>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.

Well, unless you go to a broker for a bespoke policy, the lost section is pretty much standard in commercially based polices. I don't know of any commercially based policies where the reward section is higher if the dog is more expensive compared to a dog that was cheaper, perhaps you could point some out to me?

>If the pedigree starts with a higher price in the first place then the price will still be higher.

Not necessarily, it depends on the key questions asked on the application form.  If the insurer asks upfront for the purchase price then you can guarantee that the purchase price is playing a part in the quotation.  Some insurers do not ask for the purchase price as part of their quotation criteria.

> Not necessarily, it depends on the key questions asked on the application form.  If the insurer asks upfront for the purchase price then you can guarantee that the purchase price is playing a part in the quotation.  Some insurers do not ask for the purchase price as part of their quotation criteria

the many ones i've spoken to do

> perhaps you could point some out to me?

no i couldn't, but if someone has perhaps stolen a dog they might decide to accept a high reward depending on the value of the dog.

> 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.

Yes I am aware that this is a forum and I do know that forums are for discussing things. I was confused about your motives, and began to wonder if you needed help since you keep driving the topic around in the same circles.

Clearly you agree with every aspect of Jemimas biased programme. As another poster here said good honest breeders feel really annoyed by the programme because no mention was made of the work they already doing. I personally was very very disappointed with it, I was hoping for a more intelligent programme, which would spark knowledgeable debate, leading to improvements for all breeds and possibly for all dogs. Had I wanted to see 'tabloid' journalism on TV I could have watched something as comparatively intelligent as Big Brother or the Telly Tubbies. There was no depth to the programme, and it's lack of balanced and informed information was appalling. As another poster here reminds us all, Jemima did say on another thread that she abandoned the science and went for the "WOW" factor.

I think unless you have bred a litter and realised exactly how much a good breeder puts into that planned breeding, of themselves and has had all the health tests done, you can only understand a minute part of what planning and hope goes into every litter and every single dog in a breeding programme. The programme as has been said did not show anything positive that the good breeders are doing. As I said earlier, had the programme been more positive and said that the good caring breeders really are working very hard to ensure the health of their breed, Jemima would have had every one of them support her and more would have been achieved. After the programme many breeders had abuse hurled at them when simply out walking their dogs, an I know of some who actually received death threats and ended up going to the police. If the programme was fair and helped things to progress then all I can say is that I cannot see how progress comes from mindless abuse, much less death threats. (While these threats were probably empty threats, surely it is upsetting and very scary?)

I will not say any more on the programme I feel too many words have been wasted on it as it is. I think if you want to believe a biased programme then that is your right the same as it is mine to believe it was a poor effort at best and an appalling waste of BBC licence payers fees.

> 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.

Well if you join a breed club you are going to get a lot more done to change peoples minds, and if you also do the fundraising and help research along then you will only be doing what all the good breeders are already doing and will continue to do. I would love to hear that in a years time you have managed to join a club, and become a fundraiser for research, and that things for your chosen breed is improving, that you are close to finding a reliable health test.

> I have never denied that I was part of the supply and demand back in 2003.

I never said you had denied it. I was really trying to look at what you hoped to achieve with this debate, and as I could not see any obvious goal or aim I therefore assumed you must be here because you wanted help with something. I am glad that the posts here have given you some ideas of things you can do to help.

> 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.

I think there was a recent change to the breed standard... but as I say I am not a pug expert, Gwen is and I leave this to her to answer.

> The reason I go around in circles on here is not to stir up trouble.

I didn't think you were trying to stir up trouble, but I was wondering why you were driving the topic round and round in circles. I even wondered if you were speaking for Jemima to get us to debate further a topic we are all getting heartily sick of.

> 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.

Have you seen any reports showing the good side of things?

With regard to DNA tests.... here's a thought......

A breed has eye problems so a DNA test is developed. Now suppose a dog is tested and found to be a carrier, should it be used in a breeding programme?

Now assume that good breeders are not going to want to use that dog or any of his/her siblings... with me so far? So they breed to other dogs, and although the dog who is identified as a carrier lives to 13 years old and never develops the full blown eye problem then dies. Are that dog's genes wasted?

So everyone has rushed off and used a.n.other dog and it turns out some years down the line he carries a much worse genetic disease, which does not manifest itself until that dog is 9 years old, were the breeders wrong not to use the first dog?

Breeding is a very complex thing, and as yet the absolutely perfect dog (regardless of whether it is pedigree or a crossbred or a complete heinz 57 mix), has not yet been born. Breeders who care do their best with what they have, with or without reliable health tests.

> 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.

Who has told you that not enough is being done? Unless you are involved "at the coal face" you can not know and neither can anyone else. That would be like me asking my cat loving elderly mother for advice on rearing giraffes? Then applying what she tells me to my breed. Prof Bateson has listened to many people and has to make a report based on that. It is not first hand experience, yet his report could end up influencing dog breeding for better or for worse. I have already said I will not discuss the RSPCA, and that includes any report they might write.

> 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.

Actually you do have something more to add, I truly hope it will be that you will be able to add that you are working with the breed clubs to make the breed healthier and are working hard to raise funds to find truly reliable health tests, that you are able to understand what we are saying and why, (this doesn't mean you have to agree with it), that you are willing to listen to all sides of this debate and take a sensible line to help the breed you have fallen in love with.

How that GSD was placed was beyond belief. I think the program aired a lot of things that people needed to see and gave those dog lovers the chance to see what actually goes on, when they wouldn't normally attend a show or be able to see beyond the glamour. The best bit of that program for me was when Beverley Costello, brimming with pride over the win of her Cavalier at the Championship Show, was confronted. IMO she more than deserved it and the way she reacted in front of the camera was the icing on the cake. She couldn't even admit to the truth! 34 litters sired, 28 after being diagnosed, absolutely disgusting. What a horrible excuse for a human being and didn't she know it when they were taking the photos. The only losers are the dogs even if they win!
The KC need to regain some credibility and respect, they aren't going to do that buy pandering to the breeders.

Polly

Just wanted to say thank you for your well-balanced post - I think you summed the situation up extremely well!

Now - I wonder if we (we being breeders who are concerned about health testing etc) were to get together to raise enough funds for a progamme to be made on "back-yard breeders/puppy farmers exposed" - how much would Passionate Productions charge?????

mmmmm......there's a thought!!

> 34 litters sired, 28 after being diagnosed, absolutely disgusting.

I think the owners of the bitches the dog mated sahare responsibility ehre, assumign the dogs status was known.

The dog winning is irrelevant, if he is a good lookign dog showing no ill health then the judge can do nothign but award him the placing he deserves on the day.  it is him being used for breeding if he is going to produce affected offpring that is at issue.

I agree the owenr should have been ashamed.

>I think the owners of the bitches the dog mated sahare responsibility ehre, assumign the dogs status was known.

Absolutely agree, they do share some responsibility if they knew the dog's status, initially they wouldn't have. Ultimately though, there is absolutely no excuse for this dog ever being offered for stud once diagnosed. I could never imagine having that on my shoulders and being able to sleep peacefully at night. It just goes to show it's not always just BYB's in it for the money.

>The dog winning is irrelevant, if he is a good lookign dog showing no ill health then the judge can do nothign but award him the placing he deserves on the day.  it is him being used for breeding if he is going to produce affected offpring that is at issue.

Here I disagree to a degree, although I know that it is difficult to enforce, I think it is relevant, as Championship status is normally what proves the worth of the dog to be used for breeding. This dog has just been awarded 1st place at the Championship Show, yet in reality this dog is worthless to the future of the breed. Maybe only tested show dogs should be allowed to compete in serious competition. Health should play a huge importance alongside type and IMO that dog, due to his health status, he was not a good representative of the breed and definately undeserving of winning. That is just how I see it though.

Maybe only tested show dogs should be allowed to compete in serious competition. Health should play a huge importance alongside type and IMO that dog, due to his health status, he was not a good representative of the breed and definately undeserving of winning. That is just how I see it though.

Would make it very unfair for conditions you can't test for. With that logic you could then for instance not show a dog that had HD, but you could show one with epilepsy. Which is worse? (And would it be fair that one breed could then be shown with a hip score of 45, but others with no more than 5? Going on the BMS for different breeds.) And what about certain conditions, like eye conditions, where you could have a healthy dog that is a carrier? And this scenario will include Cavaliers with SM. I don't think any of us knows what this dog's scan result was. Was it D, E or F? If it was D, then the official recommendation is that he CAN be used for breeding, to bitches that are A only. Don't get me wrong, I don't actually think it is excusable to use ANY dog as many times as this one was unless it had something to offer no other, or very few, dogs did (such as being scanned as A perhaps?!) but if this dog was scanned as D then the owner did follow the recommendations laid down by the experts (experts seen in PDE!). This is a breed that could technically speaking die out if only dogs scanned A and heart clear etc etc were bred from so I can see the logic in allowing Ds to be used on As.

> Here I disagree to a degree, although I know that it is difficult to enforce, I think it is relevant, as Championship status is normally what proves the worth of the dog to be used for breeding.

This is only part of what proves a dog worthy of breeding from and then only to the appropriate partner.

Using the flavour of the month just because it is a winner is as bad as using the closest dog or the one you own yourself regardless of it being the best match for the bitch.

So many different things need to be weighed up when deciding on any match when breeding.

>Using the flavour of the month just because it is a winner is as bad as using the closest dog or the one you own yourself regardless of it being the best match for the bitch.

I know all that and most breeders using the fact that they show to be a license to breed is just as bad, so therefore it would make sense by the mentality of show breeders, that Champions are what count and pet people are easily guided by the amount of champions in a pedigree, paying a high price for a dog that may well have inherited problems from a lack of health screening or hidden problem and a show system that rewards looks alone, but hey, they got a puppy with god knows how many champions in the pedigree from a reputable breeder who regularly shows and does well, so that can't be bad?

> so therefore it would make sense by the mentality of show breeders

not any of the ones i know...

you seem to have a terrible view of people who show and sometimes breed. surely you have read the words of the many brilliant breeders on this forum?

I think anyone involved with showing or working dogs knows full well handsome is as handsome does.

It is in fact the pet breeder who boasts of the champions in thee pedigree, the show or filed wins are a measure of that aspect of the dog, not all of what makes the dog.

The show ring does not just rewarded looks but a dogs soundness on the move and temperament are judged too.

In the field the working ability alone counts, so the two areas really ought not to be divorced as they are in the UK.

This weakness in the system is an inadvertent result of the popularity of canine pastimes in this country.  Each aspect has become so popular and well supported it simply is almost impossible to do all at the same time and place, so obedience shows are no longer held routinely with Conformation shows etc. 

Of course field trials and conformation shows simply can't be accommodated together, (in fact many dog owners are against the very use their breeds were developed for) but in the past many people took part in various areas of dogs and got a much more rounded picture of the requirements of their breed.  In countries where shows are less frequent and smaller working your dog and showing it are all part of the same pastime.

> How that GSD was placed was beyond belief.

I am told it was bred overseas and came to Crufts to compete before returning home, how would this impact on what UK breeders are doing?

> I think the program aired a lot of things that people needed to see and gave those dog lovers the chance to see what actually goes on,

I agree with you the programme certainly DID NOT show what goes on. You should read the earlier posts in which the origin of the dogs in the film were from.

>when they wouldn't normally attend a show or be able to see beyond the glamour. The best bit of that program for me was when Beverley Costello, brimming with pride over the win of her Cavalier at the Championship Show, was confronted. IMO she more than deserved it and the way she reacted in front of the camera was the icing on the cake. She couldn't even admit to the truth! 34 litters sired, 28 after being diagnosed, absolutely disgusting. What a horrible excuse for a human being and didn't she know it when they were taking the photos. The only losers are the dogs even if they win!

Obviously you do not read Our Dogs if you did you have seen from articles that there are reason you might breed from a carrier, and that in the case of the cavalier, you would have learn that the problem is not straight forward and to comment with out indepth knowledge leaves you at a disadvantage. I assume you have cavaliers to comment on Beverley Costello and what she may or may not have done? Do you take the BRS? That is certainly an eye opener for who is breeding what and how many. If you weren't getting this publication pre PDE and for several years in the run up to it, you can not know who was breeding what or how many times any cavalier dog was used at stud or not. So it appears your comment is based on nothing more that hearsay.

> The KC need to regain some credibility and respect, they aren't going to do that buy pandering to the breeders.

If the KC "pandered" to the breeders as you put it, then why have constantly over many years made alterations to the breed standards to improve the health and welfare of dogs, why have they in the past opened the breed registers to allow unregistered dogs and to allow cross breeding with other breeds. Some of the things they have done over the years the breeders have not agreed with to start with but have gradually come round to the KC way of thinking. Clearly a lot of people do now have misconceptions about breeding and the Kennel Club, all of which are misplaced.

I have not watched the pedigree dogs exposed programme and nor do I intend to. I also admit to not reading all the threads on this matter. However, I do have my own views on the Kennel Club.

My border collies are all ISDS registered. Pups from any litters of ISDS parents have to be eye tested before the pups themselves can be registered. It's a step to reducing such conditions as Collie Eye Anomaly. I don't understand why, where it is possible, that the KC don't demand that parents/pups be tested for certain health conditions before a litter can be registered.

I appreciate that there is many conditions where this isn't possible. For example, one of my dogs has epilepsy. I know it is becoming an increasing issue in border collies but, despite knowing that, I still purchased another collie. Do I blame the breeder or the KC? Of course not. However, if there had been a DNA test to determine carriers of epilepsy then I would be one of the first to campaign that the ISDS and KC demand this before litters can be registered.

I feel there are so many wonderful breeders of all pedigrees out there. People who are dedicated to bettering their breed. People who health check because they know it's right. It would be wonderful if the KC supported this practice where it could.

Just my thoughts xx

>I am told it was bred overseas and came to Crufts to compete before returning home, how would this impact on what UK breeders are doing?

If you are referring to Zamp Polly, UK Germanic breeders use the same lines in their breeding programme.  Zamp has progeny here in the UK and indeed many UK folk bring their dogs over to Germany to be mated and also import German dogs.  Zamp was at Crufts but not at Manchester.

To be fair, in a recent speech by Meyer (SV breed Warden), they have 2 main problems in the conformation in the breed, size and hind over angulation.  There is also a reluctance to bring working and show lines together but there has been a little progress made in the last couple of years, it will take time. Of course, this doesn't excuse the over angulation and bizarre conformation in some of the English show lines.  

BTW, some good comments in your posts, thank you for your time and dedication.  :-)

Hi

Thank you Spender for clearing that up. I can't say I am knowledgeable about GSD lines and breeding any more than I am about Pug lines or breeding. I have flatcoats which are gundogs and I suspect many GSD and pug breeders would equally not know where to start when looking at flatcoat lines or flatcoat breeding. Every breed is different, and I do not think you can know every breed in the depth that those good breeders involved in breeding that type can be.

If there is a problem and the breed clubs and breeders are adressing them then I do think they are the best qualified to do that and this cannot be done with tabloid journalism, sensible intelligent debate and followed up by actions by the people who are the experts in this are of much more value don't you agree? If people don't like what they see then they should do something practical, join breed clubs, raise funds for research and try to learn as much as they can about the difficulties the breeders face, as we all know breeding is not straight forward. I often use as a simple example hip displaysia. I had a bitch who scored 0-0 a perfect hip score and I mated her to a 2-2 scoring dog. Nothing in five generations had scored higher than a 2-3 total 5 but those two produced a puppy who scored 11 - 18 total 29. Yet most people with no knowledge or very little knowledge would have expected the whole litter to score between 0-0 and 2-2, but breeders realise that there is more to breeding than is obvious.

Absolutely Polly, what is needed is education and if dog people are genuinely interested and want to do something positive, they can indeed do as you suggest.

We all need to move on from PDE, it's over now, done and dusted, we can't put the clock back and it will not help anyone and especially not the dogs getting stuck in time, but we can move forward and up, and work towards improving health in breeds and that goes for everyone.  

> The best bit of that program for me was when Beverley Costello, brimming with pride over the win of her Cavalier at the Championship Show, was confronted. IMO she more than deserved it and the way she reacted in front of the camera was the icing on the cake.

You seemed to positively enjoy that programme....bit of a funny emotion in the circumstances.

> My border collies are all ISDS registered. Pups from any litters of ISDS parents have to be eye tested before the pups themselves can be registered. It's a step to reducing such conditions as Collie Eye Anomaly. I don't understand why, where it is possible, that the KC don't demand that parents/pups be tested for certain health conditions before a litter can be registered.

Can you tell me when compulsory litter screening was brought in as I haven't read anything about any change to the rule"Parent dogs have to be tested before pups can be registered"

I thought the current rules were

3. ELIGIBILITY FOR REGISTRATION OF DOGS
3.1. Summary of the process for the Registration of puppies from a litter:
a. The owner(s) of the sire and dam must be, or become, member(s) of the Society (Ordinary, Overseas or Associate). The owner of the sire must be a member at the time of submitting a mating card and the owner of the dam must be a member at the time of registration of the puppies.
b. The puppy parents, sire and dam, must be registered in the Society's Stud Book or other approved register. (The ABCA and CBCA are approved registers. The owner of such a dog must present an original registry certificate with pedigree [photocopies are not acceptable]; sire's documents with the Mating Card and dam's documents with the Registration Form. These will be returned to the owner(s).)
c. Sire and dam must have passed defined ophthalmic eye tests.
d. Ideally, both sire and dam would be DNA CEA tested Normal. The test is only compulsory if there have been CEA Affected progeny, or if one parent is a DNA CEA tested Carrier.
e. The mating must first be reported and then the puppy details be submitted in a Registration Form with payment before the pups are two years old.

Have they changed again since Feb 2009 ?

The reason that the ISDS can impose compulsory health testing is in bold above 3.1.a Both owners must be members of the ISDS & there for bound by the ISDS rules for entries into the ISDS registry records. The KC whilst being a private club, holds an open(as in you don't have to be a member to register dogs with them) stud book & if they were to require compulsory health testing, they would be open to being sued for"Restriction of Trade"by breeders, who opt not to test as it would prevent them for entering their dogs on an open & because only two breeds have all the breed clubs on board, only these two breeds can have compulsory health testing.

Interestingly I have an ISDS dog who is a CEA carrier(DNA tested), despite being from 30 years of breeding clinically normal to clinically normals dogs & none of the dogs in his pedigree have produced one affected dog, my two KC only reg dogs are both genetically normal for CEA(they are a mix of KC & ISDS breeding quite close up)& I know some of the dogs in their pedigree(they are full brother & sister)are carriers(from the Australian lines behind them :-( & not just of CEA)but my two are DNA normal for all the tests available at this time(CEA/CH/TNS/CL/MDR-1)& my ISDS dog is also normal for all the other DNA tests as well.

> Maybe only tested show dogs should be allowed to compete in serious competition. Health should play a huge importance alongside type and IMO that dog, due to his health status, he was not a good representative of the breed and definately undeserving of winning. That is just how I see it though.

So a health tested dog(that may/may not have a genetic or non genetic condition or a carrier of a genetic condition)would still be able to be shown ?

Or only dogs that are health tested both clinically & genetically normal be able to be shown ?

In Germany,in GSDs, only health tested dogs that are within the accepted normal range of results can be bred from, but it does not disbar them from being shown & gaining awards & why should it. One BOB at Crufts in GSDs actually has HD over the breed mean, however she is not unsound, in movement or temperament & quite rightly was BOB the year she was shown at Crufts, however she was never bred from & remains a much loved pet of her owners.

I think you do not understand the true value of DNA tests, it means that dogs that are carriers, can be safely bred from to genetically normal partners & the offspring tested to know their DNA status. The ratio of carriers to normal offspring will be in reality better than 50/50 ratio, from results I have looked at it was more like 80/20 normal to carriers on average. Most people outside the breed & with only a small knowledge of genetics think using a carrier to be a mortal sin ! However in ISDS BCs it has meant that the"lost"bloodlines of Bwlch Hemp(ISDS 201604) are now available again as offspring of his that are normal/carriers can be included once again in the ISDS gene pool(& he was an awesome producer of quality working dogs)

A KC Championship(or Show Championship in all groups except Gundogs & Border Collies)is based on the phenotype of the dog & not the genotype, it is not a judgement about the dogs being the ideal to breed from, but of the phenotype to be bred to. My Champion Bearded Collie was not the product of Champion parents(& she was made up in the days of entries being well over 300 for the breed at all shows)but of well bred going back to the original dogs from working stock, which were KC registered from 1944 onwards

Moonmaiden

I am not familiar with the process for DNA tested cases. It's been 4 years since I had a puppy :( However, whilst procedures may have changed I would anticipate the desired outcome would remain the same.

However, the procedure was always that the parents would be tested for both CEA and PRA. A litter of puppies was then tested between 5-12 weeks and an A certificate would be awarded to each pup. If one of the parents were under 2 years of age, a B certificate would initially be awarded until such time as a PRA examination could be carried out once over 2 years of age. I have very strong memories of taking a 6 week old litter of puppies through to Edinburgh for their opthalmic examination. A 2 hour drive with screaming pups is never to be forgotten lol

Personally, registration is the least important factor for me when choosing a dog. I look for one with hip scoring, eye screening and a line free from epilepsy. If it then transpires that one of my dogs develops such a condition, I know that I have done all I can to minimise the risk - nobody is to blame (and most certainly not the breeder or registering societies). I also steer well clear of show lines as, given my dogs work livestock, I find show lines have too dense a coat and too short legs to be what I class as "fit for purpose".

Perhaps the KC should consider being a member only organisation like the ISDS then :) I fail to see why they would want to encourage breeders who "opt not to test" where a test exists.

>However, the procedure was always that the parents would be tested for both CEA and PRA A litter of puppies was then tested between 5-12 weeks and an A certificate would be awarded to each pup. If one of the parents were under 2 years of age, a B certificate would initially be awarded until such time as a PRA examination could be carried out once over 2 years of age. I have very strong memories of taking a 6 week old litter of puppies through to Edinburgh for their opthalmic examination. A 2 hour drive with screaming pups is never to be forgotten lol

Well none of mine have ever been officially screened for CEA as a litter & I've been an ISDS member for nearly 40 years & all of mine have had A certificates. There has(as in the quote from the rules as of Feb 2009)never been a requirement to screen litters as a prerequisite for registration. The breeder of my current ISDS dog has been a member for far longer & is still breeding & has never had to have any puppies litter screened & his litter year wasn't officially screened & they all had A certificates too(or the current equivalent). He does have all his litters screened by his vet(who is an BVA panellist), he also hip scores all his breeding dogs as well.

The rules I quote above are not just for DNA tested dogs they are for all ISDS registered dogs

I do think changing the KC stud book into a closed one would d be a forward step & then the forward looking breeders/breed councils/clubs would be able to have the mandatory health tests they have wanted for so long. The GSD breed council has for years pressed for all GSDs to be heath tested before being bred from, but just one club, whose committee & members are very anti any health testing, object each time, stopping it being brought in. Interestingly enough I read in a pet dog magazine, that the writer(whoever they are)thought the "English"type looked the more workman like(or words to that effect)yet these are the very dogs that are rarely if ever health tested for anything !

So, when you collect a puppy from the breeder they come with the ISDS certificate? Or, at the very least, it comes within a couple of weeks?

I find it very surprising that you were unaware of this procedure to be honest. Every ISDS pup I own or have bred had to be tested between 5 and 12 weeks for CEA. The opthalmic vet then completed the necessary forms for return to the ISDS detailing clear or affected. It's a procedure long debated by the ISDS given the tricks some people have played to try and obtain a full litter "pass". The results were always published in the ISDS newsletter.

Very puzzling

> it means that dogs that are carriers, can be safely bred from to genetically normal partners & the offspring tested to know their DNA status..........

> Most people outside the breed & with only a small knowledge of genetics think using a carrier to be a mortal sin ! However in ISDS BCs it has meant that the"lost"bloodlines of Bwlch Hemp(ISDS 201604) are now available again as offspring of his that are normal/carriers can be included once again in the ISDS gene pool(& he was an awesome producer of quality working dogs)
>

This is exactly how we can now avoid constricting gene pools.

Many lines in breeds have been lost because a dog produced a problem in a minority of offspring.

I look back through my club journals and it is quite obvious how many great dogs lines have been lost for one reason or another, mostly for good reasons of avoiding health issues.

Polly, I have asked you before and am now asking you again: please do not misquote me. You are entitled to your opinion regarding the programme but I have never said that I "abandoned the science and went for the WOW factor".  The whole programme was underpinned by science.

PDE was as it was because we spent two years researching it and that is the conclusion we came to i.e. that change was long overdue and that the the problems were serious enough to warrant the approach we took. It was not done lightly and it certainly was not done for "tabloid" reasons.  And it most certainly has led to "debate, improvement for all breeds and possibly for all dogs". In the past year, we have seen a commitment to better training of judges; the revision of 79 breeds standards; the KC getting tough re GSDs, the establishment of a new Genetics Centre, and a clear indication from Bateson and APGAW that they are looking to improve the lot of all dogs, not just pedigree dogs. Meanwhile, there has been a big increase in the number of cavaliers being MRI scanned and Cathryn Mellersh told me last week that the AHT has seen a "huge increase" in interest from breeders since the programme (which with a bit of luck with lead to the speeder establishment of more DNA tests). Beverley Costello is no longer breeding from her SM cavalier. There's renewed (and overdue) impetus to tackle puppy farming. And in the next couple of weeks, the KC will even announce the acceptance of the low-uric-acid dals (despite the dal breed clubs' resistance) heralding a new generation of dals that won't suffer from this debilitating, occasionally life-threatending condition. Much of this was prompted by the programme.

PDE concentrated on the bad things and the things that need to change. I know it wasn't the whole story and I know some breeders felt injured by it. But the problems where they exist REALLY ARE SERIOUS AND REALLY DO NEED TO CHANGE, as has been confirmed by the RSPCA and RVC report and will shortly be confirmed by APGAW and Bateson. I am sure these two last reports will contain greater acknowledgment of conscientious dog breeders that we did, but do you honestly think they're going to conclude anything other than  we did ie. that that the two main issues we highlighted in the film - inbreeding and conformation problems - need to be tackled and urgently?

Jemima

If you read the rules above directly from the ISDS site, there is still no requirement for the litter to be CEA eye screened before registration & therefore no change to the registration system, apart from dropping the eye test having to be done after the age of 2 to simply having to be done within a year of the litter being born.

All the ISDS dogs(well all the BCs in fact)I have owned have all been litter screened, but not compulsorily, because the breeder always did. None of the puppies had any BVA certificates to show litter screening(except Wu)either. I know that none of them were officially screened, because I either took them to be screened or the breeder & I took them to be screened(except Rjj who was screened in Cornwall).

I thought the results were published(well failures)in the yearly stud book, never seen any litter screening results in the ISDS magazine, can't find any in the current issue either. You have an Ophthalmic vet ? I've only ever been to BVA panellists.

Before any progeny are to be registered, the sire and dam must have been examined and passed clear of the two currently monitored eye abnormalities being CEA and PRA (until 2009 the rules specified an age of two years but this no longer applies)

Again nothing mentioned about compulsory litter eye screening, ISDS Rules I've read & reread the ISDS rules & cannot find anything about the litter eye screening being compulsory before puppies can be registered. I know they have to be DNA tested if one of the parents is a carrier, but that, of course, is not the same thing at all.

I know Barbara, back then they had to chuck the baby out with the bathwater, but with so many DNA tests available, some babies can be saved for the good of the breed.

> but with so many DNA tests available, some babies can be saved for the good of the breed.

Sadly some people just fail to grasp this.  I know that some people in our breed were shock horror at the idea of using carriers, duh the whole point is to avoid producing affected offspring without loosing the good points of any dog/line.

Some people I think fail to grasp that a Carrier is clinically normal, they see to think they just have less of a problem but will develop it to some extent later or something.

Oh man.  Get the woman a medal. 
I can say, hand on heart, that programme has changed nothing within my breed that wasn't already been done.

I will believe it when I see it, how on earth Bateson and co are going to improve the 'lot' of all dogs, not just 'pedigrees'. 

(Which by the way I don't think you have quite confirmed on the dolforums quite what a 'pedigree' is, as terminology is slightly different in Australia to the UK.  I might be wrong, but couldn't see it as I got a little weary reading the 97 pages!).

Oh man.  Get the woman a medal

Tell me about it!!!!. PDE also stated that Goldens have a cancer problem. Well having lost one to Lymphoma last year, I am on a cancer forum. Guess what, you should see how many people are on there talking about their crossbreeds with cancer. In fact, probably more crossbreeds than pedigrees.

> Absolutely Polly, what is needed is education and if dog people are genuinely interested and want to do something positive, they can indeed do as you suggest.
>
> We all need to move on from PDE, it's over now, done and dusted, we can't put the clock back and it will not help anyone and especially not the dogs getting stuck in time, but we can move forward and up, and work towards improving health in breeds and that goes for everyone.  

I have been a supporter of health testing for many years and I will always support good breeders who do their best to produce sound healthy stock. I hope that there will be more interest in raising funds for health testing and that more reliable tests will be found. Almost every time I see somebody on a forum complaining about health in breeds like Olive has brought to our attention, I am always wondering why these people if they are as concerned as they claim they are have not done something practical like supporting health testing, or actively joining clubs to improve things, or fund raising? They nearly all clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge about breeding and the decisions breeders have to take and the consequences when things go wrong.

With out the backing of the good breeders none of the changes the KC have made would have gone through and if any legislation comes out of this that it will back the good breeders and not have been influenced by people who have no real first hand knowledge of the joys and heart ache and the soul searching that breeders put into breeding. The Bateson enquiry and APGAW could not give every breeder the chance to speak so not all breeders have had a fair chance to say what they wanted to, only a select few breeders did and a few none breeders who probably for the most part do not really know what they are talking about, since having not bred a litter they do not understand the great effort all good breeders put into their breeding plans. My hope is that things will change because knowledgeable breeders will be leading the way and will have had a chance to talk to APGAW and the Bateson enquiry, not because people who do not know but have an opinion based not on experience have been able to attend APGAW and the Bateson enquiries. What I am worried about is that it might be a badly constructed piece of legislation which every one will live to regret like the Dangerous Dogs Act was.  The Dangerous Dogs act was the most poorly thought out piece of legislation ever to become law.

I agree Spender PDE is done and dusted, which is why I get fed up seeing it being dragged up on every other internet forum you find.

> I agree Spender PDE is done and dusted, which is why I get fed up seeing it being dragged up on every other internet forum you find.

The problem is it is being dragged out and aired abroad, so for them it is new.  I had the same discussions on  US breed list when it aired in America.

I am so sorry to hear about your goldie, Alison.

We lost a two-year-old crossbreed to lymphoma last year, so know only too well that crossbreeds can and do suffer from cancer, too.

The incidence in US goldies is better-documented and there's a lot of work going on out there to try to nail it (as it is very much acknowledged as a serious problem in the US).

http://cancer.landofpuregold.com/

It may be that UK goldies are less effected. I hope so. Are the golden breed clubs here working on disease surveillance?

Jemima

The problem is it is being dragged out and aired abroad, so for them it is new.  I had the same discussions on  US breed list when it aired in America.

The film has not yet aired in the US.

Jemima

Well it certainly has been viewed in the US, whether this is on-line or satellite channels I don't know.

> What I am worried about is that it might be a badly constructed piece of legislation which every one will live to regret like the Dangerous Dogs Act was.  The Dangerous Dogs act was the most poorly thought out piece of legislation ever to become law.

I do agree & think the enquiries are long on theories & short on knowledge.

I had a long discussion with the senior PDSA vet, who tried to explain away the departure of the PDSA from Crufts was not due to the program, but to their  increasing concern at all the pedigree dogs being brought to their clinics & treated by them for genetic conditions or conditions caused by the dogs conformation. When I asked what about the non pedigree dogs, he wrote that this was irrelevant. I asked him if the pedigree dogs being brought to the clinics were actually KC registered & bred by show exhibitors, he couldn't tell me, because guess whet they do not ask or keep records about the origin of the dogs. I asked him as he couldn't prove that the dogs were KC reg etc why was he blaming the KC & breeders who do register & health test the series of a mails ended & he never replied !! which speaks volumes to me.

There was a series on TV based on the PDSA in London, at one of their clinics. They had a GSD rushed in that was in status( with epilepsy), the dog received excellent treatment & thankfully was brought out safely. However the GSD itself was IMHO an obviously not well bred dog & certainly not typical of a show/working dog. Was it a"pedigree", was it actually a GSD(I had my doubts), was it KC registered ? who knows But it would have gone down in PDSA statistics as being a GSD with epilepsy & another black mark for "pedigree dogs"

I would never buy a puppy/dog from unhealth tested parents & never have, I've acquired the odd rescue, whose background was unknown & TBH these were always more prone to illnesses/conditions than any of my pedigrees. I also health test my dogs irrespective of whether they are to be bred from or not, otherwise the statistics produced from the tests was lopsided towards breeding dogs, rather than giving a real & much more compete view of the state of dogs health.

I wonder how many "breeders"of unplanned litters of breeds, cross breeds & mongrels even bother to test for anything-none I would think ! So how does anyone know that cross breeds/mongrels etc are healthier ? Just because they live linger ? I very much doubt it as my mongrel who died aged 19+ had HD, was deaf, had the worse movement I have ever seen as well as a catalogue of other ailments.

There was a US news programme that did a 10-minute piece on the state of play in the US, that's all.

The whole film will air on BBC America later this year.

Jemima

great, maybe their pug dog club will be forced to make changes to the appalling standard too.

> I wonder how many "breeders"of unplanned litters of breeds, cross breeds & mongrels even bother to test for anything-none I would think ! So how does anyone know that cross breeds/mongrels etc are healthier ? Just because they live linger ? I very much doubt it as my mongrel who died aged 19+ had HD, was deaf, had the worse movement I have ever seen as well as a catalogue of other ailments.

How they would propose to legislate on breeding practises for all dogs when the existing laws regarding welfare standards are blatantly not enforced.

Who would be wrapped in needless red tape, the ethical responsible breeder, and there would still be as many badly bred dogs where health is a total lottery as opposed to heavily weighted in the dogs favour.

> The whole film will air on BBC America later this year.
>

Well if the effects of it are similar on the general public as it has been here it will make their existing puppy mill and BYB problem even worse, as it is pretty much the norm for pet people to purchase from 'The Mall'.

I think the 'whole' program will really upset the ethical breeders and rescue people on my breed list if the upset and incredulity I witnessed on my breed board was simply based on a snippet.

USA after all is the home of the teacup, and designer croosbreeds bred by large scale puppy mills.

> How they would propose to legislate on breeding practises for all dogs when the existing laws regarding welfare standards are blatantly not enforced.

Absolutely Barbara, look at the farcical situation re Puppy Farmers, despite video footage from puppy farms the 2006 AW Act is ignored by local councils, who continue to issue breeders licenses to even the most disgusting establishments ! I've reported people, who never exercise their dogs & keep them caged/kennelled 24/7 without water(water only given outside when the dogs are allowed outside, on their own for a few minutes) I know because I have one of their dogs ! Action taken ? None !

Frankly, by now I think the programme should be called "PD Over exposed".  Yaawwn!

Of course its been seen in full in the USA, might not have been aired on their TV networks but believe me it has been seen via youtube surely you know that Jemima?

Oh course she does!   Anything to keep her balls in the air!!

> I had a long discussion with the senior PDSA vet, who tried to explain away the departure of the PDSA from Crufts was not due to the program, but to their  increasing concern at all the pedigree dogs being brought to their clinics & treated by them for genetic conditions or conditions caused by the dogs conformation. When I asked what about the non pedigree dogs, he wrote that this was irrelevant. I asked him if the pedigree dogs being brought to the clinics were actually KC registered & bred by show exhibitors, he couldn't tell me, because guess whet they do not ask or keep records about the origin of the dogs. I asked him as he couldn't prove that the dogs were KC reg etc why was he blaming the KC & breeders who do register & health test the series of a mails ended & he never replied !! which speaks volumes to me.
>

Exactly! It is rather like the dog bite statistics, I fell over and to break my fall I put my hand out and got it caught on a barbed wire fence, ripping a large wound across the palm of my hand. I had to go the local A & E for treatment and on booking in was asked, "What were you doing when it happened?" I replied I was walking the dogs, to which I was shocked to get the reply, "Oh so it is a dog bite then" I said it was not and was then told that they had instructions that if anyone came in with cuts or bruises had a dog with them when it happened they were to record it as a dog bite!!!! Statistics can be twisted any which way you want to twist them. At eye testing for example over the last 28 years every cross bred or heinz 57 who has come has had an eye disease, the pedirees are a mixture but the majority pass. So if I based a statiscal analysis of this I would believe every cross bred and every mongrel was suffering from inherited eye disease.

This is why having an enquiry like the APGAW or Bateson ones, where they listen to people not involved in breeding can become skewed, people like the guy you conversed with at the PDSA would not know a pedigree show dog if he was given one, and he certainly would not know if it was bred by a show breeder or a puppy farmer, he will simply lump it in with all pedigree dogs, which makes it doubly hard that good breeders are held up to be shady characters along side the puppy farmers. Hopefully some of the good breeders who did get to speak to these organisations will have been able to put across some of the problems breeders face and explain how good breeders do everything they can to ensure the health and welfare of any puppy they produce.

As Barabra says it will only be the good breeders who will take up any new policies (as most will have been doing that before hand and more anyway) but if it ties them up with too much legal red tape, then again the puppy farmer who can sell twice the number of pups to pay the fines levied against them will have the advantage over the good breeders. I imagine many will just give up.

I know in my own breed it is hard to get new people involved with breeding,(we are loosing more breeders than gaining new breed devotees, and even those new ones are likely to breed only rarely, with fewer having the facilities of breeders of old), as quite rightly many when they realise the huge responsibilities are unable to commit themselves to that level.

The BYB or puppy farmers has no such worries, and that is where most of our rescues come from.

> I fell over and to break my fall I put my hand out and got it caught on a barbed wire fence, ripping a large wound across the palm of my hand. I had to go the local A & E for treatment and on booking in was asked, "What were you doing when it happened?" I replied I was walking the dogs, to which I was shocked to get the reply, "Oh so it is a dog bite then" I said it was not and was then told that they had instructions that if anyone came in with cuts or bruises had a dog with them when it happened they were to record it as a dog bite!!!!

thats awful! so when i tripped while running with tio and tore a tendon and was covered in bruises it's a dog bite? thats ridiculous! the closest i came to a bite that day was when tio decided he'd revive me by slapping me with his jowls and sucking on my nose :)

> Beverley Costello is no longer breeding from her SM cavalier.

I believe she has lost her job, her home and her dogs.

Response to Jemima
Quote taken from your link: 'One approach is for breeders to select bitches from lines where more than 75% of the dogs in the pedigree lived to at least 11 (longer than the golden average)'.

The golden breed clubs are not (to my knowledge) working on disease surveillance. But quite honestly I really don't know what more you expect breeders to do for our breeds. My girl was 11 when she died of the illness so it seems she lived beyond her expected lifespan according to your link, however, her father was 14 when he died (of old age) and her mother was 16 (and died of old age). Reputable breeders are doing all in their power to health test our dogs for the health problems that are proven for the breed, but as I don't consider Goldens to be any more prone to cancer than most breeds (or crossbreeds) then I really cannot see the point you are trying to make. I see that your crossbreed was only 2 when he/she died. Now that to me is sinful, what a waste of such a young life. I wonder was it the poor dogs ancestry that caused the Lymphoma or was it 'just one of those unfortunate things'. Did you do any research into the unfortunate dogs ancestry to see if there was a problem behind the lines. Stupid isn't it! See that is how ridiculous a statement to make about cancer in dogs.

Your programme did untold damage (at the time) to pedigree dogs and reputable breeders. I was taking phone calls from people who asked the question about should they really be looking at having a pedigree dog because of their health problems. Fortunately it was a one day wonder as I am now taking phone calls from people looking for puppies and there is never a mention of the programme.

>I agree Spender PDE is done and dusted, which is why I get fed up seeing it being dragged up on every other internet forum you find.

Is it?  I can't say I've noticed Polly, but I don't go looking for the latest on PDE.  What I do see is a lot more debate, discussions on health and the future on pedigree dogs which is encouraging.  I remember posting something about health, it would have been in 2005, maybe 2006, and the responses I got did not give me much confidence that health was an important factor when selecting for breeding.  Of course that may not necessarily be true and posters have changed since then but it was the impression I got based on the responses at the time.  I don't see that now, but then that's how I see it, other's may not see the same.   In life there is an important saying, do we believe what we see or see what we believe?