Ok....so Ronnie Irving has defined dog breeds into those that he considers 'normal' and those 15 high profile breeds that by default he must consider 'abnormal' ...but hang on a minute... did'nt all dogs descend from the wolf ? ..so surely any breed that deviates greatly from the wolf physiology must be to some degree 'abnormal' ? ...yes even the Border Terriers he breeds and shows are no more 'normal' in looks compared to a wolf than a Bulldog is ...it's all a tad illogical - why is the French Bulldog  more 'abnormal' than the Japanese Chin for example ....?

Taking his logic to it's final conclusion should we all be breeding wolf like dogs  ? ( I'm alright then I breed BSD ! ) ...or are those 15 breeds selected because of a certain Television program ? ...talk about playing into the hands of our enemies - he might as well have gone the whole hog and called them 'freakish mutants' !!

Yvonne

I know - Cavaliers haven't changed much from the 16th century pictures, but they certainly don't look much like wolves!!!

You know it has been said for years that dog descend from wolves but is it true?

If it is true did all the wild dogs also descend from wolves?

Is it more likely that the wolves and the dogs all come from the same lines of evolution but from a source way before the wolf.

So perhaps we should think of dogs and wolves as being descended from the ancient wild dogs.

As to looking different there is a big difference between the Arctic Wolf, the African Wild Dog and the Dingo none of whom resemble the European Wolf in colour or conformation.

>Ok....so Ronnie Irving has defined dog breeds into those that he considers 'normal' and those 15 high profile breeds that by default he must consider 'abnormal'

Which breeds appeared under each category?

They appear on the KC web site I will see if I can find a link - it is a case of the 15 and then the rest.

Can't find it now so here goes:

Basset
Bloodhound
Bulldog
Chinese Crested
Chow
Clumber
D do B
French Bulldog
GSD
Mastiff
Neapolitan Mastiff
Pekingese
Pug
Shar Pei
St Bernard

The above are the breeds that are to be tested the rest one assumes are not.

>Is it more likely that the wolves and the dogs all come from the same lines of evolution but from a source way before the wolf.
>So perhaps we should think of dogs and wolves as being descended from the ancient wild dogs.

That is indeed the current thinking.

>Which breeds appeared under each category?

The KC page saying that the 15 breeds are: The fifteen high profile breeds are as follows: Basset Hound, Bloodhound, Bulldog, Chow Chow, Clumber Spaniel, Dogue De Bordeaux, German Shepherd Dog, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff, Pekingese, Shar Pei, St Bernard, French Bulldog, Pug and Chinese Crested.

.or are those 15 breeds selected because of a certain Television program ?

Interesting though that the Cavalier is NOT on it -nor is the Boxer, and they were high profile on the programme.

Thank you JG, have always thought that the idea that dogs are direct descendants of wolves did not hold water.

I haven't read his report, I haven't looked at the 15 dogs named, (can take a pretty good guess) but is he comparing dogs to only be 'normal' which look like wolflike descendants? Does he say that in his report? Or is he saying that the 15 breeds named are no longer 'normal' due to poor health, over exaggerations and no longer fit for purpose, that is a different assumption he is making right or wrong.

As much as I hated that programme and it's slant on all pedigree dogs and KC breeders, the trouble that we have is the good breeder is never going to be heard, we have vets, we have students in our colleges all being taught the values of that programme, all preaching the values from that programme that pedigree dogs are unhealthy and the KC are to blame, I know because my niece who knows better is having this pushed down her throat too, she has to accept it in college to pass her exams.

So maybe the only way to help us and the pedigree dog is to draw the focus on those few breeds and show the world that work is being done to improve the breeds to take the focus off all pedigree dogs being lumped together, we can't win this war too many people in authority like vets are against us, it is a cowards way out, but I can't see any other option than to admit fault and be shown to trying to correct, even though breed clubs and good breeders have been doing that very thing for years.

So maybe saying some breeds are abnormal (for whatever reason) is a way of using a sticky plaster?

I do not think the release from the KC mentioned wolves, Yvonne the OP did.

Or is he saying that the 15 breeds named are no longer 'normal' due to poor health, over exaggerations and no longer fit for purpose, that is a different assumption he is making right or wrong.

yes I think this is what he is trying to say but it's all comparative -even if all dogs were not descended from wolves you only have to take a look at true feral dogs to see that there are physical characteristics they share in common - without exception they are all of medium size with at most a double coat with medium bone and angulation and a wary temperament - think of the way a Canaan dog looks- that's pretty much how all dogs would look if mother nature were to choose - now I can think of a whole heap of breeds that would certainly be 'over exaggerated in many respects compared to the 'normal' dog blueprint- all toy breeds - all giant breeds - all heavily coated breeds- all bull breeds   could equally be accused of not being 'normal' after all what wild dog looks like a Chihuahua ...or a Borzoi...or a Boxer..... or an Irish Setter ?

What's normal for one breed is not for another ...and it's treading on dangerous ground to classify dogs in this way - he's comparing the 'normality ' of Border Terrier and Beagles against the 'normality'  of these 15 breeds - how can you do this ? Chinese cresteds are on this list because they are shaved - well so are Poodles and Potuguese Water Dogs and Lowchen - the GSD are on this list because of their weak hocks well what about Italian Greyhounds with bones so fragile that they can snap ! - it seems the KC are hell bent on playing into the hands of our detractors - this stance is divisive and promotes a 'them' ( the baddies) and 'us' (the goodies) attitude which cannot
be good for the world of pedigree dogs - EVERY single one of which was man made and by definition is not 'normal' !!

Far better for any new regulations to apply to all breeds - and to involve actual health test results rather than this subjective test of 'normality' .

Yvonne 

> of a certain Television program

I am going off topic but when is a TV program going to be made on ped cats or even fish...I was in a big home store/garden centre before christmas & looked at the fish section & thought...now that looks un-natural/freakish about some of the fish!!
I wonder if cat & fish or even other animals have bad press like the dog world seems to be getting??

> ( I'm alright then I breed BSD ! ) .

Me too I have Elkhounds, oh drat abnormal as their tails curl.

Floppy ears out, single coats out, toy and giant out etc etc.

> As to looking different there is a big difference between the Arctic Wolf, the African Wild Dog and the Dingo none of whom resemble the European Wolf in colour or conformation.

In that case the Goldie would be ok then.. I've seen a few Dingo's out in OZ and came across a few which didn't look too different to a dark coloured Goldie..

>I've seen a few Dingo's out in OZ and came across a few which didn't look too different to a dark coloured Goldie..

Dingos have erect ears and a much shorter coat than goldies; I know there are fears about crossbreeding with the domestic dog, which could lead to the extinction of the species. Perhaps you've seen some of the crosses?

Chinese cresteds are on this list because they are shaved

Think the main problem is with the skin, may be because of shaving but I think a bigger problem is the chemical removal of hair and judges choosing to ignore any skin damage, in fairness to the judge the use of a hair removal cream may leave no trace so a further examination may be needed to check the winner has not been treated thus, there may also be a problem with sun burn and the risk of skin cancer.

The standard calls for no large patches of hair (it does not ask for the dog to be bald) it also asks for the skin to be fine-grained and smooth (so if there is any sign of damage to the skin from shaving or chemical damage the dog should not be placed the same would apply if there is a skin condition)

Still think this ruling is to force the judges to take more care, imagine the embarrassment if your BOB is checked and found wanting in the health department, not just because you missed or chose to ignore it but that the group judge accepted your assessment and also did not notice.

May be this has been presented poorly and with too much spin but I think the KC will be dammed if they try to do something and dammed if they do not - the truth being that they should have acted years ago.

Dingos, I have all ways thought they looked a bit like the Canaan Dog have not thought they looked like a GR though - have seen a number of GR that look a bit like blond Newfies.

The main Dingos I thought which were very Goldie like were in Perth zoo...

Agree with Lexy, and have you seen pedigree pigeon fancy breeds????

Interesting though that the Cavalier is NOT on it -nor is the Boxer, and they were high profile on the programme.

Boxers do have health problems.  That is why there is Aortic Stenosis testing and information about the Cardiomyopathy problem is freely available on the Boxer Breed Council website.  The reason THAT programme lost all credibility for me (as a Boxer owner of 30 years) was because it completely ignored the recognised health problems and all the work being done to address them and, instead, focussed on a relatively rare health issue, probably because the video of the poor dog suffering an epileptic episode made much more sensationalist impact.  Tabloid journalism at its worst.

Thing is a judge in the ring may not be able to tell if a Boxer has a problem with it's heart and they can only judge what they can see or feel for a vet to check and remove an award because they have the advantage of a stethoscope would surely be unfair and I do hope that it is not the sort of check they have in mind.

If they wish to control these sorts of problems then perhaps they should expect all exhibitors to have a certificate of health letter that they carry around with them to shows to produce should they be lucky enough to win.

Nova, responsible boxer breeders recognise that there is an issue with hearts (AS and BCM) and the Breed Council are working hard to control the problems. What I find hard to accept is that the KC do not make (at least) the AS test a mandatory requirement.  As for how you check for problems like these in the show arena, short of having a cardiologist in the ring, then you cannot. But if heart testing was mandatory then at least you could check that any dogs entered at a KC event have met the required health tests. 

Jacksgirl I agree with you - have your breed clubs asked the KC to include this health check for your breed.

I am sure the KC is not directly trying to improve the 15 breeds but rather to make sure the judges do it by not placing exhibits that are obviously not fit. The aim is admirable but I am not sure there are not bumpy times ahead.

I don't know where the breed council is up to with the KC. and AS.  The sooner the better as far as I am concerned.  However, as usual, it will only be the 'show' breeders who follow the guidelines.  The "puppy producers" will just carry on without any regulation and the general public (who would probably never, ever be allowed a puppy by a responsible breeder) will carry on buying them and creating the market for these poor animals. I wish I had the answer to the problem.

Don't we all, but we can put our own house in order first because we have some control on that. As to the GP and poor breeding I can't see that improving there is such a strong force against responsible breeding with those who can see no further than the end of their very long noses pushing the idea that crossing is a good idea and the product of puppy farms and bankbook breeders are some how healthier and more desirable than a dog of defined breed and proven pedigree because they 'heaven forbid' are used for showing.

"The "puppy producers" will just carry on without any regulation and the general public (who would probably never, ever be allowed a puppy by a responsible breeder) will carry on buying them and creating the market for these poor animals. I wish I had the answer to the problem."

So the KC needs to not just ensure that ABS boxers are AS-tested, but also the dogs produced by "puppy producers without any regulation" that they currently allow on to the general register.

Until the KC does this, there will be never enough distinction between KC registered dogs and those produced by bad breeders.

I am currently dealing with the case of a Shar-pei breeder who was chucked off the ABS when the KC was provided with pictures proving she was "tacking" her own puppies' eyes with a  veterinary staple gun the breeder bought from America. And yet the KC still registers her dogs on the general register.

Jemima

> Until the KC does this, there will be never enough distinction between KC registered dogs and those produced by bad breeders.

Jemima for once i'm actually finding myself agreeing with you here!!

There are a number of breeds who do certain testing but its for the owners eyes only and not even the rest of the breed get to know the results. I think if we are health testing them all results should be made public and only puppies from health tested parents can be registered. I think the KC do need to sit down and think about this. While breeds for example the Boxer and Rottie are being tested for AS through the breed clubs this information is being made public, well it should be. The same goes for the likes of IW too and their heart testing..There are many other breeds which have health tests other than the BVA ones which need to be made available for all. Now I know Jeff Sampson has said in one of his seminars that he wishes for this to happen, but its the breed clubs which are digging their heels in over this, why??

Don't know about Rotties but all boxers who have passed the AS test are available for anyone to see on the Breed Council website.  All dogs deduced as being BCM transmitting dogs are also listed for public viewing. 

Well thats brilliant news to my ears jacksgirl.. Not that i'm planning to have a Boxer :-)
There are so many tests out there and its a shame to keep results hidden from others..

Now I know Jeff Sampson has said in one of his seminars that he wishes for this to happen, but its the breed clubs which are digging their heels in over this, why??

I think this is true of some breed clubs, but I just as often hear of breed clubs who have begged for a test to be mandatory and yet the KC won't implement.

Jemima

and only puppies from health tested parents can be registered

just health tested ? or with good test results ? - you see we need to be very careful that we don't end up making individual gene pools way too small if we insist on perfection before breeding ...think about it ..the dog with excellent test results plus good temperament..plus good construction...plus good breed type will be the one we will all want to use ! and heaven help us if that 'perfect' dog has some hidden untestable problem - simply because something can be tested for does not mean that it is the main problem in a breed - my breed has Epilepsy as it's major health problem - a hidden often late onset condition for which there is no test - as a breeder if I had to make a choice between a dog with no current clear eye certificate or one from epileptic lines it would be a no brainer I'm afraid - does this mean my pups should not be KC registered ?...does this make me an irresponsible breeder ...or am I simply trying to to the least harm to my breed by avoiding a worse problem ?

..and don't forget that if we base our breeding soley on the elimination of one ( testable)  fault you can bet your bottom dollar another will rise to take it's place - It makes me wonder what exactly breeders are supposed to do - on one hand we are told to breed for low COI's and on the other to only use dogs with  a complete  bill of health - just HOW are we to square this particular circle ?

....anyone got the answer ???

Yvonne

.....APART from cross breeding !!!

Yvonne

I agree with you Trevor.  Health testing is important but so are many other things.
As a veterinary eye specialist once said to me "A dog is much more than just a pair of eyes" - so very true.

Temperament has always been at the top of my list.  A health dog is not a suitable companion if it tries to take your hand off at every opportunity!  So with super temperaments, I've tried to improve the health of my chosen breed whilst also maintaining breed type.  There's no point in breeding a good tempered, healthy Rough Collie if it looks like a Borzoi!

And I've never based my breeding on low COI's - potentially too many unknowns for me.  I prefer to double up on known good genes and then going out to other lines with similarly good genes.

To me balance is the most important word in everything.

You know - I think that those who believe we are doing it 'wrong' should put their money where their mouth is and breed the 'perfect' dog themselves - show us that it IS indeed possible to breed 200 individual and distinct  breeds consisting of competely healthy, good natured, well constructed non related  dogs of excellent breed type and show us that this can be done generation after generation - except of course they can't - and it's MUCH more fun to continue with the 'breeder bashing' than to get on and do the job themselves.!!

Yvonne

A few toller breeders have started haplotype testing in this country.  Auto-immune disease is a problem in tollers.  It is very early days, but the results so far seem to make sense.  It's just another tool to add to all the other health tests.

> I think that those who believe we are doing it 'wrong' should put their money where their mouth is and breed the 'perfect' dog themselves

There is no such thing as a perfect dog, but what we can do, i'm not a breeder, but what breeders can do is start to make a difference and actually look at health tests, no its not the be all and end all, but all the same not testing is not going to help any breed, nor is hiding the results either. Whats wrong with being transparent?
Like with what Jacksgirl has said with Boxers, if the results of AS are printed for all to see whether website or breed magazine then this is where others need to follow if the KC is not going to have it on their system at this time. BUT what Jeff was saying is that they are hoping to have AS results and other results from breed clubs available soon and he claims they have or are contacting these breed clubs for permission to print results. Now we know there are some breed clubs which are refusing to do this nor do they want to acknowledge this, why??

I think it only fair for any breed to continue to flourish and improve is for all results from any health tests to be available to all and then its down to the breeders to decide what they do from there.

and then its down to the breeders to decide what they do from there.

...ah but there's the rub...breeders are not 'being left to decide for themselves' they are being TOLD what to do by theorists who have never bred a single puppy in their lives and know diddly squat about the realities of trying to maintain a numericallly small breed.....don't get me wrong.... I'm all for using every tool in the box in order to breed with as much knowledge as possible but testing  should not dictate how we breed ..it should only inform ..

There is no such thing as a perfect dog, but what we can do, i'm not a breeder, but what breeders can do is start to make a difference and actually look at health tests,

excuse me ?? ....show breeders are at the fore front of ' starting to make a difference' !...WE are the ones that do almost all the health testing available and we are the ones that go to seminars, sit on breed councils ,and put in our hard earned cash to fund research ...we are the ones that keep databases and calculate our co-efficients of inbreeding  ...  it's show breeders that keep most of the 200 breeds in existence - who else out there is breeding Glenn of Imaals - or Sussex Spaniels ?

I think the problem is the climate of criticism and finger pointing that's going on against pedigree dog breeders particularly against the tiny percentage that make up the show world - instead of working together there is this gleeful witch hunt  - no wonder breeders are reluctant to publish test results incase its used as yet another stick to beat them with - this latest KC initiative is an example of this divisive approach - and it's shocking that it should come from an organisation that's supposed to be on 'our' side - why not vet check ALL Best of Breed Winners instead of picking on these 15 breeds and throwing them to the lions in the hope the journalistic hacks will leave the rest of us alone - what cowardice !

Trevor,
I've not made myself clear. Cross wires and all.
I show and know many good breeders and have been to seminars myself.
I've even contemplated getting involved in breeding myself, but going to currently leave that to those with a lot more knowledge than me.

When I say about breeders looking at health tests and even health testing I'm very much aware of many breeds and breeders who are respected in the show and breeding world who don't do this. They don't test or they do and ignore the results and carry on regardless. That's the point I'm trying to make. If all health tests were open to all to view and those breeders who don't start health esti g if would be a lot better. All those hubs etc who register puppies and puppy farmers, thus would seriously hit them too. I'm not digging T show breeders but there are many who claim they are in it for hefor h best reasons and obviously aren't.

Aplogis for the bad garner and spelling as I'm on my phone.
:-)