> Now I am guessing that most of you would think that the exposure of MP's expenses was a good thing. It has, in fact, been horrendously painful for some MPs and some are suffering financially a little unfairly as a result of it -  but I think most of us would agree that it has led to much-needed reform of the system.
>
>

I personally think that the MP scandal should have been dealt with by the relevent people not plastered all over the press. I for one don't buy newspapers because most of the rubbish they print is all for the dramatic effect and rarely the truth.
I actually liked alot of your programme and the information that it gave people about the problems in the breed, however it could have then gone on to explain to people that there ARE healthy examples in those breeds and what to look for when finding a reputable breeder. I would LOVE to see a programme that educated people on what to look for in a good breeder and how to spot a puppy farmer, also what questions to ask and when to walk away. If we cut the demand for these dogs by making people more dog savvy then these puppy farms would die out. I feel the badly bred dogs of any breed do more damage than anything else.

I would LOVE to see a programme that educated people on what to look for in a good breeder and how to spot a puppy farmer, also what questions to ask and when to walk away. If we cut the demand for these dogs by making people more dog savvy then these puppy farms would die out. I feel the badly bred dogs of any breed do more damage than anything else.

So would I yabbadoo but I guess there is no interest in what the majority of responsible breeders do.  Why bother when you can sensationalise the actions of the irresponsible.

Earlier in this thread I was asked for references for the claim that crossbreeds are on average healthier than purebred dogs - the subject of my column in this month's Dogs Today.  We weren't able to fit the references in on the print version, but for those interested, Beverley has posted them on her coldwetnose blog:

http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com/2010/09/are-mongrels-are-healthier-than.html

The Terrierman's Daily Dose blog also has an item on this today - mentioning that, in the US, Embrace Pet Insurance will insure a mixed breed dog up to 8 years of age, but the cut-off for purebred dogs is 6 years. I am actually a bit surprised to hear that this is across all the breeds so will double-check it.

Jemima

thanks for the link Jemima, i was reading your artical this morning

Yes I have read it to.

I do sometimes think that you can start with a  position or viewpoint and find evidence, studies or statistics to say exactly what you want them to.

I would like to see in print somewhere, the time and effort taken by many responsible breeders to rear and socialise puppies, the checking of potential owners etc.
Many new dog owners are clueless about animal husbandry, that doesn't mean they won't make great owners.
Many, many breeders educate owners in many different ways and stay in touch with them. The number of breeders who take dogs back and not necessarily, the ones they have bred, from rescue need some recognition.
The grief and insults breeders receive when  turning down prospective owners who  are not suitable for any number of different reasons is part of the process but a necessary one from a breeders point of view.

How to tell a good breeder from a bad one and please potential puppy buyer be prepared to be questioned at length.

A balanced and objective report, now wouldn't that be good?!

Maybe this is the wrong thread, but having just read the 2 articles in Dogs Today I despair ..........

Yes labelling Breed clubs like this doesn't help:

Quote (Dogs Today Oct 2010 pg 19) "4. Realise that Breed Clubs are Trade Associations"  "Most Breed clubs require no health or performance testing........and offer up only weak ethical guidelines"

I noticed that Admin had a long list of Breed Club codes.

The impression in the Cross v Pedigree article is that the ideal is to let dogs breed as they choose (but really that choice is impossible as they are not free to do so) and that any kind of planned breeding is wrong.

so lots of excuses for the latchkey dog owners to feel good about letting Flossie out to get pregnant.

The fact that local dogs are likely to be inbred when allowed to breed and wander at will also seems to escape notice.

In the 1970's in Poland where My Gran lived all dogs were free to roam as most cats are still allowed to do in the UK.  Bitches got pregnant by the local males, and pups were reared if the owner so chose, or mostly drowned at birth.  Looking at the local population it was quite obvious which dogs were related to which and that some probably were sired by the bitches neighbours dog who might be her brother or sire himself.

> Quote (Dogs Today Oct 2010 pg 19) "4. Realise that Breed Clubs are Trade Associations"  "Most Breed clubs require no health or performance testing........and offer up only weak ethical guidelines"
>

Maybe i'm being naive, but I thought most clubs did require certain testing to be done on breeding stock. Is there a certain group that don't then as i'm really shocked to read this. Jemima also made reference to the breed i;m in for all the good work that they do. Not having read the article, I wonder if it's mentioned that or any of the breeds which are working hard on health?? Can I presume not then? In which case not a balanced article at all.

Well as I said Admin have a very long list of breed clubs that do have Codes of ethics.  I expect some of the old clubs didn't consider it a necessity to have in writing the kind of best practise that most would take for granted.

Some years ago the Kennel club did ask breed clubs to draw up 'Formal Codes of Ethics' and of course they are all affiliated to the kennel club and all members are required to abide by the kennel clubs General Code of ethics.

Certainly my Breed clubs have had a Joint Code of ethics ever since I joined in 1994 I think.  Both can be found here on my breed club website: http://www.necgb.co.uk/page.php?page_ID=11 and seems typical of others I have seen for other breeds, though of course not all breed clubs have websites, or have all their rules etc on them.

A communication error here in that these are two different articles. The one which quoted that most breed clubs require no health testing is by Pat Burns (aka Terrierman) and he means "insist" in the sense that there are next to no sanctions if a breed club member ignores breed club advice/Code of Ethics. I saw sight of this article a few weeks ago and told Pat about the Hungarian Viszla Club and how pro-active it was in demanding that breed club members (and indeed breeders outside the breed club) toe the line. He had originally written: "Breed clubs require no health or performance testing of any kind..." so we did manage to get him to add "Most" to the front of the sentence.  Pat does go on to say, btw: "Many good breeders can be found in breed clubs, but breed club membership alone tells you nothing."

My piece, meanwhile, is exploring the evidence regarding crossbreed v purebred health and I would ask that people read it themselves before accepting Brainless's interpretation of it!

Jemima

I know of breeders leave clubs if they insist on certain health tests etc and many complain that the clubs are being to stringent when adding and advising on certain things. 

I do sometimes think that you can start with a  position or viewpoint and find evidence, studies or statistics to say exactly what you want them to

I agree with you Barbara. All these statistics do is help the designer 'pedigrees' make vast amounts of money from the general public who read articles in these magazines and believe them. I lost a beautiful Golden to Lymphoma 2 years ago and statistics say that Goldens are prone to this disease. I was, and still am on an American Lymphona forum as I want to know as much about this disease as possible to perhaps hear of any breakthrough in helping fight it or even prevent it. However, the amount of crossbreeds with this disease is astronomical. Pity the magazines don't read these particular forums and glean their data from them.

That is very true but, conversely, I know some breeders that have left breed clubs because they are not stringent enough.
Jeff.

A breeder does not have to just do the bare minimum, if they feel more should be done they can lead by example. 

Our breed in the UK has adopted the DNA test for prcd-PRA but it is not being used by many outside the UK.  I am planning on using a dog abroad, but I asked for the relevant tests to be done.

I agree Barbara and breeder can led by example but it would be better, in my opinion, if the breed clubs took that role.
Jeff.

I notice a lot of things talk about which dogs live longer on adverage but just because something is living longer doesnt mean its having less health problems than ones who dont live as long.
ive just been reading the scottie survay mentioned in Jemima's artical and in it it said
"Finally, among the currently living Scotties there seemed to be a pattern among the rescued dogs.
This group has the most incidents of health problems, the highest average medical expenses, and the
largest percentage of behavioral problems. This is surprising since rescued Scotties had the highest
average lifespan among deceased Scotties which seems to indicate that these dogs would be
healthier on average."

heres the link to the survay if anyone else is intrested in reading it.
http://www.tartanscottie.com/gsm/GSM%202005%20Scottie%20Health%20Survey.pdf

Does anyone know if there are any plans for another health survay? as it seems that most of the studies were from a few years ago or even back in the 1990s

Jemima,

I do accept that statistically cross breeds are more healthy ( ie are less like to share deleterious genetic traits) than their pure bred cousins.

If the KC permits and a safe genetic test is produced I will be very keen to outcross a genetically clear Cavalier to another breed if not enough
(relatively) unrelated individuals can be found which are also clear ....

I do feel your argument is tarnished somewhat when you quote remarks to embelish your case given by Terrierman aka Pat Burns.

His latest offering on the subject......"Of course, it's far quicker and less cruel to smash a brick into the head of one of these dogs, or put three or four of them in a sack and toss them into the river to drown.

Next time a Cavalier owner tells you a story of woe about "their breed," ask them what the hell were they thinking and remind them of this simple fact: It's never too late to put the dog down and find another healthy breed.

Here's a brick, here's a sack, here's the phone number of a vet."

I'm planning to take a more humane and measured approach.... :-(

I do feel your argument is tarnished somewhat when you quote remarks to embelish your case given by Terrierman aka Pat Burns.

Um, I didn't..!

Yes, Pat is taking a bit of stick for his cav remarks (and typically giving as good as he gets - did you see his eye-watering reply to one complaint on his blog?). But he doesn't mean it literally. He's trying - in his provocative way - to make the point that he believes that breeding dogs that have a high risk of developing a painful condition is more unkind than a quick death.

If the KC permits and a safe genetic test is produced I will be very keen to outcross a genetically clear Cavalier to another breed if not enough (relatively) unrelated individuals can be found which are also clear ....

A genetic test for SM? A way off yet, I fear. Although I understand they have found a haplotype that might be protective and there might be some potential in selecting for that?

Jemima