> which round here is almost always a base of Burns - the Pork + Potato as we have two dogs that don't do well on lamb, and one that reacts to rice

Sadly Burns is now also owned by Mars & in the same stable as Pedigree in my eyes. My dogs feed raw or a 100 % Organic Welsh made complete. What a pity no one ever mentioned feeding & exercise in your program.

BTW how much did you donate to Charity from the profit from your program ? Can you match the KC's donations ? Or are you not a non profit making company ?

george is fed on arden grange lamb and rice, we count 90 biscuits,soak them in water for 10 hours and then give him 30 at a time with a ten minute break in between, then on the last course he has ten mil of taggamet syrup for his hernia, these are the only biscuits/dog food he can eat, all the others makes his hernia play up and he starts regurgatating

100% right Barbara.   They only hung onto Crufts in the hope it would be worth the cost vrs Marketing benefits. Certainly nothing to do with Miss JH.    I think it may on this occasion suit JH not to acknowledge this but I am sure like us all knew this to be the truth.

A touch of ego rubbing I suspect.     Clinging to hope that this bias show did some good I had thought was long gone.

Sadly Burns is now also owned by Mars & in the same stable as Pedigree in my eyes. Oh I missed this one, when did this happen?

Mind you I always thought the food was junk ( IMHO)  Just bags of rice.

Joanne, Can his Hernia not be fixed?

> Did you mean that as in the past?

Yes this was before any eye testing in the breed.  Probably easily over 10 years ago.

We did, of course, check with Pedigree.  It's true that they had pulled out of sponsorship of other shows before PDE, but we have a statement from Pedigree dated September 2009 confirming that they had "no plans" to withdraw from sponsoring Crufts. In late October, the company then accounced that it had changed their mind. 

Are you seriously telling us you believe this.  Pedigree ( I believe)  are no more interested in your show or dog showing. We are not kidding ourselves on. Pedigree, I believe used the dog world just like they would " possibly" try to say it was your show.


Think we need to take a step into the real world. Pedigree is a business end of story.

'm slightly amused by those who are keen to rewrite history on this one. I presume it's a reluctance to play down the influence the documentary has had? In fact, Pedigree never said it was due to PDE, so you can take some comfort from that should you wish.


Your slightly amused, I think it is quite hilarious that someone would think that the documentary affect is being played down by US genuine dog lovers, dog lovers who want to protect our breeds. We are horrified that your show has appeared to have added support to the puppy farming industry.  For the benefit of you implying defamation I would like to stress whilst I believe that it may have been unintentional on your part I believe it has definately supported it.   Advert after advert of cross puppies claiming to be more healthy after your show.


Well done I say.!!!!!   Not something I would be shouting from the roof top.

>Sadly Burns is now also owned by Mars

MM I would be interested where you got this information from, I feed Burns and wasnt aware of this.

TO BLUE
          no he can not have his hernia fixed as he can not go under sedation of any kind unless it is life threatning,

Oops my mistake it's James Wellbeloved that now belongs to Mars, I'm always getting the two mixed up Doh Senior moment ! Really must take more water with it !

Mars own so many brands which is why I stick with the Welsh one

Glad you checked your facts re Burns Nutrition, Moonmaiden. Might be worth doing that before making statements?

As for your question re charity donations, it does rather pre-suppose that we made a profit on PDE. Sadly not the case - although I think we just about broke even. There aren't very many rich documentary-makers - although our film The Family That Walks on All Fours did did well thanks to a big US sale.  

Our spare cash (not that it's really any of your business) goes to help run the rescue (www.blackretrieverx.co.uk). (And that doesn't make a profit either, just in case you were wondering..).

Jemima

Suggest you read the above post ! Still wouldn't feed it to my dogs.

who cares when what and how pedigree pulled out. Youve all said there foods rubbish :)
However I still think PDE  did do some good as it allowed people like myself and Joanne to voice our opinions on our breed. It also as I said before, forced changes to be made to some of the breed standards which for some was needed.

But surely you "stick to the Welsh one" because you think it's great, rather than because it isn't owned by Mars? Otherwise I guess Burns would be OK given that it's family owned?

Jemima

I use it because it is certified Organic & combines well with the other Organic food my dogs are fed(ie raw meat)

> did do some good as it allowed people like myself and Joanne to voice our opinions on our breed.

I don't understand this at all, you were always able to voice your opinion on your breed as much before as now.

As for breed standards it won't magically change the dogs, but will clarify what judges should be rewarding so that breeders will breed to a less exaggerated ideal, but as we have seen apart from rather fat dogs being in vogue the breed pretty much looks the same as it did in the 30's or earlier and that is very many dog generations something like 70 if you take a generation as 3 years, but it could be two or three times that many generations on the male side.

Selective breeding is an artificial form of evolution, and evolution takes time, usually a lot of time.

> Thanks for that info Polly. If they are a "private club" can they not make their own rules?

To an extent they do. They do have to make rules which are more like a "one size fits all" tee shirt. One reason being that some breeds like flatcoats can produce between 8 and 10 puppies as an average size litter, but a chihuahua is only likely to produce one or maybe two pups per litter, so if they said for example no bitch can have more than 20 pups, the flatcoat would be limited to two litters, (the good breeders in this breed rarely breed more than two or maximum three litters from a bitch anyway), The chihuahua bitch owner could breed on virtually every season and still not reach a maximum of pups produced, (I don't know what if any breeding restrictions are laid down in a chihuahua breed clubs codes of ethics, I am using the breed in this example to show how a breed can differ from another in a very basic way).

So any rule the KC makes has to be a "one size fits all". Having said that changes to breed standards and health tests which are recommended vary from breed to breed, but apart from it being necessary to do all the health tests to be an Accredited Breeder thereare no rules that health testing has to be followed.

> Reading what you have said it just makes the whole thing look a bit of a mess. If there are bad accredited breeders that mass produce pups an the one hand, and good non accredited breeders who do it as a hobby and do it well but are put off from becoming accredited because of association with the former, wheres the logic in the scheme at all?

Firstly, in some breeds it is more common to find breeders with kennels. This does not mean they are bad breeders, they are in many cases very good breeders, who will do every health test available and some, it depends a lot on the breed and the way a breeder chooses to keep their dogs. You will for example often find a breeders kennel will have a boarding facilty or will be a training kennel as well as breeding dogs. Bad commercial breeders are people who will often advertise several breeds in the local papers or on some less choosy internet web sites.

The Accredited Breeders scheme should be regarded as a 'work in progress', they KC has over the last 18 months been weeding out the bad breeders and is currently appointing field officers who job will be to visit all the ABS members in their area to help the Kennel Club to maintain a suitable standard of care for dogs and to help ABS members were possible for example by alerting them to any new requirement the KC introduces to the scheme, Again the role of the field officer is in the development stage.

> Surely being a private club it can set its own rules about stuff like how many matings are done in one year etc? I know it would be completely impossible to check every registered puppy accredited or not, but I don't see how running two alternates helps at all, and don't see how it will help against BYB and puppy farmers.

The Kennel Club has requested that all breed clubs have a Code of Ethics which their members should abide by, The one for Flatcoats for example is available for everyone to see on the Flatcoated Retriever Society web site, it does request members limit how many puppies / litters a bitch produces. Apart from a few new inclusions recently the code of ethics has changed very little in many years.

> From what Ive read on previous posts, the bad breeders are still not making efforts to test their dogs. I doubt that by offering an alternate scheme (ABS) and not enforcing it, that it will make a difference. I know a girl whose boyfriends parents bred their rotty with another. I know for a fact that the bitch wasn't registered at a vets, and unvaccinated, and that the pups had no health tests either. When I asked 3 weeks later how the pups (8) were doing, 3 had died, but she excitedly announced "we managed to KC register them".

This is the type of "breeder" people here are referring to as BYB and their level of ignorance is appalling. So the problem is how do we change this girl who is ignorant about good breeding practice to something approaching an ethical breeder? If she registered her pups with another register where no health checks are required and the owners of the register are not prepared to run seminars and other events where people like her can learn, how will she find out? Now having registered her dogs pups on the ordinary register with the KC gives the KC a way to contact her, and if she is prepared to learn and improve her breeding practices then the KC have achieved something by accepting her pups for registration. If buyers of her dogs pups have a registered dog they might also become interested in learning more about the breed and one way is to join a local dog training club, then maybe a breed club they might then go on to become a breeder but one who has had the opportunity to learn before breeding what makes an ethical breeder.

> If there was some legal obligation to register and test and a legal definition of what "purebred pedigree" means, it may make people like this think again before breeding. They thought by being KC registered meant they could more easily sell the pups.

The American Kennel Club did this, and all that happened was that breeders moved to a rival Kennel register and the AKC ended up in a lot of difficulties. It did not improve things for the majority of dogs.

> I dont see how the pups gain from this at all. At pesent the only gain is financial to the owners and financial to the KC who sadly gave them what they thought was a mark of approval. The KC needs to do more. Please don't shout me down! Its just the way I see it!

Despite the constant talk to the contrary, every penny the Kennel Club makes after paying their staff and for upkeep of their buildings and equipment, goes to the KC charitable Trust who disperse this money to fund health research, dog welfare and other very worthy causes. Many dog rescues have applied to and been given grants for their up keep. Thousands has been spent on veterinary colleges and research.

Looking at research, and putting it very simply, first there is a health problem identified, then the breed club has to raise the thousands of pounds to help the research along, finally somewhere down the line a reliable test is developed. Other registers are businesses, they are not there to fund health research, they are there to make money for the owners. So even though the KC is not perfect I'd rather support it than a business which makes money for the owners. If the KC was the sole legal registry then perhaps they could force 'bad breeders' to conform and to health test, but it is as I said before only a private club, but it should be remembered that with out the massive funding the KC puts into health research very few of the health tests we have at present would be available at all.

    > If there was some legal obligation to register and test and a legal definition of what "purebred pedigree" means, it may make people like this think again before breeding. They thought by being KC registered meant they could more easily sell the pups.

The American Kennel Club did this, and all that happened was that breeders moved to a rival Kennel register and the AKC ended up in a lot of difficulties. It did not improve things for the majority of dogs.

Polly, just to clarify... the AKC didn't lose registrations because they got tough re health.

Jemima 

Just to add for Olive,

It is also worth remembering that research cannot be undertaken with out funding. So if you have a breed which has a problem and the breed is a numerous breed like say labradors, there are more owners and breeders and simple maths you can work out that if 100 breeders of a numerous breed donate £10 to research there is more money in that kitty than say the amount a smaller number say 4 breeders of pugs putting £10 in can raise. So the more funding you can raise the more likely your chosen breed can get reliable health tests in place. That is why we need the backing of the KC they do support research.

Something would interest me: will "Pedigree" change it's brand name now? Given that they no longer support Crufts and therefore purebred/pedigreed dogs?

I did the quick recap of the purebred/pedigreed dogs I have taken in in the last five years alone:

57 altogether
1 Dane had Wobbler's - he had to have a 6 hour OP to remove the dorsal bones from 4 discs and now lives happily in Donegal
1 Rottweiler had HD, no OP necessary, he's on supplements and also in a new home
1 Neo with Cherry Eye, OP and rehomed to Germany
1 Rottweiler with Entropia, had OP and is still here

And one French Bulldog with Napoleon Complex "gggg" - he's still here and is hatching plans of world dominion.

The rest were fine.

f1 or mongrels:
512 altogether
14 with Entropia
13  with cherry eye
14 with Epilepsy (13 on meds and rehomed, one PTS's as fits could not be brought under control with meds and got worse)
32 cryptorchids (!!!)
oodles with skin problems which seem to stem from allergies to weak immune system and demodex
oodles with HD, ED and 6 with Cushing's (not sure if that is hereditary)

The list is endless.

Polly there has been a 400% increase in registered pugs with the KC since 1998, yet there are still no recommended health tests for pugs on their web site?
I still cannot accept that its ok to use the money from BYB and puppy farmers to put towards the long term welfare of these probably unhealthy dogs. 

If crossbreeds are equally predisposed to problems as purebred pedigrees, why is that pet insurance is always more for a pedigree?

> If crossbreeds are equally predisposed to problems as purebred pedigrees, why is that pet insurance is always more for a pedigree?

At a guess, I'd say it's because pet insurance on the whole is based on many things, not just predisposed health history.  i.e. purchase cost, less likely to be stolen and so on.

Also generaly crossbreeds cost less in the first place and soem peopel may see them as not worth paying out so much for, horrid notion but one I have come across fairly often.

A person who thinks it's worth paying/has paid a goodly sum for a dog will also think it is worth paying for Vets fees and Insurance,

Insurance companies base their premiums on terms of risk, higher risk equals higher premiums.  Generally companies work out their own calculated risk based on their 'book' and statistics throughout the market and set the premiums to cover their liabilities on their own commercial judgement.  Risk calculation is mostly based on the number of claims made in the past against breed, location etc, etc and what these claims are for.  The majority of claims made under insurance are for vet treatment and this is where insurance companies really do bear their liabilities. 

Cross-breeds/mongrels etc, etc are cheaper to insure and certainly market value will play a part in this.  Pedigrees are deemed higher value, more attractive in the market for theft; higher purchase price, higher market value etc, etc, etc.  More is known and documented about illnesses in pedigree breeds and certainly mongrels/crossbreeds are not exempt from illnesses either but the overall assumption is based on trends over x amount of years over the insured population to determine risk and the premium charged.  

>A person who thinks it's worth paying/has paid a goodly sum for a dog will also think it is worth paying for Vets fees and Insurance,

In principle yes, however, it doesn't necessarily go hand in hand.  Most people have dogs as pets and the emotive value placed on them simply cannot be measured in terms of money.  Many people insure their pets to be protected in the event of large vet bills regardless of whether pedigree or not, or how much they originally paid for their dog.

Polly wrote: "It is also worth remembering that research cannot be undertaken with out funding. So if you have a breed which has a problem and the breed is a numerous breed like say labradors, there are more owners and breeders and simple maths you can work out that if 100 breeders of a numerous breed donate £10 to research there is more money in that kitty than say the amount a smaller number say 4 breeders of pugs putting £10 in can raise. So the more funding you can raise the more likely your chosen breed can get reliable health tests in place. That is why we need the backing of the KC they do support research."

Yes, this is true. Also that many good breeders/club members DO contribute to research. The KC is dragging its heels about including breed-specific literature with registrations (having been promising it for four years now), but that would be a wonderful way of informing pet owners about particular issues/fund-raising/research samples needed etc. There's a big source of additional funding (and information of course) out there that is not currently being tapped.

Jemima

> Polly there has been a 400% increase in registered pugs with the KC since 1998, yet there are still no recommended health tests for pugs on their web site?

Just because there is a 400% increase in pugs being registered does not mean there is more money available to put into research to develop reliable health tests. If the 400% increase is because more are being bred to supply for example the 'Puggle' breeding market these dogs are not going to be health tested. You have to look behind the reason of the increase. Even with a 400% increase in breeding pugs are still a minority breed in terms of numbers when say compared to golden retrievers or labradors. Funding comes from several sources, so if a business decided to fund research they want to make money back on their investment, so if they invest in research they are less likely to invest in research into a problem in a comparatively minor breed they would simply not make any profit. If they invest in a numerous breed they will get their money back and importantly for them make a very profit too. Minority breeds will always be reliant on the people who are concerned for those breeds and organisations like the Kennel Club.

This could be because there is not a reliable test which breeders can use. Therefore if you want to help pugs improve then it would be a good thing to be a club member where you can push for such recommendations be placed on the web sites and if you fundraise for research you will be doing something that is truly practical that will help pugs.

Suppose a club recommended a health test which all breeders used, but years down the line it is discovered that this test was not reliable and many clear dogs were elimated from breeding programmes and unhealthy ones were included in breeding programmes? Perhaps this might be why some breed clubs are cautious about recommending tests which are not one 100% reliable?

Are you a club member of any of the Pug Dog clubs? Would you be prepared to fund raise for research?

Research is not government subsidised for dogs, even though many of the conditions which dogs are known to have if they can be resolved help people? For example: my friend Professor Peter Bedford conducted research into glaucoma in dogs and the methods of treating it, when this applied to humans won him the David Cole Travel Fellowship. With out dog breeders and dog lovers helping to fund his work it would probably have taken much longer to accomplish. Dr Imelda MacGonnell is in need of funds being raised to help her research in the Chiari malformation in cavaliers and other small breeds, which she is confident will eventually help people who have this condition. The list of researchers who need funds is almost endless, and unfortunately money for this is very limited. We need everyone to help fund research.

> I still cannot accept that its ok to use the money from BYB and puppy farmers to put towards the long term welfare of these probably unhealthy dogs. 

As far as the BYB breeders go it is not about the money, it is more to do with keeping a contact with a view that they might be able to influence them to carry out health tests. The fact that money comes in from them is incidental, and the fact that the use of this money goes back into dog welfare should be regarded as useful to dogs as a whole.

Polly

Polly. the KC "proudly announces" the pug is in its top 20 most popular breeds. Why? Because as they say themselves, its the cute nature of the way they look. To me this means they support the way they look. The majority of their problems are down to the way they look. Thats why its difficult to pin down specific problems (genetic), because their main problems are down to conformation, although when talking to the KC they seem to be in denial that there is a problem, as do the main Pug Dog Club.
To say the KC good for taking money from BYB's and puppy farmers appalls me. To justify this by saying it goes into worthy research is in my opinion double standards.
It would be like suggesting to the RSPCA's freedom food campainers that they should run an alternative scheme for battery farmers, that, if they pay say a ten pound fee, they could get the RSPCA stamp of approval, and then this money could go into research on chicken welfare? Plus the RSPCA could keep an eye on battery farmers with the hope they will change? I think not myself.

> If crossbreeds are equally predisposed to problems as purebred pedigrees, why is that pet insurance is always more for a pedigree?

because they cost more...

pet insurance does not just cover injury/illness, it covers recompense in loss or death and aids a reward and money to find them if lost or stolen and its more likely a pedigree will be stolen than a heinzer

Olive

Just how much research did you do before you bought your pug?    I've just googled "problems with pugs" - and there are over 20 pages of hits!   At the bottom of page 1 it lists specifically encephalitis; luxating patella; pigmentary keratitis; hip dysplasia;  and stenotic nares.

Personally, if a breed I had been interested in showed as many problems as this, I would have looked very very carefully at whether I could balance my desire for such a dog with the heartache owning it could bring.

There is an old saying caveat emptor - let the buyer beware.  And this really must be borne in mind when looking at puppies too.

> the pug is in its top 20 most popular breeds. Why? Because as they say themselves, its the cute nature of the way they look. To me this means they support the way they look. The majority of their problems are down to the way they look

But surely that's the main reason why you bought one.........doesn't that mean you supported how they look?

Astarte, I will therefore advise thieves to go for the crossbreeds, as this will cost them less in vets bills.

Lokis mum, finally your admitting its a flawed breed with many problems. I thank you.

Tooolz, your correct. I made my mistake and now Im educating others.

> For example: my friend Professor Peter Bedford conducted research into glaucoma in dogs and the methods of treating it, when this applied to humans won him the David Cole Travel Fellowship. With out dog breeders and dog lovers helping to fund his work it would probably have taken much longer to accomplish.

In fact this was Glaucoma found in my breed the Norwegian Elkhound, yet it still hasn't been possible to scientifically establish it to be hereditary and we are still no closer to establishing it's mode of inheritance, and until that happens a test to eliminate it.

Our only tool is pedigree research ensuring that dogs related to cases of this disease are only on one side of pedigrees, but still the odd case appears out of the blue.

Our breed has less than 150 registrations a year.  It is only thanks to the fact that other breeds have DNA test for PRA that the very few most recent cases in our breed were compared to the kinds in these other numerous breeds and fortunately turned out to be the same gene.

If it had not then we may have been decades away from having a test, as in order to develop one you need affected dogs, and of course we have been carefully avoiding doing so, so that there was only the very odd case, not enough for research.  Catch 22.

Olive - I have never EVER said that it itsn't a flawed breed.   I said it is a breed I know nothing about - apart from the fact that when I was a child (over 50 yrs ago!) my mother's friend owned one which would collapse after a short run.  Nothing new in that!

What I wonder about is WHY you chose such a breed and are now complaining about it - I ask again - did you not do your research?  If you did, you must have known about the problems with the breed and that you were likely to encounter one or other of them!

I made my mistake and now Im educating others.

If only life was as simple as that. Human beings always want somebody or something to blame when things go badly wrong -but it's not often that what one person thinks is to blame in fact IS the sole cause, if there indeed is a cause. When my first dog died aged 4, I blamed the complete food. When my brother killed himself my dad blamed it on the books he had read (Stephen King).  When a cat of mine gave birth last week to six kittens and totally ignored them and the entire litter ended up dying (despite efforts to bottlefeed), my husband blamed the queen for being a bad mother. But there are many thousands of dogs still eating the same food my first dog ate, and they're doing fine. There's millions of Stephen King books being read without there being mass suicides. And my cat -well chances are there was something wrong with the kittens and she knew, as animals do. I could go on forever listing similar examples. It's human nature when we feel upset to find something to blame. Doesn't change the fact there are plenty of happy and healthy Pugs out there, either.

> What I wonder about is WHY you chose such a breed and are now complaining about it - I ask again - did you not do your research?  If you did, you must have known about the problems with the breed and that you were likely to encounter one or other of them!

I think that is what I asked right at the beginning and have been getting at when asking if most kinds of canine conformation could predispose to some issue or another, even that of the wolf if taken out of the environment it has evolved to live in.

When choosing anything we have to research decide what we require so that we know if it will fit our expectations and know the limitations.

We can't expect a Chihuahua to pull sleds in the Arctic, no more than we can expect to carry a Mastiff under our arm (though both are still descended from the wolf), we have adapted them to suit our needs as we have with all domestic animals.

I did my research. I knew the risks. As you all keep telling me, all dogs are predisposed to conditions. I decided to go to the National Pug Dog Club who know what they are talking about. They list breeders. I chose and got my dog from a "reputable breeder". Also KC registered :)

So you bought your pug from a reputable breeder who is a member of the National Pug Dog Club.   Who did, from your own reports, test as far as possible her breeding stock.   So why are you now complaining?

It would be like me complaining that I had a redheaded son when I married the son of a redheaded father!   You did the research, you made the choice - no-one forced you.   So why not just enjoy your dog instead of complaining and by imputation blaming the breeder?  

> If crossbreeds are equally predisposed to problems as purebred pedigrees, why is that pet insurance is always more for a pedigree?

>because they cost more...

Yes, they do cost more and are higher risk and claims for illnesses form a large percentage upon calculating risk for the premiums.  Higher risk equals higher premiums

>pet insurance does not just cover injury/illness, it covers recompense in loss or death and aids a reward and money to find them if lost or stolen and its more likely a pedigree will be stolen than a heinzer.

Loss could apply to any dog regardless of breed/non breed, theft carries higher risk for pedigrees and in death, you will find in many policies, clauses that say 'we will pay the purchase price or the market value, whatever is less'.  When a dog gets older, market value depreciates.

The highest proportion of claims are for vet treatment across the insured population.

> Tooolz, your correct. I made my mistake and now Im educating others.

> I did my research. I knew the risks. As you all keep telling me, all dogs are predisposed to conditions. I decided to go to the National Pug Dog Club who know what they are talking about. They list breeders. I chose and got my dog from a "reputable breeder". Also KC registered :-)

I too researched my breed before I bought either of my dogs, the first one almost 10 years ago.  I knew of the possible health problems (hereditory.
Both my dogs are healthy, happy, and fit.  Both are KC registered.  I'm still trying to educate people too.
Flip side of the coin?

> Polly. the KC "proudly announces" the pug is in its top 20 most popular breeds. Why?

They say this because it is a popular breed, and because they get a lot of enquiries from people like yourself wanting to buy a pug. So if you really believe it is totally the Kennel Clubs fault why do you think so? Perhaps you should really blame yourself for finding this type of dog appealing and purchasing one?

>Because as they say themselves, its the cute nature of the way they look. To me this means they support the way they look.

Yes and you supported the way they look by buying one, so therefore you also support the way they look.

>The majority of their problems are down to the way they look. Thats why its difficult to pin down specific problems (genetic), because their main problems are down to conformation, although when talking to the KC they seem to be in denial that there is a problem, as do the main Pug Dog Club.

The KC are not in denial about anything. I do wonder why you are not doing something positive to help the breed if you are concerned as you say you are. Are you doing any fund raising for research? I have pointed out on several messages to this board that funds need to be raised before any health tests can be found. If you are blaming the Kennel Club I think you must also examine why you wanted to buy a pug especially if as you say you did your research, and if you are actively doing anything at all to redress what you view as a problem by doing something more practical than simply going on to a web forum and telling everyone how awful the Kennel Club is and that the pug breed has problems.

I have tried as have others here to explain that every breed has problems, and so do many crossbred dogs. We have also explained that the health problems encountered in one breed may be caused by a defective gene but in a different breed that same defect might be caused by a different combination of genes. Gwen who breeds pugs has even told you that while there are no reliable health tests in place the good breeders are x-raying their stock until a reliable health test is developed.

So I am not sure what you hope to achieve by taking this topic round and round in circles. You are/were a supporter of the pug and the way it looks, so by buying one and knowing the possible problems you are also partly to blame. If having had the experience you have had and still feel you want to do something for the breed, you should be trying to fund research, but I cannot get an answer from you to say if this is what you are doing and if so how much have you raised? If you aren't trying to help by a practical means then you are as much to blame surely?

We do not "point fingers" and "lay blame" on here because we are by and large experienced dog breeders, we understand the problems and pit falls of breeding, we can sympathise and we can try to help but there is a limit to what we can do. I am sure there is not one member on this thread who has taken the trouble to reply to you and many at great length who are not involved in some sort of fundraising to help their breed.

Can you clarify what you are wanting us to help you with?

> To say the KC good for taking money from BYB's and puppy farmers appalls me. To justify this by saying it goes into worthy research is in my opinion double standards.

Yes it might well seem to be double standards especially if you are only looking at the money angle, but the KC and I do agree with them see the bigger picture, and understand that the only way forward is to educate, and if they have no contact with the people breeding like the BYB then how can they educate them or indeed the next generation who are their puppy buyers? The Kennel Clubs stance on this is supported by the British Veterinary Association.

> It would be like suggesting to the RSPCA's freedom food campainers that they should run an alternative scheme for battery farmers, that, if they pay say a ten pound fee, they could get the RSPCA stamp of approval, and then this money could go into research on chicken welfare? Plus the RSPCA could keep an eye on battery farmers with the hope they will change? I think not myself.

Actually there have been a number of issues surrounding the way some of the 'Freedom Foods campaign' animals and fowl are being kept, but this is simply 'muddying the waters' and I am not prepared to go into the policies of the RSPCA who I have serious reservations about, especially where dogs are concerned and some of that is from my own experience.

Polly
this is a forum for discussing subjects, and so far thats what its been. People don't have to come on here for help alone but to express their views. I came on here to express my views, and I've also learnt alot of good things that people are doing, much more than I have done.
I have only been concerned for my breed of recent months so no I haven't done any fundraising at all. But this doesn't mean Im not hearing you and learning from what your saying, good ideas that you have etc.
I have never denied that I was part of the supply and demand back in 2003.
Yes I supported the way they look otherwise I wouldnt have fallen in love with the breed. But now that I have one I am hoping that more will be done to change the conformation which is responsible for many of their problems.
How do I do that? The Pug Dog Club dont see a need for a longer face for example and nor do the KC. I also realise this doesnt happen over night.
The reason I go around in circles on here is not to stir up trouble. The original topic was on PDE. It is my belief that some positives came from the programme, with regards to my concerns. It highlighted (for me) with regards to pugs that other dogs like mine were suffering, parltly due to conformation. Many papers/ reports have been carried out by the dogs trust and RSPCA (and currently by proff Bateson?) into problems of conformation which must have gone towards some of the changes in breed standards. But everyone on here seems to only see PDE as a negative thing.
I guess I will have to wait to see what the final pug dog standard will be, but in my opinion, from what Ive been told, not enough is being  done to safeguard against these problems that are down to conformation.
Its been a healthy discussion and Ive learnt alot which I thank some of you for. I guess I have no more to add without repeating myself.

> from what Ive been told, not enough is being  done to safeguard against these problems that are down to conformation.
>

That is the issue, most people don't believe that any major changes are needed in the Pug dog conformation as the vast majority of Pugs are healthy.  No-one, especially breeders who tend to keep more dogs than the average pet owner want to have dogs with health issues, even if only for the effect it has on ones wallet with costs of vet attention.  Also people who have experience of owning many of a breed over in some cases many years are able to see one dog in context against many.

No-one denies that occasionally a dog may have issues, but that has to be seen in context, and the fact is the vast majority of all pedigree dogs especially where care is taken in their breeding regarding selection for health and vigour, are healthy.

This is the issue most responsible breeders have with PDE, it sensationalised the issues (so causing more harm than good as it was an unbalanced program) giving the impression that pedigree dogs were all riddled with problems, and they used non KC registered (badly bred) examples to prove some of their points.  Yes the Cavalier breeder highlighted  still using their dog at stud had KC reg dogs, but again this is an issue already being addressed by the breed as a whole, even if some people stick their head in the sand about it, and the best way regarding breeding programs, as mode of inheritance is as yet unproven.

If all the  Pugs ills were entirely due to conformation they would all suffer from the problems.

The only thing that I suppose they all do suffer due to their conformation, along with all flat faced breeds is restricted airways compared to a normal (for a canine) head type. 

People who like brachycephalic breeds obviously do not think it hinders them sufficiently to be a welfare issue in the kind of lives they have been bred to lead, especially those breeds bred entirely as companion/lap dogs. 

Boxers seem to manage fine even though they are a very energetic working breed. 

None of the short faced breeds do well in heat, but then again canines were designed to be active at dusk and dawn and to hole up in the heat of the day, so expecting any canine to do well in the heat of the day as many are subjected to by their owners is an unfair comparison.

The curly tail in the pug has been mentioned, yet there are many breeds with this feature, in fact it is one of the first features of domestication (nearly all Spitz and Primitive breeds have them) yet do not pose health issues in most breeds, so in pugs it may be that the gene causing problems lies close to the genes responsible for curly tails, but the association is purely coincidental, and of course as all pugs have curly tails it may be a total red herring.  So far nothing is proven, though there are many theories.

> I guess I will have to wait to see what the final pug dog standard will be, but in my opinion, from what Ive been told, not enough is being  done to safeguard against these problems that are down to conformation.

Sorry have not had time to reply, I have dipped  in and out of this thread but felt that a longer read thorugh and time to formulate a helpful response was needed.  Still have not found that time but just wanted to add a little bit hear for Olive.  You seem to feel that changing the standard will stop health problems, possibly an opinion fuelled by PDE, which harped on about standards ad nauseum.  However, there are lots more fit and healthy pugs out there who do conform to the standard than there are ones with health problems, so it is a difficult task to convince breeders that the lines which they have bred and cherished (lots for many more years than we have been breeding pugs).  Taking just one point, the short faces, where are breeders expected to find fit, healthy, good examples of the breed with the very long face needed to breed with the shorter faced pugs they already have?  Most dogs with what are considered to be non-standard conformation fail in many ways, I don't think I have seen what I would consider to be an excellent pug with the single failing of a long muzzle.  But even before that stage, you have to convince breeders that the short face is a big health problem.  I can only give illustrations from my bunch, but as stated in my previous post, my only pug with a much longer foreface/muzzle is also my only pug with a breathing problem.  I don't for one moment blame the problem ON her muzzle length, she was a pup born with serious defects and health problems, anyone of which would mean she was never going to be suitable to breed from.  The sum total resulted in a very poor specimen of a pug.  The rest of my lot are certainly flat enough faced to conform to standard and do well in the show ring, they also have good enough breathing systems to keep up with my American Cockers on walks and loose running - probably could not go quite as far, but fly around at top speed, on the flat and up and down hill without any apparent trouble.  I don't expect them to be able to go for quite as long as the the spaniels, although this has not yet been put to the test.  Our observation led us to the conclusion that the enormous nose roll, overlapping the nostrils, combined with tiny, pinched nostrils, was the problem seen in lots of pugs in the showring.  We therefore took time to find the right pugs to allow us to breed pugs who do not (so far anyway) have breathing trouble.  Only been breeding them for 8 years, but so far it seems to be working :)  One of our pups is now doing competitive agility (he was also shown in Puppy at Crufts this year) my nephews pug, having pretty much finished his show career now he is out of Junior apart form Handling classes is also going to be doing agility, having successfully had a few training runs around courses.  Another completed an 8 mile charity walk/run earlier this year.

I guess what I am trying to say is, a lot of the suggestions for breed standard changes are red herrings, I am truly sorry your pug has health issues, and  hope it's breeder has been able to be helpful and supportive, but a lot of vets simply make assumptions about pugs without any foundation - 2 of my pups in the last couple of years have been looked at by their new vets for the first time and the owners been told "Oh you will have lots of problems here, very unhealthy breed"  Neither has had any trouble whatsosever.  Another one picked up a cough after the "Great North Dog Walk last year, complete with snotty nose, the vet tried very hard to pressure the owners into sending him for exploratory surgery to "Fix his airways" at one of the Vet. schools - luckily they asked me first, my vet confirmed simple Kennel cough, he was absolutley fine within 10 days.

I will try and go back through your posts and give some helpful answers to health and testing issues over the weekend, but the quick answer is still that there are no pug tests out there to do, which is why they aren't tested.  More research is going on, we are not, as a breed simply igrnoring problems, but we don't believe that concentrating on unecessary changes to the standard are the answer, when research into the causes of the problems is what is needed to find out the reasons behind problems, if they are inheredited, and then go for DNA research.  Even that is not a quick fix for more complex probelms.  The only DNA research I have been involved with is American Cockers, the KC have been enormoulsy helpful in putting lots more funding into the research programme, but 7  years down the oine we still do not have a genetic test for HC in the breed.

> But everyone on here seems to only see PDE as a negative thing.

That's very generalising isn't it?  Not everyone is seeing the programme as a negative thing, moreso the fact of how it was portrayed I think.

> Many papers/ reports have been carried out by the dogs trust and RSPCA (and currently by proff Bateson?) into problems of conformation which must have gone towards some of the changes in breed standards.

From what JH has said, the findings of these reports (investigations actually) will not be published until October, however a recent statement from a spokesperson at APGAW said: "The evidence... has led us to believe there is a serious welfare problem," the APGAW spokesman said. "It is already clear that we should not just be focussing on pedigree dogs as this problem also affects many unregistered purebred dogs". 

> The original topic was on PDE

..... In Australia, where even now amongst some people, there is so much confusion about what constitutes 'pedigree' and what doesn't.....

> I guess I will have to wait to see what the final pug dog standard will be, but in my opinion, from what Ive been told, not enough is being  done to safeguard against these problems that are down to conformation.

Then I suggest as other people already have, and as you already have by all accounts, you get back onto all the breed clubs you can involved with your chosen breed, as many of us are with our chosen breeds, and fight to be heard. 

See, I can see this from both points of view.  If I could change our breed standard somewhat I would, but you see, at the end of the day the breed standard is only 'desirable' NOT a blue print which must be adhered to.  I know it says that 'good examples' must be as close to the breed standard as possible, but quite honestly, I can see where it is becoming over-exaggerated, and that's where problems can arise.
I can equally also so how the programme was meant to shock, and I don't think that has done any good at all.  A more balanced approach could have  been so much more effective.  The 'good' things that were and are already been done by so many breed clubs was not mentioned, and that, in my opinion, does not make for balanced viewing.

I came on here to express my views, and I've also learnt alot of good things that people are doing, much more than I have done

Hi Olive

The reason people on here are so defensive about the PDE programme and its 'findings' is that it never at any stage said 'Do your homework, learn what problems there can be in certain breeds and only buy from people who health check their stock'. What they basically said was 'Don't buy a pedigree dog as they are unhealthy and breeders are out there trying to rip you off and pull the wool over your eyes and you would be better buying a crossbreed as they are healthier'. As I hope you can see from this forum, the majority (if not all) the breeders on here are trying their utmost to breed sound healthy dogs that will be a pleasure for people to own and live with for many years. PDE was extremely offensive to breeders like this who do not want to see their breeds suffer with health problems and can see the puppy farmers jumping on the bandwagon and producing dogs that may have (if not health problems) but temperament problems too. They make up the vast majority of the dogs that are handed into rescue kennels. Yet it is a shame that the production team didn't bother to mention this but as has been discussed and quoted from Jemima from other threads it would not have made good TV. As you can see crossbreeds are predisposed to many conditions as well as the pedigree dogs are.
Unfortunately a discussion like is always going to get heated because responsible breeders  really do care.

> Astarte, I will therefore advise thieves to go for the crossbreeds, as this will cost them less in vets bills.

well first off you'd be commiting a crime...

and second thats nonscence :)

> Yes, they do cost more and are higher risk and claims for illnesses form a large percentage upon calculating risk for the premiums.  Higher risk equals higher premiums
>

well i think brainless had a point about perhaps some pedigree owners are more willing to fork out fro treatment (which is just awful)

> Loss could apply to any dog regardless of breed/non breed, theft carries higher risk for pedigrees and in death, you will find in many policies, clauses that say 'we will pay the purchase price or the market value, whatever is less'.  When a dog gets older, market value depreciates.
>

i was actually refering to the reward for a lost dog, which an insurance company might deem suitable to be higher for a more expensive dog. yes a dogs value depreciates as it gets older, both pedigree and cross- if the pedigree starts with a higher price in the first place then the price will still be higher.

> The highest proportion of claims are for vet treatment across the insured population

obviously i should think... illness happens for a variety of reasons to all dogs, theft, loss and accidental death only occassionally