puppy from a responsible breeder after painting Show/KC breeders in a bad light. You instead opened the flood gates to the puppy farmers, BYB & pet owner breeders because they can advertise their"products"as not KC reg"healthy""vet checked"puppies-despite the fact that the parents & puppies have had no real clinical/genetic tests at all. The adverts can be seen in every local newspaper & on free puppy selling sites"Not inbred, not KC registered, healthy puppies from pet dogs"implying that the puppies are better than those that are KC registered.

Yes there is epilepsy etc in KC registered dogs, but how many pet/puppy farmer/BYB bred breeding dogs have had over £500 of health tests done on them, let alone not being bred from because of an unacceptable result ? Answer ? None, because the breeders either are ignorant of the tests that need to be done or don't test so they can claim their dogs are "not affected"

You picked on the GSD because it is an easy target & so many of the public remember the dogs from many years ago as being so wonderful(they weren't), Why didn't you include the GSDs that have epilepsy in their bloodlines ?? Or didn't you realize that GSDs that are poorly bred usually come from the dogs that are know epilepsy producers who are now off the pedigree ? I know one pet GSD breeder(non KC reg)who actively breeders from dogs with epilepsy & also their siblings & offspring ! No health tests done at all on any of their dogs-but then they don't need them, because only the KC registered dogs have HD, ED, Haemophilia, etc etc etc

& BTW yes I am waiting to hear from the Trust regarding That Program

I am genuinely sorry your daughter was given a hard time for attending Crufts, Marianne. 

However, the point we were making was that of ALL breeders, it should be the show-breeders that are getting right and unfortunately in many cases they're not - in inbreeding, in distorting some breeds to the point of ill-health, in putting purity above health etc.

I do understand - and have said so many times - that people were upset that the programme focused so much on the bad but I've always argued, and will continue to do so, that the programme should give the good breeders the impetus to insist that the bad breeders do better. I have certainly had many, many letters, emails and phone calls from breeders saying exactly this.

Anyway, there's probably not a huge amount to be gained by reycycling the same hated-it/loved it arguments as both sides are pretty entrenched. I know it has been painful for some, but absolutely believe in my heart that pedigree dogs will benefit (already have done in some instances) from the upheaval. But of course there are some who are never going to agree and that's their perogative. Only time will tell who is right.

Jemima

> However, the point we were making was that of ALL breeders, it should be the show-breeders that are getting right and unfortunately in many cases they're not - in inbreeding, in distorting some breeds to the point of ill-health, in putting purity above health etc.

Many working ISDS dogs are quite heavily inbred, didn't you know that ? Wonder why they were not on That Program ? They aren't bred for anything but working ability & inbreeding to known producers of good working dogs is quite normal

You never mentioned that ALL breeders, puppy farmers, BYB, Pet owning breeders should be doing health testing only the Breeders who register their puppies with the KC

>but absolutely believe in my heart that pedigree dogs will benefit (already have done in some instances) from the upheaval. But of course there are some who are never going to agree and that's their perogative(prerogative). Only time will tell who is right.

Yer right meanwhile you continue to import mongrels from Ireland to rehome/sell over here

> there's probably not a huge amount to be gained by reycycling the same hated-it/loved it arguments as both sides are pretty entrenched

I would like to think my opinions are not entrenched Jemima.
I have shared my opinions with you before and just want to remind you that, despite agreeing with a great deal of the sentiment of your original programme, albeit a little 'sensational' with the facts, I truly hope you give guidance to viewers in the next one.

It's all very well telling large numbers of people the problems but surely now is the time to advise how to source a puppy from breeders who are trying their damnest to breed the healthiest pup they can.
Simple to say " dont buy pure-bred" but many, many folk want a specific breed and your 'message' next time could do a great deal to stamp out the disreputable, the money grabbers, the ignorant and the blood suckers who source a large percentage of pedigree puppies.

By the way...do you have a bell on top of your computer? You certainly know when your name is taken in vain :-)

>Problem is that I then found out about the extent of other health issues in the IRWS

And what are the other health problems?

>how much inbreeding there is

Really?  You try having two horrible genetic disorders you want to breed out ASAP while keeping breed type, temprement, health aswell as good conformation to succeed in the show ring and try and get into the field and not be laughed out!

>(it was a 6 month old puppy & not even related to the other dog.)

Which one was that MM and which dog was this puppy not related to?

It is a well known fact that loose saggy east-west hocks is a problem in WGSL dogs MM; even members of the S.V and some breeders admit that themselves. 

Blindness and denial does a huge disservice to our breed!!!

Whatever, the hock BTW is a joint NOT the hindquarters below the hock, so how they can be saggy etc. The Alsatian types of course have lovely sound hindquarters & are totally healthy(NOT)

The Puppy was the 6 month old one filmed at Manchester Ch Sh bred here in the UK & Zamp the BOB from Crufts-the program gave the impression that the two were the same dog.

Your breed ????????? Now I thought the German Shepherd Dog was a German breed no one belonging to you, gosh I've been wrong for the past few years.

As you well know my interpretation of the breed standard is that of the VPG/HGH bred dog & not any of the various show types from around the world

Yes, I'm fully aware of what the hock joint is.  Saggy, east west, unstable, call it what you like - it is a problem as is backs and so is the stability of the hindquarters in many WGSL dogs.    

>The Puppy was the 6 month old one filmed at Manchester Ch Sh bred here in the UK & Zamp the BOB from Crufts - the program gave the impression that the two were the same dog.

From what I recall, there were 2 dogs in the frame at Manchester show - is one of these the puppy which is not even related to Zamp?

I'm really interested here because this must be ped that has descent that I haven't come across before in showline dogs and I am always hunting for genetic diversity in GSD's.  Please do enlighten me. :-)

>Now I thought the German Shepherd Dog was a German breed no one belonging to you

The welfare of dogs and breeds is everyone's responsibility. 

> However, the point we were making was that of ALL breeders, it should be the show-breeders that are getting right and unfortunately in many cases they're not - in inbreeding, in distorting some breeds to the point of ill-health, in putting purity above health etc.
>

hmm. ALL breeders? not the point the majority ended up taking it seems. i totally agree with you that show breeders should be the ones doing it right (well, actually i think everyone should be doing it right but anyway), certainly when i begin to show and consider breeding later on i will be doing it right, but honestly

> I've always argued, and will continue to do so, that the programme should give the good breeders the impetus to insist that the bad breeders do better

i would argue that you might make good breeders so sick of the un-derserved bad publisity that they give up and leave it to the bad breeders. and surely you acknowledge that folowing your program and the impression it gave the "guaranteed healthy! not kc registered!" ads appeared.

>But I do not and will never agree with inbreeding since there is enough animals around to not do that- I think you will end up with more problems breeding ones so close. Don't do it in people because that would be incest and deformalities so animals are no different.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, ;-) (I've posted on this before) there is nothing wrong with close inbreeding, father/daughter for example, done rarely and done right in a diverse genepool. 

There is nothing wrong with line breeding, done well and done right. 

What is far more detrimental to breeds is saturated genetics caused by the continuous close up breeding on the same few dogs, generation after generation after generation and so on, over an extended period of time with other breeders doing the same.  

The breed ends up based on the genetics of a few dogs with no out crossing lines available - World wide! 

This leads to the ultimate decline and extinction of the breed.  This is nothing new.

In German Show GSD's, the S.V used to keep 4 separate families which were known as the 4 pillars of the breed because of this very real and very detrimental risk to the breed.  Even that's gone now.  :-(

>I know it has been painful for some, but absolutely believe in my heart that pedigree dogs will benefit (already have done in some instances) from the upheaval.

There will always be health issues though J, I think we have got to accept that and work with them.  No dog is perfect and no dog ever will be perfect. 

It worries me though because I can see as a result of PDE, a swing towards health testing, health testing and health testing some more with the possibilities of omitting dogs from the gene pool if they test positive for a health issue, regardless of the fact that it might never express itself in the individual. 

It means less health tested OK dogs available; we get all other breeders doing the same so only the healthy crème of the wining crème is bred and off we go again into saturated genetics and thus new health problems. 

As an old timer told me, at the current state of play in GSD's, the gene pool should be opened up, 50% of the population should be bred with any one dog only being allowed to mate once, twice if an exceptional specimen.  We accept that there are all sorts of health issues in there but the chances of expression due to increased genetic variation is reduced.  No one could wisely close line breed ever again without getting anything or everything for a few gens... 

Waits the trashing from ped breeders... :-P

"But what was there was accurate - except (as have previously admitted)  for us saying that the ridge on a RR is a mild form of spina bifida. We should have said that the ridge on a RR is "associated with" a mild form of spina bifida (dermoid sinus) and this has been corrected for the international version.

An internal BBC enquiry (tougher than you might think) has not upheld any of the accuracy complaints against the programme - including the Kennel Club's.

Jemima"

Having a very personal (and long held) interest in the RR, I'm appalled that you weren't hauled over the coals for making that inaccurate statement about the RR and the ridge :( :(  What little faith I had in the BBC has now totally disappeared.

"The Puppy was the 6 month old one filmed at Manchester Ch Sh bred here in the UK & Zamp the BOB from Crufts-the program gave the impression that the two were the same dog."

There was a clear distinction made in the commentary. And the main dog we concentrated on at Manchester was 18 months old, not a puppy.

Here's the extended footage. The dog towards the end with the really wobbly hocks went BOB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU1IZyUv6Yk

Jemima

I suggest you take a course in the structure of a dog-the hock is a joint & not the hindquarters below the hock joint. If the hock joint was wobbly the dog could not walk period

You will claim that you can turn water into wine next-Oh but then you have already done that by forcing pedigree to withdraw from Crufts(oops they did that in August before the film was aired when they suddenly withdrew from ALL UK Ch Breed shows), persuaded the RSPCA to withdraw from Crufts(no loss there) & the BBC as well of course. Good result re the BBC at last good coverage of Crufts without the silly presenters & whacko retired vets & guess what Full Coverage of Obedience. No having to fit the groups & BIS around darts matches or other events.

Did the public boycott Crufts in droves-er nope !! despite the recession too !

Any reason you did not go to Germany to film Zamp at home ?? Wouldn't have cost much & you would have been able to show how is totally unable-oops able-to do VPG trials-wouldn't make good TV that would it & of course Zamp is not a KC registered dog either-now that you did miss out. Look at the poor crippled Zamp doing the fast trot at the Sieger-he can hardly stagger round the ring, which is just a bit bigger that the one at Crufts

> Any reason you did not go to Germany to film Zamp at home ?? Wouldn't have cost much & you would have been able to show how is totally unable-oops able-to do VPG trials-wouldn't make good TV that would it & of course Zamp is not a KC registered dog either-now that you did miss out. Look at the [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YutVdqiLiDU&feature=related" rel=nofollow]poor crippled Zamp[/url] doing the fast trot at the Sieger-he can hardly stagger round the ring, which is just a bit bigger that the one at Crufts

Not clear which dog is Zamp but they all looked terrible. Back ends wobbling a bit and kind of tripping over their own back legs while they were standing and walking slowly. The video quality is shakey when they were running (perhaps a GSD was operating the camera?).

It scares me that is your idea of healthy dogs when they look so unstable, maybe that is good for GSDs as there are lots worse than that.

> Good result re the BBC at last good coverage of Crufts without the silly presenters & whacko retired vets & guess what Full Coverage of Obedience. No having to fit the groups & BIS around darts matches or other events.

I agree with that, we had days of decent coverage without airhead presenters rabbiting on. I can't wait for next year!

> Back ends wobbling a bit and kind of tripping over their own back legs while they were standing and walking slowly.

You have not read my posts My idea of a good German Shepherd Dog is NOT any type of show dog, be they Alsatians(who have difficulty standing up & walking into the ring let alone gaiting round without being strung up)or the International type. It is an HGH or VPG bred dog from Germany-fully health tested pedigree & 200 % temperament. My next GSD will be a puppy dog from a VPG trained/qualified bitch

> Anyway, there's probably not a huge amount to be gained by reycycling the same hated-it/loved it arguments as both sides are pretty entrenched.

A more balanced programme would have taken every good breeder with you and a lot more would have been achieved, how ever the programme broadcast has further entrenched opinions, so much could have been acheived, such a waste of time. Since then many puppy farmers/back yard breeders and pet breeders have advertised on the internet that their puppies are not KC reg, or not show bred and so are healthy. The Interpups site which described breeds as products and puppies as units claimed that the puppies being sold were not KC registered and not show bred so were guaranteed to be healthy. All dogs on this site were registered with the Dog Lovers Register. In 28 years of doing eye testing under the BVA scheme for hereditary eye disease I have only ever had one DLR registered dog turn up for eye testing, and that was because the local vet had recommended the owner have it tested as he suspected there was a problem.

Astarte wrote:
i would argue that you might make good breeders so sick of the un-derserved bad publisity that they give up and leave it to the bad breeders. and surely you acknowledge that folowing your program and the impression it gave the "guaranteed healthy! not kc registered!" ads appeared.

I know of several of responsible breeders who have given up, having become disillusioned by the way they have been treated following the program being broadcast. Speaking to someone from the KC I was told that the KC have also noticed that many of the responsible breeders have either given up or not bred very much since.


A more balanced programme would have taken every good breeder Exactly, and a true breed enthusiast would have taken the opportunity with two hands rather than those just seeking fame or career advancement.  Most of us would love to be heading all the breeds within the dog world down the right path.

What do we see , Page after page of puppy farms breeding all sorts on the back of this show.Some even quoting it. LOL    Must make the producers proud.

Yes there was so truthful content , some I was shocked and disgusted at as a dog lover BUT I would loved to have see the balance , the BALANCE would have really helped the general public but showing them good from bad.

>the BALANCE would have really helped the general public but showing them good from bad.

I have no idea why this blindingly obvious truth is so hard for JH to grasp.

>there's no evidence to suggest show-stock is any less affected than non-show stock.

Is there any evidence to say that show stock is any more affected than non-show stock? If not, any reference to show dogs rather than the breed in general is misleading.

Also is there any real evidence to show that mongrels are less affected rather than just old wives tales?

Dollface, did you ever breed from your Bostons?

Having just read through this thread and watched the clips etc i can see why everyone is so passionate.

In my humble opinion i never believe a word reported in the press. Good news doesnt sell, and at the end of it all how are they really held accountable when what they air is found to be 'edited' to portray the best selling story. Are editors and reporters sacked or abused on the street for the damage they cause... Nope..

Scaremongering is what they do. I would like to hope the british public had more sense and see the vast majority for what they are, but i fear they take every word as spoon fed gospel truth. Like every job you get good and bad. Balance is most definately the key, but gets ignored. I'm sure there are good reporters out there who honestly undertake stories for the betterment of society etc, just as there are many good breeders out there.

Lets hope in the future that someone does a program on the poor reporters/editors out there, and suggest its down to a genetic deformaty. We may well see measures put in place to breed them out of the press!!

To the many good breeders out there please dont be put off. To the bad ones this program is aimed at you, even if it has had a massive knock on effect due to the abysmal skills of its editing team.

>> Any reason you did not go to Germany to film Zamp at home ?? Wouldn't have cost much & you would have been able to show how is totally unable-oops able-to do VPG trials-wouldn't make good TV that would it & of course Zamp is not a KC registered dog either-now that you did miss out. Look at the [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YutVdqiLiDU&feature=related" rel=nofollow]poor crippled Zamp[/url] doing the fast trot at the Sieger-he can hardly stagger round the ring, which is just a bit bigger that the one at Crufts

Not clear which dog is Zamp but they all looked terrible. Back ends wobbling a bit and kind of tripping over their own back legs while they were standing and walking slowly. The video quality is shakey when they were running (perhaps a GSD was operating the camera?).

Karen, Oh you made my day. This is a whole separate debate and MM will defend the indefensible in her view of the GSD to the end, and then make a contrary statement, that appears to be not defending the dog after all. Perhaps she did mean that he can hardly stagger round the ring literally after all :) You must be careful however, and not say loose hocks (no matter that they could weave a blanket) but I think it's OK to say that the back end is unstable as this probably only means general conformation instability, or instability in the hip joint, which appears to MM to be quite acceptable so long as they can gait.