http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/extras/extra_videos/pedigreedogs/default.htm

Has anyone watched this yet? If so what do you think?

Is there anything you would like to see changed to improve dog welfare? Is there something you hope will not happen as a result of the APGAW or Bateson inquiry.

I watched the whole interview with the professor and very interesting too...I'm hoping that dogs of all breeds that have health issues are breed for function not for looks- even if it does mean breeding with other breeds to bring in new blood to help certain breeds be a lot healthier than they are now. I personally think it is a disgrace that British bulldogs can not give birth naturally due to the exaggerated size of their heads and there small hips, also their squashed noses leaving them gasping for breath all the time with there teeth sticking out due to there mouths being too small. When they are a more natural dog- I would love to own one, but I would not at the moment- i just love their personalities.

More bulldogs are giving birth naturally,its nothing to do with small pelvis's and pups large heads,they are the same size head as every other puppy,look what a woman
has to deliver.
Its because they can tend to suffer with primary inertia.

My dogs dont gasp for breath,good open nostrils and wide tracheas.They leap from the sofa,dance all over visitors and run,ok they arent marathon runners but its like Linford
Christy racing mike Tyson.
Teeth sticking out arent anything to do with their mouths being small,they are a breed that were bred to be undershot
and sadly some breeders take it too far,99% in the show ring do not show teeth,in fact if they did I myself would be shocked to see it.
They make the most fantastic pets and are they most amazing dog Ive ever owned.

On my bus to work I see the most stunning bulldog!  She looks to be breed standard to my amature eyes, you wouldn't mistake her for a cross or any other breed, but she is also very athletic and purposeful in her movement. Just stunning!

I do see a couple of Bulldogs out on my walks and they seem fine but I can see where you are coming from as lots do have awfull problems, I think as with most breeds it is a case of sourcing a good breeder who is passionate about health matters and carefull with breeding. However and I hold my head up high and will take any flack coming my way on this one..Neopolitan Mastives are a disgrace to the breed. I watch them at shows with thier pendulous drooping skin and could cry. They have sores and hanging folds of flesh that must take a battering from all manner of bugs and sores as folds of skin will premote hot damp humid conditions for bacteria to grow in. I daresay owners are only too aware of it but no dog should have to live a life with constant cleaning drying etc needed to keep them pain/sore free.
This would seem to me to be a breed that needs some very very serious though and improvement...and yet they are seldom mentioned in these programs.
Aileen

I'm a bit iffy about Neos too - although Fang from Harry Potter is one isn't he?  He looks gorgeous!

My parents Grand Parents have owned various mastiffs throught the years DDB, Bullmastiffs, Italian Matiffs, english etc etc... and to be honest I think that most mastiff type breeds have problems hips, eyes and breathing, we have only been showing for a year but these problems have almost become the norm. We have found that the overall mass/ size of these breeds have got bigger and bigger.

However saying this there are some lovely mastiffs in the ring with brill movement but unfortunatly they tend to be few and far between.

My dogs dont gasp for breath,good open nostrils and wide tracheas.They leap from the sofa,dance all over visitors and run

My bulldogs will quite happily do 3-4 miles on the moors. They do "snort" but this is down to excitement rather than not being able to breath properly or being out of breath.

I think a lot of owners are to blame for the bad press of bulldogs along with the breeders. So many people who ask me about my pups say they want a bulldog because they don't need any exercise. This is so, so, so wrong. I keep Dogue de Bordeauxs also and I find the bullies need MORE exercise due to the excitement level!

I have a self whelping line as do many other breeders, so big heads and small waists aren't a problem on this ship and bulldogs are supposed to be undershot - Some breeders just choose to exaggerate this too much hence the teeth sticking out. Nothing to do with them having small mouths. Have you seen how wide their jaws are? Their mouths are MASSIVE!!

I see more and more healthy bulldogs everytime I go to the shows and it's so lovely to see. It's just a shame that people seem to focus on the bad examples rather than the good...

I am so happy that your bullies give birth naturally...also hearing the rest of what you have posted, it has put my faith back into the breed. I love them dearly they have fantastic attitudes and I have only stopped myself from owning one due to their so called abnormalities. My friend owns one for her friend who is a breeder and he has a very strange way of looking after his dogs, they have been told not to walk her! so obviously I assumed that they couldn't go for long walks. She does make an awful racket when breathing but maybe its only when I visit because she goes mental with me leaping up into my face and generally going crackers.
I have asked and asked the family if I could take her to the beach with my lot, but have been told no due to them getting out of breath and well the thought of her collapsing after a mad run about they have not wanted to risk it...so sad never to be let off the lead and play with other dogs, luckily they have a second dog for her to play with so her life isn't all boring.

It really riles me that so many people don't walk their bulldogs. If you keep them fit from being pups there's no reason why they can't run around ike any other dog. My bulldogs are kept lean and muscular, not looking like Mr Blobbies like so many that I see. I sometimes get penalised in the show ring for it but so be it, I would rather have healthy dogs than loads of ribbons.

My friend had a bulldog that she never walked as her breeder told her not to. I took one of my bullies round 1 day and they were wrestling and play fighting. 10 minutes later her dog dropped dead. if she had kept him well exercised then it wouldn't have happened.

I went to view a stud dog a while ago and took one of my bitches with me. The stud dog was awful, really wrinkly and fat and really struggling to breathe. The woman was saying what a poor example of the breed mine was, she was too thin and wasn't as wrinkly as she should be - Needless to say, I didn't use her dog, I found another breeder with a slender, lean muscular type, not a big fat blob! There are good breeders out there that breed perfectly healthy stock and genuiely do care for the health of their dogs rather than winning ribbons (although since the new breed standard came in, I have noticed less of this, the more slender, muscular types do seem to be favoured now) but there's only so much we can do. I educate new owners with regards to feeding and walking but I can't help it if they don't follow my advice and their bully ends up obese. It's these bad examples that people seem to focus on which is really sad.

I bought my first bully from one of the top show kennels. I was told to limit her exercise and not limit her food. She died at 3 years old and it broke my heart. Ever since then I've made up my own rules and it seems to be paying off! All my dogs are happy and healthy and they are producing happy, healthy puppies, naturally without C sections. I just feel really sorry for the bullies who are owned by people who care more about the ribbons than the health of their dogs.

> and to be honest I think that most mastiff type breeds have problems hips

Interestingly I was researching health in Mastiffs for someone who was considering the breed.

I looked on the OFA website where they have tabulated health results with rankings for hip, elbows, patellas etc and the Mastiff surprisingly wasn't bad at all for elbows or hips, about average.

From an aesthetic point of view I am not a fan of any of the baggy headed breeds and that goes for some dogs that are just chopsy like Spaniels preferring the dry heads like in Spitz and Herding breeds, but each to their own as long as welfare is not compromised to an unacceptable degree.

What I mean by that is any dog that has characteristics removed from the wild canid will have some issues, some pretty minor, like long coats needing grooming, short coats needing protection from severe weather, but we have bred the dog to be a domestic animal where these human made needs  can be taken care of.

I think A Walrus is a pretty gross animal with huge body mass and wrinkles finding it hard to get around when on land, but it is fit for it's natural environment.

> It really riles me that so many people don't walk their bulldogs. If you keep them fit from being pups there's no reason why they can't run around like any other dog. My bulldogs are kept lean and muscular, not looking like Mr Blobbies like so many that I see. I sometimes get penalised in the show ring for it but so be it, I would rather have healthy dogs than loads of ribbons.
>

I saw a lovely fit pugthe other day enjoying a really brisk walk (obviously a well bred typical one) but not fat like many I see at shows.  I also see some pretty fit bulldogs being regularly walked (at sensible times like my own), and a really lovely French bulldog.

I abhor the number of overweight pugs, bull terriers and other breeds I see at shows and really wish judges would start penalising fat, as this is not substance as indicted in some standards, it is fat.

It's not just at shows though the overweight Cavaliers (yet they still seem to be alive and well with poor hearts adn exploding brains), and other pet dogs, ti seems that si what peopel get used to seeing..

I think A Walrus is a pretty gross animal with huge body mass and wrinkles finding it hard to get around when on land, but it is fit for it's natural environment.

Maybe we should swim the Neos then? They certainly are meant for the land and are struggling with it as far as I can see.

But I take your piont they look gross but it suits the way of life for them, however it does not suit a life on land.
Aileen

> But I take your piont they look gross but it suits the way of life for them, however it does not suit a life on land.
>

Not my cup of tea either, and I would hope the breeders are addressing the issues in this very ancient breed.

Their homeland is a lot hotter generally than the UK, so they have obviously managed through the ages, so there must be some fit genetic material available to limit problems in the breed as a whole..

I abhor the number of overweight pugs, bull terriers and other breeds I see at shows and really wish judges would start penalising fat, as this is not substance as indicted in some standards, it is fat.

I couldn't agree more - It is possible to have a stocky, well built dog without it being fat.

Magica

I was judging at a show one day when I got talking to a bulldog exhibitor. I recognized his face and had been told that he breeds really good Bulldogs. Got chatting about health problems and of course, not knowing enough about them, I said the old chestnut of them having to have caesareans. He said that virtually all his dogs have given birth naturally but that when you go to a Vet with a pregnant bitch the Vet often says 'when shall we book her in for her caesarean'. He doesn't believe in caesareans for his dogs unless a problem arises. I learned a lot from that man that day and felt that should I ever think of having a Bulldog then I most certainly would go to him. I think you probably have to think that as they charge huge amounts for Bulldog puppies there are 'breeders' out there that only breed them for monetary gain and therefore aren't interested in their health.

He doesn't believe in caesareans for his dogs unless a problem arises.

As do I, I only wish that all people involved in bulldogs felt the same. Plenty of people that I know who are involved in bulldogs would never dream of letting their bitch even try to self whelp.

I suppose you can't blame some people if they are being advised by their vets to do this but still, I believe that many bulldogs would self whelp if they were left by their owners to do so.

I read on a website of one of the top show kennels that you should never allow a bulldog to self whelp etc etc, that if you so want to self whelp you should do it at the vets, that anyone who lets their bulldog self whelp is being irresponsible. That is utter rubbish!! If novices are listening to advice like this then there will always be bulldog lines that do not self whelp. Also, if novices are not experienced enough to recognise if their bitch is in trouble and needs a section, should they be breeding at all?? If any of mine ever needed a C section, they would be never be bred from again and it would be likely that they would be spayed at the same time as having their section.

> Maybe we should swim the Neos then? They certainly are meant for the land and are struggling with it as far as I can see.
>

I have never met a Neo in the flesh (only seen pics on the 'net), but I wonder wheather thier apparant 'inability' to walk is down to the fact they are simply lazy mastiffs?
To see Buster amble along on his walk, rolling & swaggering, he really doesn't look like he is capable of a 10 min stroll, let alone a run, but if he feels like it he can out-run me, he really can go like the clappers!!! He can jump to his feet from laying down in the blink of an eye (in 1 move - sprawlled flat out then BAM!!!! standing!!!), show amazing gymnastic skills by jumping in the air and spinning 180degrees before he lands (LOL, that is a very impressive thing to see in a dog so big) and he can walk tall, with a powerfull, purposefull stride, but only if HE feels like it *rolly eyes*.

What I'm getting at is his general, lazy, chilled out manner means he slouches, slobs & shuffles around, but he is capable of moving with fantastic speed, power & acuracy, he just can't be bothered very often to use the extra energy - it's a mastiff thing!

I'm not trying to back up poor physical capabilities in any breed, just offering a different angle - maybe Neos aren't as bad as they appear?

Hi Guys

Just to move away from a breed specific discussion here but I was wondering what you hoped might come out of this? Remember the KC and any government legislation will have to be a "one size fits all" scheme.

I would hope that puppy farmers and BYB breeders will have to health test any dog regardless of whether it is pedigree or not. I realise that they can fake paper work so would want to see it backed by every dog having a DNA registered profile. I have been told how disreputable breeders can if they want to, fake a micro-chip reading and tattoo reading, while the responsible breeders will not do such a thing there are bound to be those who will flout any rules.

Any other suggestions?

I was surprised to hear Prof Bateson say that some inbreeding and very close breeding is not all bad and has its place in a breeding scheme.

I would not be happy if the RSPCA gets it's sticky paws on anything to do with the control of breeding dogs. Especially after what happened recently when they were supposed to be raiding a puppy farm, or what happened to my daughter and her spaniel. (The latter was solved with the help of the Kennel Club not the RSPCA who we tried first).

> I was wondering what you hoped might come out of this?

I can't see anything much coming  out of this other than maybe some more recomended health tests from the KC. I can't see how pedigree dogs can be forced to have a whole range of tests done as that leaves the 'breeders' churning out designer crosses/mongrels (or any other non KC reg dog) free from testing (enforcing tests on such dogs would be impossible as they are not registered & therefore untracable).
As you say it does have to be a 'one size fits all' and for any legislastion to be passed it would surely have to include ALL dogs (pure-breds, mongrels & crosses).

I haven't had chance to see all of the videos fully,but I have viewed a few mins of each, I find it quite laughable how the GSDs are now being looked at as they have an ugly profile (to quote the Prof. 'grotesque'), it's ironic when the programme that kicked this off was moaning about dogs being bred purely for looks!!!!
LOL, so which is right - changing a dog because it looks ugly or breeding a dog to look good??? It seems that those who kick up a big enough tantrum and shout the loudest are the ones that are right regardless of thier aims.

I wish all of this was genuinely for the welfare of dogs, but it just seems as if somebody had an axe to grind - or just fancied the jump to limelight from sensastionalist TV?

Whatever happens, I hope that all of you breeders that breed with the welfare of your dogs, thier puppies and future generations in mind, carry on doing what you do - with pride.

That's awful to hear of that poor dog dying...mentioning about food the owners of the bully I know were told to feed her suet to fatten her up and I told them that's so unhealthy and not to which being owners of their own dog knew what was best so didn't...obviously someone told the breeder this so he doesn't like me!

I haven't had chance to see all of the videos fully,but I have viewed a few mins of each, I find it quite laughable how the GSDs are now being looked at as they have an ugly profile (to quote the Prof. 'grotesque'), it's ironic when the programme that kicked this off was moaning about dogs being bred purely for looks!!!!
LOL, so which is right - changing a dog because it looks ugly or breeding a dog to look good??? It seems that those who kick up a big enough tantrum and shout the loudest are the ones that are right regardless of thier aims.

You miss the point. Spectacularly. This isn't about aesthetics. Prof Bateson and others are talking about conformation that has an adverse impact on functionality.

Jemima

I was surprised to hear Prof Bateson say that some inbreeding and very close breeding is not all bad and has its place in a breeding scheme.

I wouldn't get too excited, Polly. Professor Bateson may acknowledge that there are times when inbreeding has a place (ie in the establishing of a breed), but I think it was clear from the rest of the intervew that he has pretty strong views about its advisability as a tool for most modern breeders. I would be very surprised if increasing genetic diversity/limiting inbreeding isn't a key recommendation of his enquiry.

Jemima

> I would hope that puppy farmers and BYB breeders will have to health test any dog regardless of whether it is pedigree or not. I realise that they can fake paper work so would want to see it backed by every dog having a DNA registered profile. I have been told how disreputable breeders can if they want to, fake a micro-chip reading and tattoo reading, while the responsible breeders will not do such a thing there are bound to be those who will flout any rules.

They wouldn't be able to fake an NDTR tattoo, for several reasons, the dog wouldn't be on the NDTR database, any alteration or attempted alteration would be obvious, the die stamps for the NDTR are made only for the NDTR & the person faking the tattoos would have to be an NDTR tattooist & would quickly get caught by the Registrar.

Chipping could be"manipulated"by cloning chips for dogs of the same breed, but it would involve a chip company supplying cloned chips & there would have to be collusion between the breeder & the company supplying the chips(although I do know some one who could clone chips for me, they do not live in the UK)

Inbreeding & close breeding when done by a knowledgeable person can produce extremely good results, it is done in some working dogs like Border Collies to increase a lines workability etc.

As for the RSPCA, they have been to the Puppy Farm that was in the BBC program & did nothing(as did the Local Authority Environmental Health Department & they reissued the licence !!), but came to visit me because I had been breeding "hand over fist"from my BC & Cavalier bitches(on a tip off) & kept my bitches(plural)in my extensive kennels !!. The fact that the last litter I bred was in 1985  & that was Beardies & I don't own any Cavalier bitches, only one BC bitch, who has had just 1 season in the two years I have had her & hasn't had a litter from that season plus my extensive range of kennels is actually one, that is filled with agility equipment ! The Inspector concerned had left a note taped to my front door to the effect she would be back as she could hear the dogs in distress in the kennels & I was in danger of losing my dogs-strange as I was at a dog show with all my dogs & the only animals in the house/gardens were my two moggies, who do not resemble dogs in the least !

Imagine them policing dog breeding, would they be able to tell one Black Labrador from another for example & as they condone the dealings of a local puppy dealer(the tell us what breed you want & we'll get it type!)& recommend people to buy designer cross breeds as they are healthier they mind boggles. I had one Inspector ask me how I could bear to own a King Charles Spaniel when I only have Cavaliers & what had happened to all the Alsatians I had owned ! They would make a good profit microchipping the puppies though .

Well just looked at it all, and my feeling is personally that in order to make a point the good breeders who work hard, spend a fortune on health testing, bringing in new bloodlines etc have been sacrificed and included with every puppy farmer and commercial/pin money breeder, and is it any surprise that so many good people feel they are bashing their heads against a wall, and are tempted to give up.

Also the issues shown are not rife in all Pedigree dogs as a whole, many breeds are pretty exaggerated, and where health issues arise the incidence is small and kept that way by caring breeders, especially in numerically small breeds that are less commercially exploited, so have a larger percentage of knowledgeable caring breeders in their breeds for the love of them.

I know that responsible caring breeders breed less and less often  and with more thought (after all ti is costly to do it properly),, so in the grand scheme of things the vast majority of pups end up being produced by ignorant or uncaring people, and the efforts of the decant breeder are swamped.

I have shared a recent scenario in my own breed with several people on this board that typifies what we are up against.  Bitch bought with endorsements to only be lifted if health tested and typical representative of the breed.  Result under age bitch untested mated to untested dog, breeder waits until pups 6 weeks to tell bitches breeder and ask for removal of endorsement.  Needless to say the breeder of the dam was not prepared to do this until both parents are health tested.

I got involved initially as the person tried to sneakily to advertise her litter on my Website Guestbook, and I had bred some of the grandparents. 

I gave details of how and where to get health tests etc, only to be told to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, and the litter have been registered with a commercial Mickey mouse registry, and pups sold for little less than the going rate.  Breeder has saved themselves the £1000 in health tests and a stud fee, but worst thing is they don't think they have done anything wrong!!!!

> I gave details of how and where to get health tests etc, only to be told to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, and the litter have been registered with a commercial Mickey mouse registry, and pups sold for little less than the going rate.  Breeder has saved themselves the £1000 in health tests and a stud fee, but worst thing is they don't think they have done anything wrong!!!!

You are not alone on this, I often hear this type of argument and am not surprised at all at the out, but as the possiblity of a close breeding might be reduced and if they are lucky and nothing goes wrong with the pups, (a lot of "IF"s I think), then they will repeat this process because obviously they would be right in doing things their way and they will say "What the do you know? You are wrong, we proved that you are wrong".

Another area where breeders who do research their breed achieve healthier dogs is when they choose the stud dog or the bitch to mate together. Others follow a trend and rush off to use any old dog that is available or they use a dog to increase bloodlines, and because they do not know what is behind those bloodlines where they go back to they can make huge mistakes which breeders might regret in years to come.

> I can't see anything much coming  out of this other than maybe some more recomended health tests from the KC. I can't see how pedigree dogs can be forced to have a whole range of tests done as that leaves the 'breeders' churning out designer crosses/mongrels (or any other non KC reg dog) free from testing (enforcing tests on such dogs would be impossible as they are not registered & therefore untracable).
> As you say it does have to be a 'one size fits all' and for any legislastion to be passed it would surely have to include ALL dogs (pure-breds, mongrels & crosses).
>

I was speaking to somebody at dog training last night, who said to me that he was worried that with every new health test brought out, for his breed, (these are DNA tests which locate carriers as well as affected dogs) that pretty soon there will be so few lines left to breed with the breed would suffer and he has a popular breed.

Do you think we could end up going too far? As I said on another thread if you have a dog who is identified as a carrier of some health problem, you are less likely want to use it. So it might get sidelined and in the process a dog who passes the health test the original one failed, will be used at stud extensively and the second dog might well be a carrier of something much worse but at the time there was no test for the problem the second dog was a carrier for.

> I was speaking to somebody at dog training last night, who said to me that he was worried that with every new health test brought out, for his breed, (these are DNA tests which locate carriers as well as affected dogs) that pretty soon there will be so few lines left to breed with the breed would suffer and he has a popular breed.

I can see why breeders would be so worried, excluding dogs from breeding programmes because they have not got the best results on one health test will limit which dogs can be used, that in itself could have disasterous consequennces for some breeds. A balance needs to be found, which I imagine good breeders are trying thier best to do anyway but rigerous health tests  (and subsequent exclusions from breeding) are going to take away balance and concentrate on stopping the direct transmition of specific health problems rather than aiming for an all-round sound healthy dog that looks like a good specimin of the breed and has the right temperment or aiming to breed out faults & problems in the long run by using dogs that are known to improve/rectify a fault but may have poor results on another health test

Do you think we could end up going too far?
Yes.
For example HD may or may not effect the dogs gait/movement, my Mastiff does not have HD but his movement is really not good enough for breeding, I would hate to think of him passing on his lazy gait, but on paper he would give a good HD result (he hasn't been hip scored, only had his hip xrays looked over by an orthapedic specialist who confirmed there was nothing wrong with his hips when we were investigating his poor walking). There in nothing 'wrong' with his walking as such, it just doesn't look smooth & powerfull, it looks weak & wobbly but if dogs like him were the only ones left for breeding from (good on 'paper') than the future generations of his breed would be looking pretty bleak (if continual breeding exagerated the 'weak' gait) or non-existent. Of course a good breeder wouldn't use such a dog now anyway, but sadly there are breeders that would, and if they could use him 'legitimately' (ie, he's passed all relevent health tests that may be enforced), then they definately would.

Better things woul dbe achieved if efforts were concentrated on stopping puppy farmers/BYB, then the good breeders would have a chance of making changes as they know what they are doing and honestly care about betterment of the breed.

> Do you think we could end up going too far? As I said on another thread if you have a dog who is identified as a carrier of some health problem, you are less likely want to use it. So it might get sidelined and in the process a dog who passes the health test the original one failed, will be used at stud extensively and the second dog might well be a carrier of something much worse but at the time there was no test for the problem the second dog was a carrier for.

I think that most people do not understand the use of DNA testing, my Rjj is a CEA carrier, so if I was to breed him to an ISDS bitch the puppies could only be registered if the bitch was DNA tested normal & the puppies DNA tested before they could be bred from. Doing this removes the possibility of breeding affected puppies. The ISDS wisely opened up their stud book to carrier or normal offspring/descendants of Bwlch Hemp (ISDS 201604) that have been DNA tested, why ? because he produced some superb working dogs & his bloodlines are too good to disregard.

I could use Rjj on a clear bitch & have the puppies DNA tested before they left home(can be done by swab)ensuring that any puppy(ies)I kept were Normal & so that the new owners know their puppies status before they collect them. The puppies will not develop CEA if they are carriers-something that many people do not realize.

The real use of DNA testing is to reduce the production of affected dogs & then eventually by being able to know of clear dogs from carriers being able not to use carriers & diminishing the possibility of even carriers being produced & finally only using clear dogs without reducing the gene pool-as per the Irish Setter breeds now do, but no longer do breeder have to throw out the good along with the bad.

The breeder of my Rjj wouldn't be adverse to using me using him on his half sister I have booked to have next year(providing of course all the DNA/clinical tests are OK)& Roy knows more about bloodlines & breeding Border Collies that just about anyone in the UK(or any where else for that matter)whether I would do such a close mating is debatable & it's not the reason I am getting the bitch puppy(she is hopefully for Wu as the bloodlines tie in beautifully as do Rjj's with Jessie(Wu's full sister)& my intention was to breed her at some stage to Rjj sadly not to be because of her hip score)

I have always believed that no dog registered or otherwise should be bred from without all the health tests available possible being done. If only this could be mandatory it would definitely put off a lot of "pet"breeders etc & drastically reduce the number of designer crosses as off spring would need to have all the tests for the two parent breeds being done.

However far more importance is the clamp down on puppy farmers, BYB & pet breeders the first two being equally first in importance because they are the ones with the highest output of dogs. I have do have a problem with people breeding from their pet if they don't have any reason to except that they want one of Fido(ess)'s offspring we really do need to educate the buying public to ask the right questions of breeders & all good breeders to ask the right questions of prospective owners

>I haven't had chance to see all of the videos fully,but I have viewed a few mins of each, I find it quite laughable how the GSDs are now being looked at as they have an ugly profile (to quote the Prof. 'grotesque'), it's ironic when the programme that kicked this off was moaning about dogs being bred purely for looks!!!!

One thing for sure is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder & good GSD breeders have been lowering the mean of the hip score for the breed slowly but surely-of course this doesn't include many of the English persuasion as only a handful do hip score(or do any other health testing come to that)so for anyone to claim that the shape of the International type GSD has affected the hip status of the breed are literally talking out of their rear ends & showing their total ignorance !!

> One thing for sure is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder & good GSD breeders have been lowering the mean of the hip score for the breed slowly but surely-of course this doesn't include many of the English persuasion as only a handful do hip score(or do any other health testing come to that)so for anyone to claim that the shape of the International type GSD has affected the hip status of the breed are literally talking out of their rear ends & showing their total ignorance !!

Playing Devils Advocate here.....

Going back to Mastiff Lovers message talking about the good hips and poor back end movement, I had a bitch years ago who also had poor back end movement, and was even asked if she had hip displaysia, yet she scored 0 - 0,  so taking the examples given by Mastiff Lover and I, do you think perhaps that the much criticised back ends in the GSD might be a result of lowering hip scores? One of the best moving dogs I ever owned had a hip score of 8 - 8 way over the breed mean score, so I never bred from him.

I would like to see DNA testing introduced but am wary of the end results if breeders go to extremes and refuse to use anything which is a carrier of a health problem. Will as the bloke at Dog Training said, "We will be left with not enough dogs to breed from" Will breeders be too worried that by using a carrier dog that if it was common knowledge that they did this, that members of the public would not buy their puppies in the current situation where this has been brought to their attention especially knowing that in the last year many good breeders have faced abuse and threats already? Did anybody look at the link Schip posted on the thread Don't know why we bother?

>I had a bitch years ago who also had poor back end movement, and was even asked if she had hip displaysia, yet she scored 0 - 0,  so taking the examples given by Mastiff Lover and I, do you think perhaps that the much criticised back ends in the GSD might be a result of lowering hip scores? One of the best moving dogs I ever owned had a hip score of 8 - 8 way over the breed mean score, so I never bred from him.

I gather it also matters how the score is obtained. A contact has a bitch who has a score of 8 (total - I don't know what each side was) and yet the x-rays showed a major problem with the hip - the distance between the ball on the socket was badly wrong but everything else was perfect. This was explained to the owner by a vet who is part of the panel.

> I would like to see DNA testing introduced but am wary of the end results if breeders go to extremes and refuse to use anything which is a carrier of a health problem. Will as the bloke at Dog Training said, "We will be left with not enough dogs to breed from"

It is these breeders that need to be educated, DNA testing & chucking out carriers is a very uneducated point of view.  Thankfully most Border Collie breeders are not short sighted & use the DNA tests as they are intended to prevent the affected dogs being born & to get normal dogs from a carrier to normal breeding.

> Going back to Mastiff Lovers message talking about the good hips and poor back end movement, I had a bitch years ago who also had poor back end movement, and was even asked if she had hip displaysia, yet she scored 0 - 0,  so taking the examples given by Mastiff Lover and I, do you think perhaps that the much criticised back ends in the GSD might be a result of lowering hip scores?

No it isn't because the working VPG bred dogs in Germany have also shown a similar reduction in the level of HD being seen(& of course they HAVE to be HD/ED screened to compete & be bred from) Our 0:0=0(who according to the BVA had perfect pelvic structure) scored dog didn't have an so called grotesque shape & his puppies that were scored all had lower scores than their mothers. He was also totally sound & didn't have any sign of the"loose hock"syndrome

It isn't a quick process reducing HD levels because of the environs factors, but to claim that the dogs are crippled & badly HD affected is totally false. Much of the so called unsoundness is down to incorrect muscular strength in GSDs & also teaching the dogs to pull in the show ring rather than training the dogs to simply run ahead(as all my dogs were) I actually advised a GSD owner on how to cure his dogs"loose hocks"(joints were normal upon X raying) free running, swimming & teaching the dog to run ahead on a loose lead corrected the looseness because the dogs developed good & correct 1st & 2nd thigh muscles, which actually gave the dog extra drive & lots more stamina(& his title at shows)

If DNA tests are used properly in fact any dog can safely be used for breeding as long as mated to the right partner.

Obviously ideally you wouldn't use affecteds as all offspring of an affected to clear would be carriers, but then in the next generation if mated to clear again you will get half clears, and can eventually drop the carriers once there is a sufficiently wide gene pool of clears.

With several different conditions being tested for it may well be that some dogs are not lucky enough to be clear for everything, but as long as their mate is clear for that condition no affected offspring will be produced.

Is there anything you would like to see changed to improve dog welfare? Is there something you hope will not happen as a result of the APGAW or Bateson inquiry

I guess I would like to see any rules applied to all breeders - whether this is mandatory health testing, DNA identification, maximum COI's  or the introduction of puppy contracts to ensure that breeders take responsibility for what they have bred - however- we already see blatant hypocrisy in remarks such as this from the KC in regard to the changes to breed standrads

" ..In the face of resistance to changes that we believe are in the breeds best interest, we will not be swayed and will be forced to allow those breed clubs to walk away "

this from the very organisation that states it cannot enforce the most important  change to a breed's best interest i.e  health checks as a prerequisite of KC registration

in effect they are saying that it is ok to lose the GSD/Peke/Bulldog breeders who are part of their breed club and active in the show scene but refuse to force change on all those puppy farmers and BYB's in case they " walk away"

hows that for double standards  !!

Yvonne