so dollface effectively, despite you not knowing, this program thats got you upset is about you and others who breed without looking into things.

do you not think then the program would have been more valuable if it had highlighted what needs to be done when picking a puppy and what should be expected from breeders rather than scaremongering.

>Why do I need to go digging ? My next GSD will be from VPG working lines from a breeder...

The statement was if you want to know more, just do some digging...

If you don't, then don't. 

>I have no reason to waste my time with Show, English dogs etc, etc

For someone that has no reason to waste time with show, English dogs, etc, you certainly spend time commenting about them.......

> I was very nieve when I got into this- new absolutly nothing- had no clue about health tests ect ect- ........... it wasn't until my 3rd and last litter that I .............. was disgusted at myself for what I found out-

Many people who breed don't ever even reach the stage of thinking they are doing it all wrong.  How many pups and new owners suffer as a result?  I sincerely hope that there were no avoidable health issues with any of the three litters you produced, but you can't really point fingers at breeders now can you?

It isn't the standards that are to blame, as very few of any breed appear to be bred by people even remotely familiar with them or trying to breed with them in mind.

Problem is that the vast majority of pedigree and mongrel litters are bred haphazardly like this, and pups born with avoidable issues, and those that are healthy are by luck rather than design.

When pedigree dogs are criticised it is largely these kind of litters that have given the bad rep.

It is interesting that some very popular breeds, most exploited by casual and commercial breeding have the most health issues, and yet some breeds with tiny gene pools but largely in the hands of breed devotes are remarkably healthy despite this.

>new absolutly nothing- had no clue about health tests ect ect- never had the net

Lack of internet facilities doesn't really wash, I'm afraid. There have been breed-specialist books available for decades here that mention health problems. I collected as every single breed book I came across when I got my first dal, before I even considered breeding a litter. For example, deafness has been known about in the breed virtually forever; BAER testing became available (from the US) about 20 years ago - nobody had the internet then, but people who were seriously interested in the breed heard about it (breed clubs are invaluable) and started having their dogs tested.

I can't believe that North America is any different regarding the dissemination of information.

I had been breeding five years and had researched into my breed for several years before that and dog/animal breeding genetics etc for a decade before that. 

Didn't have a computer until late 2000.

People new a lot of stuff before the internet, which has just made info easier to access, but it is and would all still be out there for those who wanted to look.

The film said that boxers were among many breeds that suffer from epilepsy. The commentary explained that no one knows how many boxers suffer from epilepsy, but that in some breeds it was up to 17 times the rate found in humans. Terrifying.  The sequence was in a section talking about breed-specific problems and how terrible coping with something like epilepsy can be for pet owners. Zak was clearly a pet dog, not a show dog, owned by a couple who have to cope with the most hideous cluster seizures - up to 20 in a 24-hr period although thankfully these occur only once a month or so.  Not sure how you feel, but the footage was used to show how awful epilepsy is and to urge EVERYONE to do absolutely everything they can to tackle it - not shove it under the carpet as unfortunately I found is all too common in some breeds.

You, and others here, continue to try to shoot the messenger.  It isn't me who has "damaged" boxers or any other breed - it's partly an unlucky throw of the dice and partly a breeding paradigm that, together, has resulted in boxers being blighted by several huge health problems - cancer, particularly brain tumours, and cardiomyopathy, to name just two.  Additionally, everyone in boxers is paddling in the same small gene pool. And the current show-fashion is for an increasingly short muzzle. Way to go.

There are some great people working their socks off to do their best for the breed (notably Bruce Cattanach, who was broadly supportive of the film, incidentally). The same is true in many other breeds. But the problem is but they're swimming against the tide. Based on a lot of research and solid science, the film argued for root and branch reform at a very fundamental level. Otherwise you are going to lose a huge number of breeds. Simple as that.

Jemima

>The film said that boxers were among many breeds that suffer from epilepsy.

All breeds, and crossbreeds, and mongrels, can suffer from epilepsy; in fact epileptic fits can be triggered in all individuals given the right circumstances. If the public are only given half the facts they won't know the true story. Or are you suggesting that the public are too stupid to be able to understand?

>Zak was clearly a pet dog, not a show dog

How so? 'Show dogs' are only show dogs when they're at shows. The rest of the time they're family pets, just like Zak.

>There are some great people working their socks off to do their best for the breed (notably Bruce Cattanach, who was broadly supportive of the film, incidentally). The same is true in many other breeds.

Why not point that out and strengthen the argument against the rest? What a wasted opportunity.

>The commentary explained that no one knows how many boxers suffer from epilepsy, but that in some breeds it was up to 17 times the rate found in humans. Terrifying

You are saying that because some dogs have a higher % of epilepsy that humans it is terrifying-Why compare dogs to humans ? There is no AIDS/HIV in dogs so humans have 100% more than dogs-that has no more relevance than comparing diagnosed epilepsy in dogs to that in humans

>You, and others here, continue to try to shoot the messenger.  It isn't me who has "damaged" boxers or any other breed - it's partly an unlucky throw of the dice and partly a breeding paradigm that, together, has resulted in boxers being blighted by several huge health problems - cancer, particularly brain tumours, and cardiomyopathy, to name just two.  Additionally, everyone in boxers is paddling in the same small gene pool. And the current show-fashion is for an increasingly short muzzle. Way to go.

So Boxer breeders are partly responsible for cancer in their dogs ?? Have you genetic evidence to support this rather "wild"statement. There is a ground swell of support in the scientific world for the believe that pollution & the over use of drugs etc has a greater influence in most forms of cancer that genetics(one local factory has been proven to have caused a very large cancer cluster-not just amongst the employees, but also amongst the local people within a 5 mile radius, due to pollutants it spewed out into the air & yes compensation has been paid out by the company)

Also the way the owner treated the dog by laying on top of it was a very bad method & goes against all the veterinary advice for dealing with epileptic dogs. I know first hand about how awful epilepsy can be in dogs, my friend rescued a GSD(not bred from KC reg dogs not health tested)she started to fit during her season & after being spayed the frequency lessened & the specializt diagnosed her epilepsy as hormone related-now how do you breed that out ? Breed dogs without hormones ?????????

As too being a small gene pool, with Pet Passports & AI there is a bigger gene pool than you suggest in all breeds let alone Boxers

The problem that I & so very many people have with that program is that there was no mention whatsoever of any breeders, who take health, type & ability into account when breeding their dogs. Why not feature Border Collie breeders who DNA, clinically test their dogs & when a possible health issue arises immediately set about veterinary research into it. The reason you didn't do this is, of course, it would have gone against the real reason behind the program-to destroy the reputations of the KC & Show breeders & promote the cross breeding of dogs to"promote health"(yer right like crossing Standard Poodles & Labradors two breeds which have three of the same health issues & one that has a breed specific issue !). It wouldn't have been such "Good controversial TV"would it ?

& as to your claim that your program lead Mars to withdraw the Pedigree support/presence from shows Ahem it happened before your program was aired & other brands owned by Mars are still providing a presence/support at shows-so can you claim you influenced it ?

Once again I do thank you for personally persuading the BBC to withdraw from Crufts, this years coverage was just brilliant, I do hope that the BBC continue to boycott dog shows

You, and others here, continue to try to shoot the messenger.

And you my dear continue to skirt around the specific questions we put to you regarding the false representations of 'That programme' & just debate us off topic every time you are asked a question you don't want to answer. Indeed you have done exactly that several times now on this very thread. Have you ever considered a career in Politics perchance? You seem rather good at not answering questions.

>> All breeds, and crossbreeds, and mongrels, can suffer from epilepsy; in fact epileptic fits can be triggered in all individuals given the right circumstances. If the public are only given half the facts they won't know the true story. Or are you suggesting that the public are too stupid to be able to understand?

I  think it would be interesting to compare the incidence of epilepsy in crossbreeds compared to pedigrees.I groom several epileptic dogs,all of which are crossbreeds(a springer/collie cross,a shih tzu/yorkie and a beardie type Heinz 57 are 3 which spring to mind).Lots of factors may be involved in epilepsy.

As I understood it the incidence is as high in crossbreeds and mongrels as it is in most breeds, but several breeds have a higher than average incidence.

From what I have read in the past it seems epilepsy is quite common in the canine full stop.

I think epilepsy is just more seen in purebreeds because those are the ones that are noted not the cross breeds.... I think maybe that is why we no about all the problems that plaugue the purebreds is because it is kept track of- but who no's.... My friends golden retriever- registered bitch had epilepsy really bad- on meds all the time.

Ya I started to get books later on that is also when I started to realize, by then I was on my 3rd litter and I was thinking about aborting it but my vet said to just allow her to have them... I did start to educate myself, but ya a lil too late- and yes all my pups are good- like I said I kept in contact until maybe a couple of years ago or so which would make the youngest litter to be coming 7yrs I believe- would have to look back in my records to be sure...  I can't turn back time- all I can do is to no better for the future which I do.....

I do think breeders need to breed to better the breed and breed away from extreme looks so the animal can actually be more functional- they don't need such pushed in faces which really is more a health hazard then it actually is any benefit to the animal. I think these need to start in the show ring- look for the boxer, boston, frenchie, bulldog ect with more of a snout to help eleminate these breathing problems and over bites ect! It all has to start someplace cause it did thats how we ended up with these extreme pushed in faces as it is....

To be fair though dog breeds with exaggerated conformation (if you exclude extremes of size up or down) are in the minority, most breeds are basically canine shape of medium size.

Some like my own are not far from the wild blueprint at all.

Why do people like these extreme features, especially the toy features or tiny size, prominent eyes and short faces????

>I think epilepsy is just more seen in purebreeds because those are the ones that are noted not the cross breeds

That can be said about all conditions. The genetics of crossbreeds and mongrels are too vague to interest researchers.

For the record, the three individuals which are on anti-epileptic medication where I work are all crossbred terriers.

I'm still waiting to hear what health problems the Irish red and white Setters are riddled with?  Because I only know of 3 genetic problems...two of which have DNA tests and have/will have registration restrictions on with the KC and the 3rd is waiting for time and money to continue with the long search for a DNA test and each of us breeders only have a small amount we can put in and along with the KC funding, still isn't enough....If I had a spare £50,000 I would put it in but at the moment I don't have a spare £50!

>Why do people like these extreme features, especially the toy features or tiny size, prominent eyes and short faces????

The theory is that the flat face with eyes at the front is more like a human face than a canine face, and is therefore less threatening than the more natural canine face with the long muzzle.

>The theory is that the flat face with eyes at the front is more like a human face than a canine face, and is therefore less threatening than the more natural canine face with the long muzzle.

Less threatening to who? 

Why do people like these extreme features, especially the toy features or tiny size, prominent eyes and short faces????

I think its because it is more human like- so reminds them more of a child human then an actual dog...

I do agree with toy breeds ect, why try to make them so small? Mise well get a cat, guinea pig, ferret, for that matter wanting such a small dog because people breed to the extreme small and you end up with so many problems its very sad for the dogs involved.... Toy poodles, chi's, yorkies- when are they gonna be small enough... Seen a toy chi result from brother sister mating- runt of the runts and this poor lil dog already gone through 2 leg surgeries because its bones were so brittle- at just 3yrs of age this thing was prob smaller then a gopher/rat- so sad :-( Its was so tiny. The lady got him for free she said due to the fact of him being inbred....

>Less threatening to who?

To our species. Thinking on an instinctive level, not an intellectual one, which is more likely to attack you - a baby or a wolf?

>Seen a toy chi result from brother sister mating ..... Its was so tiny. The lady got him for free she said due to the fact of him being inbred....

The degree of inbreeding is coincidental - there are enough tiny toys to breed very miniature dogs, even crossbreeding, that would have similar problems. It's not that the ancestors are closely related, but because they were themselves unhealthy. This is why the fashion for 'teacup' dogs is so wrong.

> This is why the fashion for 'teacup' dogs is so wrong.

And this fad isn't fueled by show breeders, but by the puppy farmers led by public demand.

>To our species.

I suspected that you were going to say that.  Eeeekkkk, - like something out of sci-fi horror film.  A baby's face with 4 legs and a tail.  It will be human canine hybrids next.

>Thinking on an instinctive level, not an intellectual one, which is more likely to attack you - a baby or a wolf?

On the flip side of that, there can be nothing as instinctually threatening to a species as something that looks so distorted and out of the norm.  I think I must fall into that instinctual category because I prefer a dog to look like a dog, canine face and all.

it's partly an unlucky throw of the dice and partly a breeding paradigm that, together, has resulted in boxers being blighted by several huge health problems - cancer, particularly brain tumours, and cardiomyopathy, to name just two.  , everyone in boxers is paddling in the same small gene pool.

Every one in Boxers is paddling the same gene pool??????????

Funny that , have you taken the time to see how many imports over the yrs haven been introduced to our gene pool...

Cancer , as far as I know is not exclusive to Boxers , along with all canines... it is a disease that does not discriminate ..it crosses all boundaries of species.. and is on the increase in all.

Cardiomyopathy, I am sure you know, is something that IS being investigated , and IS with the support of  many Boxer folk, (donating  hearts)  for research , will hopefully be eradicated from our breed.

And the current show-fashion is for an increasingly short muzzle. Way to go.

Mmmmmm,  show fashion usually follows what is doing well in the ring at that paticular time,   have you taken a look at some of  out breed champions recently....  fashion for shorter muzzles????????

>I think I must fall into that instinctual category because I prefer a dog to look like a dog, canine face and all.

No, you're thinking intellectually, not instinctively. Animals are programmed to be tolerant of the young of their own species - people smile at babies even if they don't even like babies - the large eyes with small nose and chin is the total non-aggression face, compared to the narrow-eyed, large-jawed macho 'hero'. In the same way people find puppies cute even if they don't really like dogs. The large eyes and flat face of the brachycephalic breeds falls into the same 'baby' category.

> have you taken a look at some of  out breed champions recently....  fashion for shorter muzzles????????

I certainly have noticed the opposite in the time I have been in dogs, the muzzles seem to be more moderate (longer) and the dogs breathing less raspy even when it is warm.

>No, you're thinking intellectually, not instinctively.

My intellect must dominate my instinct then, as I never was one to be tolerant of the young in my own species - I just avoid them. 

Yes, I find puppies adorable but I still would not want breeders breeding dogs to have puppy faces all their lives - it would be bizarre.  I find large eyes and flat faces in dogs uncomfortable, always did, long before PDE.  But then I don't see the human as attractive compared to the natural beauty of some animals but that's my view.  Conventional never was my forte. 

> I still would not want breeders breeding dogs to have puppy faces all their lives - it would be bizarre.  I find large eyes and flat faces in dogs uncomfortable, always did, long before PDE.  But then I don't see the human as attractive compared to the natural beauty of some animals but that's my view. 

Quite agree, have always been drawn to dogs closer to the wild blueprint, prick ears with Muzzles.

>I still would not want breeders breeding dogs to have puppy faces all their lives - it would be bizarre.

It's not really any different to breeding dogs which retain the floppy puppy ears all their lives. I personally find breeds with erect ears less attractive than those with drop ears; again, it's the neoteny aspect of young animals being less of a threat than adults.

>have always been drawn to dogs closer to the wild blueprint, prick ears with Muzzles

Same here........wholeheartedly,

>I personally find breeds with erect ears less attractive than those with drop ears; again, it's the neoteny aspect of young animals being less of a threat than adults.

This is where I differ JG, I like prick ears and dogs as close to the wild blueprint as possible and I certainly don't feel threatened by them....I feel more threatened by squashed or flat faces as to me it looks odd, bizarre, unnatural, freaky even...

I also think that dogs are still dogs underneath regardless and for humans to pick them because they resemble a baby face may be more inclined to humanise and baby them which IMO is not good for a dog....a dog is a dog is a dog and should be allowed to be a dog.

>This is where I differ JG, I like prick ears and dogs as close to the wild blueprint as possible and I certainly don't feel threatened by them....I feel more threatened by squashed or flat faces as to me it looks odd, bizarre, unnatural, freaky even...

I would never own a prick-eared breed, and you would never own a drop-eared breed. This is why it's just as well there are so many different breeds. :-) No single 'type' would suit everybody.

I'm not against drop eared breeds and grew up with many drop eared dogs as a child.  Just prefer the prick ears, maybe it's because I had some soft toy dogs as a child that I used to bring to bed and they were all prick eared.... :-D

Why did many breeds develop drop ears anyhow when the wild blueprint is erect ears.  I can't imagine it was because they looked more puppyish surely.....

>I can't imagine it was because they looked more puppyish surely.....

I would imagine so - it's human nature to want to feel safe, while acknowledging that keeping predators close at hand is intrinsically dangerous.

> BTW have you ever seen a VPG/HGH german GSD in the flesh ???? Did Spender's clip show a dog with working qualifications ? or was it a show dog ? was it gaiting off lead ? or strung up on a piece of cheese wire ?? You can slag off German dogs as much as you like & stick to your type(whatever that maybe)I prefer(& always have done)the Working bred German dogs be they HGH or VPG-to quote "brains & beauty"

The link was I believe a show line german dog, and no he was not strung up on a cheesewire choker, and he was a sheer joy to watch, unlike the dogs in the link you put up. I don't know or care whether that dog had working qualifications - he moved as a german shepherd should, he did not crab around a ring (no matter how many times) looking like an uncomfortable latter day hyena. I believe he could walk and stand properly too.

I've said it before, when you yourself have owned a dog like Echo, how can you look at these dogs and see anything 'right' about them? Whatever happened to the expression of a gently sloping topline in these animals? Where did that go?

Longcoats - Correct, they will only breed longcoat to longcoat, but they are no longer considered 'unacceptable' So why the change of heart do you think?

Hopefully it is the first of many changes to come..

> Why did many breeds develop drop ears anyhow when the wild blueprint is erect ears.

I've seen a programme on the theory of the domestication of dogs, where experiments have been made with foxes. After only 2 generations (I think), cubs retained thier dropped-ears into adulthood as well as puppy-like behaviour (compared to the wild foxes). It seems that domestication goes hand & hand with the 'appeasing' facial expressions & behaviour of many of todays dogs (rounder face, drop-ears), there is a term for this, but I can't remeber what it is, it's neonatsomething, I think. (I've tried googling, but my mobile internet connection is very poor in this awfull weather we have here at the mo :( )
I think the prick ears in most breeds must actually have been bred for, rather than the drop-eares being bred for, if the experiment is anything to go by.

>there is a term for this, but I can't remeber what it is, it's neonatsomething, I think.

Neoteny.

I do agree with toy breeds ect, why try to make them so small? Mise well get a cat, guinea pig, ferret, for that matter wanting such a small dog because people breed to the extreme small and you end up with so many problems its very sad for the dogs involved...

What a load of utter rubbish -and that coming from somebody WITH a small breed! So why do you not get a Continental Giant rabbit instead of your dogs? It would certainly be bigger! Might it have something to do with the fact it won't be a DOG?! How many examples do you want of how different a dog is from a cat, a guinea pig, a ferret etc? A tiny toy dog is still a DOG, and can do everything a bigger dog can do with very few exceptions -main exceptions being things like serious work that requires size (police dogs for instance, many gundogs etc). Chihuahuas can and do compete in obedience for instance, I was once competing in obedience with a Malinois and during the down stay my bitch was next to a Chihuahua -who got a better overall result than my dog did. I've done at the very least basic obedience with all my toydogs (GC Bronze is my absolute minimum requirement for any dog I own) and my Cavalier and one of the Papillons have both passed their KC Good Citizen Gold. When I get old and frail and will no longer be able to physically cope with a breed as large and strong as a Malinois I shall have Papillons alone -because I still want dogs, that act like dogs, that can be treated like dogs, that you can train and walk -I don't want a ferret!

According to an article I read, prick ears is dominate over the  drop ears and drop ears was recessive but his was in this particular breed - Yorkies I think it was.  I would imagine in breeds used to hunt in undergrowth, brambles etc,  drop ears would be protective to the ear itself.

Another theory I came across that drop ears were bred to slightly muffle the dogs sensitive hearing and that this in turn heighten other senses more appropriate to the job they did such as sight and smell. 

>It seems that domestication goes hand & hand with the 'appeasing' facial expressions & behaviour of many of todays dogs (rounder face, drop-ears), there is a term for this, but I can't remeber what it is, it's neonatsomething, I think.

Mmm....interesting...

Thanks JG :)
I had just found it and came back to post something I had found, which basically echos what you have said about the facial features/drop-ears being more baby-like.

Compared to wolves, many adult dog breeds retain such juvenile characteristics as soft fuzzy fur, round torsos, large heads and eyes, ears that hang down rather than stand erect, etc.; characteristics which are shared by most juvenile mammals, and therefore generally elicit some degree of protective and nurturing behavior cross species from most adult mammals, including humans, who term such characteristics "cute" or "appealing". Taken form here - That is only a snippet, the whole piece is worth a read - very intersting :)

According to an article I read, prick ears is dominate over the  drop ears and drop ears was recessive but his was in this particular breed

In general it is not -mate two dogs together of different breeds with different ears and you will get all drop ears or "aeroplane ears" but none fully pricked.

>Longcoats - Correct, they will only breed longcoat to longcoat, but they are no longer considered 'unacceptable' So why the change of heart do you think?

Money !

>That is only a snippet, the whole piece is worth a read - very intersting 

The brief bit I managed to read was indeed very interesting - but the continually-changing background colour made it impossible to read further. If only there was a 'Contact us' link to complain about my incipient migraine. Not your fault at all, by the way!

>I do agree with toy breeds ect, why try to make them so small? Mise well get a cat, guinea pig, ferret, for that matter wanting such a small dog because people breed to the extreme small and you end up with so many problems its very sad for the dogs involved...

My Cavaliers are far more Spaniel than toy & I already have cats(which are smaller than the Cavaliers)why should I have to have them instead of my Cavaliers ??As for Ferrets, Guinea Pig etc I don't want to keep animals in cages 24/7.

It is the puppy farmers who claim miniature Yorkshire Terriers etc & the Teacup option not the show breeders.

>Compared to wolves, many adult dog breeds retain such juvenile characteristics as soft fuzzy fur, round torsos, large heads and eyes, ears that hang down rather than stand erect, etc.; characteristics which are shared by most juvenile mammals, and therefore generally elicit some degree of protective and nurturing behavior cross species from most adult mammals, including humans, who term such characteristics "cute" or "appealing".

Fascinating, it would make a lot of sense for them to evolve the features more likely to aid their survival and these would be the features humans desire being their caretakers.  I don't think they would go as far as flat or squashed faces though, not for a long time yet anyhow...

>I believe he could walk and stand properly too.

Yes, he could walk and stand pretty straight, GSD's in that era could.

Compare -

VA1 Dingo vom Haus Gero http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/39.html

with modern day Zamp

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/341400.html

Pretty frightening I think, my monies on the former for herding sheep, so much more agile.

What a load of utter rubbish -and that coming from somebody WITH a small breed! So why do you not get a Continental Giant rabbit instead of your dogs? It would certainly be bigger! Might it have something to do with the fact it won't be a DOG?! How many examples do you want of how different a dog is from a cat, a guinea pig, a ferret etc? A tiny toy dog is still a DOG, and can do everything a bigger dog can do with very few exceptions -main exceptions being things like serious work that requires size (police dogs for instance, many gundogs etc). Chihuahuas can and do compete in obedience for instance, I was once competing in obedience with a Malinois and during the down stay my bitch was next to a Chihuahua -who got a better overall result than my dog did. I've done at the very least basic obedience with all my toydogs (GC Bronze is my absolute minimum requirement for any dog I own) and my Cavalier and one of the Papillons have both passed their KC Good Citizen Gold. When I get old and frail and will no longer be able to physically cope with a breed as large and strong as a Malinois I shall have Papillons alone -because I still want dogs, that act like dogs, that can be treated like dogs, that you can train and walk -I don't want a ferret!

If you read my post properly---- (I do agree with toy breeds ect, why try to make them so small? Mise well get a cat, guinea pig, ferret, for that matter wanting such a small dog because people breed to the extreme small and you end up with so many problems its very sad for the dogs involved...) My Quote it cleary says I DO AGREE WITH TOY BREEDS!!!

I am talking about making them extreme small you no the TEA CUP BREEDS!!! Where people try to make them smaller then what they actually are- that I DO NOT AGREE WITH!!! I said that I do agree with the small breeds but not the extreme small (meaning the Tea Cup)... Yes I have small dogs and also a ferret- was not taking a stab at small breeds if you read my post- was talking about making them even smaller then what they are, just didn't have the correct word and can't remember who posted Tea cups and yes thats what I was talking about- Thank you....- def could not benefit the animal at all.... I have seens adds for Tea cup poodles, chi, and yorkies- smaller then the actualy breeder size- have seen ads in our local paper and I just asked why? You don't have to bite my head off!!

The degree of inbreeding is coincidental - there are enough tiny toys to breed very miniature dogs, even crossbreeding, that would have similar problems. It's not that the ancestors are closely related, but because they were themselves unhealthy. This is why the fashion for 'teacup' dogs is so wrong.

Thank you  Jeangenie

I forgot what that extreme lil size was called that I was talking about-

> why try to make them so small? Mise well get a cat, guinea pig, ferret,

I don't think the issue is whether you approve of toy or teacup breeds at all but that you said - "might as well get a cat, guinea pig, ferret"

The point Marianne makes is that, irrespective of size, these are NOT dogs.  If someone is looking for a 'teacup' DOG, they're hardly likely to choose a different species simply because of size!!!

If we want to educate people about the advisability of breeding deliberately tiny dogs then presumably we must come up with a more scientific argument

And it could also be said for those that are breeding so called "King" dogs.  I have seen many advertisements for King Shephards, King Dobermans, King Rottis, etc. 

Surely breeding for oversized dogs doesnt help the breed any either.  I would presume more long bone issues, hip issues, etc because of the dog having to be bigger than what is "normal".  The dogs I see that are apparently King dogs, they arent bigger in body, just have more leg. 

In my breed it seems we are going bigger.  The breed height is 10.5-12.5 inches, and many min pins are over the 12.5 inches, reaching closer to 13-15 inches (have also seen a few pets reaching German Pinscher height!).  I have also seen more lame min pins in the ring.  More leg it seems, adds to the leg issues within the breed.  I for one, am going to stick to my standard. 

I am talking about making them extreme small you no the TEA CUP BREEDS!!! Where people try to make them smaller then what they actually are- that I DO NOT AGREE WITH!!! I said that I do agree with the small breeds but not the extreme small (meaning the Tea Cup)...

I didn't see you mentioning "tea cups" but in any event a good quality Chihuahua will often be even smaller than a "tea cup" (runt) version of many other toy breeds. Even a Papillon can weigh as little as 2 kgs according to the breed standard. Hence I don't quite see the argument -there are breeds that ARE very small indeed. And it would still not follow that anyone wanting a really small dog would be happy with a guinea pig instead. :)

Let's face it, the people asking for "tea cups" are uneducated and there are bad breeders who pander to this -simple as that. Education is the key. As regards many bad breeders of toy breeds, their "normal" sized adults are in fact very overgrown and hence their "tea cups" are correct size. But they don't let this on, because of money. There used to be a Chi at our training club that was BIGGER than my smallest Papillon, and there I've also seen Pomeranians that were more than double the normal size. I once met a lady whilst out walking my Cavaliers, her own was very tall and oversized, she looked at mine, sighed and said "I wish mine was a miniature like yours". Mine were at the top end of the breed standard. I think the main breed where people DO try to breed them TOO small is Yorkshire Terrier. In most other breeds it seems to just mean smaller than their oversized dogs.....

I for one, am going to stick to my standard. 

Good for you. In my main breed the dogs are getting smaller and smaller, and the effect is that the judges (many of them, especially all rounders) have started to see it as the norm, and my dogs look too large in comparison. I have a list of judges that have remarked that my dogs were too big, yet my oldest bitch, who IS a lot bigger than most other bitches currently being shown, is a full inch BELOW the maximum allowed for a bitch. I too will continue to breed them to the size I prefer -and that the standard allows for. I wonder if it is time to start measuring ALL breeds..........as fashion so quickly takes hold.

My vet has a Rottweiler bitch that is a wonderful pet, really lovely temperament, but she is several inches taller than the Rottweiler dogs I am used to seeing at shows. I've never seen anything as big.