Seems that Champdogs has become the latest object of Saint Jemima's scorn!

http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/01/hybrid-vigour-fact-or-fiction.html

Makes me laugh she does, we must keep her awake at night she seems so wrapped up in us.
Out of interest do many people with crossbreeds actually bother insuring their dogs?? ( all the ones I k ow don't ) Also maybe their premium is cheaper as they are also less likely to get stolen??

Gives her material for her articles at least.

I still wouldn't want to have the healthy mutt instead of my healthy purebred breed who suits my taste and lifestyle.

poppyc*ck..

what is this about ?...on almost every point she contradicts herself - sheesh !!- listen Jemima if you really believe this nonsense then stick to cross breeds or mongrels - but wait - don't you have PEDIGREE Flat Coats - hmmm - a touch hypocritical ....no ?

Yvonne

In respond to Boody:

I have insurance for my crossbreed. He was a 'free to any one who'll take him' case so of no monetary value, as such but vet bills cost the same, regardless of breed and that's why I have insurance. Good job too, as his 2 cruciate repairs and resulting arthritis have cost thousands to treat.  

Yvonne I agree that article is full of contradictions, it is like she is arguing with herself !

Her last two sentences sum up the situation exactly as we've always said on here - so she totally agrees with us!

Absolutely full of contradictions, I certainly don't agree with the fact that Jemima is using Champdogs to be shown as a board with our heads in the sand and picking out a couple of posts to generate an impression of the site.

What Jemima fails to mention is that of course we can herald the pedigree dog, with good reason, our caption is responsible breeding, where dogs and bitches are mated at the correct ages, health checks are all carried out, dogs and bitches are specifically chosen to be bred from appropriate lines. Our forum always advises responsible breeding.

What goes on in the rest of the world we can not control, but here most of us breeders can say our dogs are healthy and live long lives due to the good breeders we have here on the site, this is something Jemima should be complementing us for and working towards the outside world also accomplishing the same, not being sarcastic about our beliefs and stance on the pedigree dog.

Absolutey JG the article is just full of round circle contradictions. I like the way there are no quotes from any other dogs sites !!
Perhaps this discussion link should be posted on her blog reply at the bottom of the article :-)

On the plus side atleast it's given champdogs free advertisement, so hopefly a few will come over and see for themselves were not the way jemima likes to potray us.

I don't see the problem, personally.  OK, it's not the best written article; ok, she could have done it without picking on CD; but it does bring some light to a subject that really needs light bringing to it, given that a lot of the less great breeders are using hybrid vigour and other similar things as "plus points" for themselves.

They might be generally healthier - but there are that many crosses being done at the moment between dogs that could easily be damaging for the pups that I think the more publicity it gets, the better: if only to make more people aware that 'hybrid vigour' is more often than not being used solely as a gimmick.

Incidentally - 3 of my dogs are crosses.  All of them are insured.  As Shaynlola says - crossbreeds might be less prone to genetic problems but they can still have problems!  My oldest has a heart murmur; the youngest has a chronic dietary problem, as yet to be diagnosed but it could well be expensive; and the middle one managed to put a huge hole in herself on a lead walk last year (still no idea how).

Where did shaynlola state crossbreeds are less prone to genetic problems ?

>Where did shaynlola state crossbreeds are less prone to genetic problems ?

thanks, Lucy...had to reread what I'd written there because I couldn't remember stating that crossbreeds are less prone to genetic problems!

In fact, my crossbreed's problems are almost certainly related to genetics as he is a cross of 2 breeds known to be susceptible to cruciate problems.

what is this about ?...on almost every point she contradicts herself - sheesh !!- listen Jemima if you really believe this nonsense then stick to cross breeds or mongrels - but wait - don't you have PEDIGREE Flat Coats - hmmm - a touch hypocritical ....no ?

Not contradicting, Yvone - qualifying. From the available data (and more is always needed, of course), crossbreeds - ON AVERAGE - are healthier and live a little longer that the average purebred.  But the picture gets more complicated when you drill down:

- large dogs are ON AVERAGE less healthy and live less long than smaller dogs
- some small pedigree breeds live longer than the AVERAGE crossbreed
- but if they are size-matched, the crossbreed advantage shows up again.

This is as science predicts.

What do you find hypocritical about my having flatcoats?

Jemima

my post has no relevancy to dogs, but the part where she says that farmers have hybrid poultry because they thrive better, is not true farmers keep hybrid poultry, chickens at least because hybrids chickens lay more eggs than pure bred chickens, fact

Yes farming is more about yields and ultimately profits driven by the consumers led supermarket treatment of suppliers. Look at the shelves full of cheap mass produced food. It is not about quality it is more about quantity and profits. We may get perceived cheaper food but I know what food I would and do buy and it isn't the £1.99 small chicken from tesco's.

The point I was making though ( not very clearly as I was half asleep) was that most people who have crossbreeds usually get them from rescues as they are on low incomes and I can back that up as my cousin works heavily in rescue and I have alot of involvement in it with her and monthly payments to insurance companys are not usually afforded by most of them.

As a hen keeper I can tell you that pure bred hen's tend to have a longer and healthier life span than the hybrids, the hybrids are bred for maximum egg production and " burn out " quite young. Pure strains on the other hand have a lower egg production but they also tend to lay for longer and subsequently live longer, so the hen comparison doesn't really hold any water.

>most people who have crossbreeds usually get them from rescues as they are on low incomes

Really?  That sounds to me like a very sweeping generalisation.  Any evidence (other than the anecdotal, second hand info that you mention) to support this? 

Ok so I should of put most people who I know of that we have rehomed too, and no it's not anecdotal or second hand as I partake with her. I am not saying they're any less better than anyone else or else why would we rehome them to them? It's just how I see it.

I think if all mongerels and crossbreeds were treated exactly the same as most pedigrees are the findings would be the same for them all
by this i mean vaccinated every year, fed the same.

This dos not happen most mongerels / crossbreeds never see a vet or get vaccinated if they are its usually done by a rescue kennel and how many are neutered compared to pedigrees.

At the end of the day most problems are caused by feeding alone as far as vaccinations are concerned most rescues vaccinate every animal that comes through their door how do they know it didnt have the same thing done days,weeks or couple months before how much damage could this cause.

Jemima - In the clearest and simplest black and white explanation, what is it that you want?

1. To highlight genetic health problems that some lines have and some of the over exaggerations in some breeds in order to help that breed, this I can find admirable and understandable if you have a passion for putting right what you see as wrong, in which case you should be working with breed clubs and the KC and the good breeders out there (CD themselves having many) in trying to right where these problems exist.

IMO, this isn't your focus and therefore you lose all credence as you just keep harping on about pedigree dogs (all lumped together) versus mongrels, versus x- breeds etc?

So now what? Let's say you have convinced a certain amount of the population that x-breeds can be healthier than pedigree dogs What is it you are after happening?

3. Do you want all pedigree dogs to be crossed, because pedigrees in their millions IYO are an unhealthy bunch?

4. Do you want all people to only buy mongrels - (won't happen people know what breed they like and which breed traits suit there lifestyle, you won't convince the world to not buy pedigree dogs, sales of pedigrees show that your programme had little impact on that, and why should you want to?)

I just want to know what your conclusive agenda is? What do you want to happen?

I know this sites agenda it wants responsible breeding, healthy dogs and good breeders.

I still don't know what you want?

I think it is sound science to say that pure bred dogs ( if derived from a fairly limited gene pool ie the show ring/ top winners)
  - on average - suffer from disease more often.

In my breed it is most certainly true - all a caring ethical breeder can hope to do is to try to buck the trend.

> was that most people who have crossbreeds usually get them from rescues as they are on low incomes

Poppycock :) It seems, reading threads on here, that there are a lot of people with pedigree dogs who can't afford to keep them :(

We have a VERY healthy 12+ Battersea crossbreed and a very healthy pedigree (both treated identically). We could afford to buy and keep as many pedigree dogs as we wished. Our next dog will quite possibly be a rescue. Many of our friends who have more than enough money to keep a dog have rescues. We just choose to offer a home to a needy dog and it is far more rewarding to do so than getting a pedigree puppy :)

Daisy

I don't recall reading the original post that J mentions - did she bother to add her comments to it directly, to qualify her facts or to tell all those posters they were 'wrong' ?

Interestingly the actual discussion to which she refers isn't referenced properly in her article.  Readers can presumably look up all other books/studies/articles she mentions, except this one, so readers are unable to decide for themselves what type of forum this is.  (Is it a 'show-focused' one?  I remember asking the question once and being told that few of the regular posters actually show)  I'd also doubt that CD is the only forum bemoaning the high prices, health claims, and prized non-moulting coats that are the common theme amongst the designer breed crowd.  It's a sign of lazy journalism to use only one such source but once again Champdogs is nothing more than 'grist to her mill' so perhaps those original posters are due some thanks from Jemima :)

Please do not take what I have said personally, me and many of my family have had crossbreeds all our life , we could not afford a pedigree when I was growing up I love all dogs be them whatever shape size they come in, I am just stating that most of the rescues we have rehomed have gone to low income families for a nominal fee.
But I won't be made to feel bad just because I choose to have a pedigree breed that in the whole are very healthy.

> I just want to know what your conclusive agenda is? What do you want to happen?
>
> I know this sites agenda it wants responsible breeding, healthy dogs and good breeders.
>
> I still don't know what you want?

Completely agree Carrington - I have no idea what it is that Jemima wants either. Does she want all pedigree dogs banished from the UK and replaced with crossbreeds or does she really (like most of us) want to ensure that pedigree dogs are the best they possibly can be?

I personally believe that there are many, many problems in pedigree dogs (some breeds have more than others) but Jemima, you are chucking the baby out with the bathwater with your all or nothing approach. Antagonising responsible breeders whilst apparently approving of those producing crossbreeds and mongrels regardless of how they are raised and sold, will not help any dogs whether they are purebred or not.

Jemima, taking an entrenched position at one side of this argument helps no one - you have to see that there are issues in what you are advocating in the same way as breeders see that there are indeed issues with some breeds ( and we know some of them are also so entrenched in their position that they cannot see the wood for the trees). If you really want to help dogs, all dogs, then take the blinkers off and start listening instead of defending your position at all costs.

>I don't recall reading the original post that J mentions

That's because she hasn't directly quoted (even though the use of quotation marks clearly suggests this) anyone - a google search shows that the only time those particular sentences have been used are in her article. I'm sure that's classed as misrepresentation ...

It's also misleading that the illustration at the top of an article about pedigree versus crossbreed health is of what appears to be two pedigree breeds (a Malinois and a dalmatian)!

> That's because she hasn't directly quoted (even though the use of quotation marks clearly suggests this)

Here's the original thread -
http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/cgi-bin/board/topic_show.pl?pid=1171431;hl=hybrid%20vigour#pid1171431

She has quoted some people correctly: I double-checked because I was pretty sure some of the words were mine!

I don't think it is a pure bred Malinois. I think their black masks go back past their eyes. Maybe that is supposed to be the cross breed?

> I have no idea what it is that Jemima wants either

Neither do i, and neither do i care.

What do I want? Thank you for asking.

I want what everyone here wants - for pedigree dogs to be as healthy as they can be. The difference is that I think much more needs to be done than is currently being done.

There is now greater awareness of exaggerations, but we still need fewer wrinkes; less coat; longer muzzles; less excess flesh; tighter eyes; shorter ears; smaller giant breeds; larger miniature ones - essentially a reigning in of the extremes.

Genetically, MUCH more needs to be done. open databases; rolling health surveys; COIs/Ancestor Loss Co-efficients on pedigrees - and most of all a coherent conservation plan for ALL breeds where breeders get and work together with geneticists/epidimiologists/vets to ensure the future of the breed. This might involve outcrosses to different populations; sometimes to different breeds, limits on popular sires; greater use of more dogs for breeding; perhaps MHC haplotype testing and so on. Now some of this is being done, but it's too piecemeal. At the moment too many individual breeders are doing their own thing and too often they are in competition with each other.

I still don't think most people in pedigree dogs have "got it" - the "it" being that many breeds are in danger of extinction if something isn't done now. For some, it may already be too late.  Hence the urgency and why I don't just climb back under my rock (as has been suggested on more than one occasion..).

The new blog is designed to not just highlight problems but also to announce new relevant science, new DNA tests and good initiatives (eg the new Facebook page for eye testing). Am just about to launch a health survey page documenting available health surveys (UK and international) by breed. I'm hoping it will reach more pet owners than club surveys tend to. If anyone has anything they would like me to publicise, feel free to send over.

Jemima

Out of interest do many people with crossbreeds actually bother insuring their dogs?? ( all the ones I k ow don't )
I do. :-) And most of the crossbreeds in my classes are insured too.

Vera

One good point for champdogs is that at least much of the problems are being openly discussed and debated whether the opinions are wrong or right it is highlighting the problems and making people think bringing it again like you have been fighting for to the public eye.

Even if some of the posters are wrong it's a moot point does it not then if say one disbelieves what is said then spur a person to do some own research, that can only be a good thing.

Everything that is written on here in newspapers and by you yourself has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

we still need fewer wrinkes; less coat; longer muzzles; less excess flesh; tighter eyes; shorter ears; smaller giant breeds; larger miniature ones

Oh now I understand.  You want small dogs bigger, big dogs smaller, small ears larger, large ears small, small eyes bigger, big eyes smaller, short muzzled dogs longer, long muzzled dogs shorter.  So you want everything to be medium and all breeds of dog to look the same!  They didn't even look the same 100 years ago!

Jemima, there are handful of serious exhibitors and breeders who insist on maintaining extremes.  The vast majority do their best to breed healthy dogs - if they didn't they would have horrendious Vets' bills maintaining their kennels.

The majority of dogs with health problems, in my experience as a dog groomer and having regularly seen 300 dogs in an 8 week period, actually bear little similarity to the breed standards and are bred from pet bitches who also bear little resemblance to the breed standards.

Thank you Jemima!

I now understand where you are coming from, it's not so different to what many of us want too, I like all the things that you want in improving the breeds which need physical improvement and genetic/health improvements, what a shame that you keep comparing all pedigree dogs to mongrels for health issues it detracts from the real issue and causes a debate, when all you want is to improve  a breeds well-being.

What you tend to do is lump pedigree dogs and people who show all under the same banner, it comes across as an intolerance, it's unfair, no doubt some don't 'get it', but have you thought that many do, it's far better to work together.

The pedigree dog is far, far wider than just the show ring also, the breed standard may come via the show ring, but lets be honest outside the show ring we have all differing shapes and sizes,  health wise there are far more breeders out there than the lowly show breeders doing more damage through lack of knowledge. This also needs addressing.

A breeds welfare doesn't just come down to the show world, it's a whole mixed pot of issues, but I agree it's a good place to start. It's better to work together and treat each other with respect though.

> It's better to work together and treat each other with respect though.

As an 'outsider' (at least that's how I feel - don't breed or show and have only two dogs) - some common sense on the issue :)

Daisy

> There is now greater awareness of exaggerations, but we still need fewer wrinkes; less coat; longer muzzles; less excess flesh; tighter eyes; shorter ears; smaller giant breeds; larger miniature ones - essentially a reigning in of the extremes.
>

I can understand why exaggerations that effect the health of a dog need changing,
I can understand why skin so loose it is prone to infection is a problem,
I can understand why eyes so loose they are prone to infeciton, eye-sight impairment and ingrowing eyelashes a problem, etc.

Please excuse my ignorance, but why does the size of a small dog aversley effect it's health? Why does the size of a giant breed aversly effect it's health?

I think she is talking about the very very small dogs who's bone structure is so fine that they can brake bones very easily or rib cages being very narrow i.e. not enough room for internal organs vs massive dogs who are so heavy or big that they struggle.

The tendency does seem to be to take everything to its extreme. Big dogs have to be bred bigger and bigger. Small dogs smaller to the point where it can be dangerous to breed them.
When most breeds were first documented (Ok this is a generalisation so forgive me please!) they were far less extreme.Bulldogs and Bassets were capable of doing a job of work. A lot of the modern ones struggle to survive let alone work. Surely a bit of moderation wouldn't go amiss?

I have Pomeranian's aren't they a small dog?  Average lifespan for our Pom's is 16. 

I still would like to see a database from vets showing breeds, crossbreeds that they have on their books and lifespan, illnesses etc. etc I bet that there wouldn't be much difference.

> When most breeds were first documented (Ok this is a generalisation so forgive me please!) they were far less extreme.Bulldogs and Bassets were capable of doing a job of work. A lot of the modern ones struggle to survive let alone work. Surely a bit of moderation wouldn't go amiss?

Mollosers were first documented way before the more modern breeds, thier size has always been there. Thier size is what made them valuable - the fact that they were large enough for war, made imposing guardians and were sadly, large enough to be pitted against lions. They served a function and had to be fit for that function, thier size always being in thier favour and never a burdon to them, what good would a giant dog, that couldn't move, be to people using it it war, or to people relying on it to guard them?

It's poor skeletal structure that causes problems, not thier size. Good breeding should, IMO, concentrate on breeding healthy dogs of good skeletal formation that can move, this is not a 'size' issue.
The breed standard for the Mastiff calls for absolute soundness in movemet, it does not allow a dog that can't move!

Look at the GSD, the fact that it's back is angled down and makes it look likes it's walking funny (sorry, I don't know the technical terms) is not to do with the size of the dog, it's to do with the skeleton.

sorry but no its not the skeleton thats the problem its the muscles and ligaments the skeleton on its own could be perfect but if the muscles and ligaments arnt right then theres no way the dog can move properly.

Don't some people go about it in a funny way to get what they want?  Wouldn't it have been so much better for J H to have had a better balance in her article instead of rubbing folk up the wrong way with sweeping comments.  Hmmm let me think MONGREL (not crossbred) or my own BREED that have been years in the making with health testing and certainly being fit for function which I think look quite nice and am able to predict what they will look and act like when grown - ohh yes here's the answer a carefully well thought out dog for me not from a byb or puppyfarm churning out these poor mongrels for the ££££ signs.  I do wish Jemima would target her energies on these people intead of the ones which are doing right by their dogs.

> we could not afford a pedigree when I was growing

Snap.
When growing up we had mongrels, we simply could not afford the initial outlay of a pedigree dog. The same again when my OH & I got our first family dog, he was a cross-breed from a rescue as again, we couldn't afford the price of a pedigree dog - (the 'rescue' dog cost us £40, he was from a local rescue that let him come to us with an open wound on his head, ingrowing dew-claws and entire, whilst I was heavily pregnant with my first child).
Allthoguh we were not able to afford the initial price of a pedigree dog, all of our dogs medical needs & bills have been met (without insurance cover).

It's only since we were in a position to find the money for the initial price-tag of a pedigree dog that we now have one :)

> It's better to work together and treat each other with respect though. <IMG class=qButton title="Quote selected text" alt="Quote selected text" src="/images/mi_quote.gif" width=20 height=10>

Whole heartedly agree with Carrington and Daisy here!

Jemima,

Surely 'open communictaion' is a key corner stone here!!??
If you choose to mock that or create a climate where those  involved in breeding feel less inclined to enter the open discussion then will we ever get to the stage where breeders 'get it' (to use your words) You lament this (and we all know there are still breeds with closed doors,closed eyes and closed ears) yet your 'blog' to me obstructs this corner stone ever being set!

There is an adage (much used here at CD) 'You catch more flies with Honey than Vinegar'
Is it just that it's more journalistically 'sexy' to use the Vinegar even though intellegence would tell you the Honey would work...

Can I just ask, are you allowed to make derisive comments about a forum you're a member of?  Anything that would cast it in a bad light, or appear to? 

> Allthoguh we were not able to afford the initial price of a pedigree dog, all of our dogs medical needs & bills have been met (without insurance cover).

Not wishing to be controversial, but why do people say that they can't afford a pedigree dog, but can afford medical expenses, food etc ?? Years ago people had a dog on low incomes, but vets' bills were a lot lower IF people bothered to take the dog to the vet :( These days things are a LOT more expensive, so I hope that responsible owners think whether they can afford to keep the dog (food, medical etc) over it's lifetime. The initial cost of the dog is fairly insignficant compared to 'running' costs. If someone wants a pedigree dog badly enough then they should be able to save up for it within a year or so - if they can't do that then how can they afford to keep the dog ????

The PDSA should be for people who have been made redundant etc,

All IMO - others may disagree :)

Daisy

what a shame that you keep comparing all pedigree dogs to mongrels for health issues it detracts from the real issue and causes a debate, when all you want is to improve  a breeds well-being.

It's one article and I write about many other things. And I'm really not doing it to trash pedigree dogs, although I know people think that. I'm arguing that there are things we can learn from understanding why crossbreeds are (on average) healthier that can be used to improve pedigree dog health.

I actually think that carefully-bred pedigree dogs, particularly those bred for function, have every chance of being as healthy if not healthier than their crossbreed cousins. But the selection criteria has to be right.

Jemima