It could be that the 19th century British St Bernards were undernourished runts ... When correctly reared they've attained their correct genetic size.

Have a look at this paper. Although primarily looking at the skull, it makes the point that the changes are due to breeder selection.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/71.full

Jemima

Apols, missed a bit off that download link:

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/71.full.pdf

Jemima

That's an interesting article; thank you for linking to it. However I can't see any mention to any health issues arising from the changes in the breed, whether from the gradual change of the shape of the skull or from any change in average size of the breed as a whole.

No, not mentioned in this article. But there's plenty of data out there if you look for it, JG.

Bigger dogs live shorter lives and suffer more from just the very fact of being big. Reduce their size a bit (and of course keep selecting for health AND keeping them on the lean side which also extends lifespan and reduces the severity of joint issues)  and there's a good chance you'll increase lifespan and make their retirement years more comfortable.

Jemima

But isn't the article primarily about skull size and change in skull shape over the years, as opposed to body size of a St.Bernard?

ETA Just read JG's similar reply, apologies.

Here's one of the researchers that has looked in depth at this:

http://frietsongalis.nl/

We have also studied developmental constraints in dogs, i.e. the negative consequences (pleiotropic effects) associated with extreme artificial selection for size in dogs (Collaboration with Marc Nussbaumer of the Natural History Museum, Berne, Switzerland). We have shown that for dogs the wide-spread notion that lifespan decreases with size is based on a misinterpretation of the data. We have shown, in a meta-analysis of the literature, that the very early deaths in dogs from large breeds are to an important extent the result of developmental diseases associated with the extremely high growth rates that have been co-selected with size.

[SKULL PIX ON LINK ABOVE]

The size of giant dog breeds (Great Dane, Newfoundland, St. Bernard dog, Irish Wolfhound) has remarkably increased during the last century, as shown here for St. Bernhard dogs. The breed standard for St. Bernard dogs now specifies a shoulder height of between 70-90 cm and these dogs weigh 65-85 kg, whereas a typical 19th century dog was approx. 60 cm high and weighed less than 50 kg. The extremely high growth rates in large breeds are associated with serious health problems, such as bone cancer and hip dysplasia. Top left: male, 1968; top right: female, 2001; bottom left: male, 1893; bottom right: female, ca. 1880-1890.

The key sentence above is: "We have shown that for dogs the wide-spread notion that lifespan decreases with size is based on a misinterpretation of the data." Sounds on first reading that they might be suggesting that it's not true that big dogs die younger. But in fact what they're saying is that it isn't that their allotted lifespan is shorter - it's that they often don't reach it because of the problems caused by growing fast/being big. Which makes sense because whenever this subject comes up, there's always someone who tells me that their mastiff/dane/newfie etc lived until they were into their teens.

Jemima

>The breed standard for St. Bernard dogs now specifies a shoulder height of between 70-90 cm and these dogs weigh 65-85 kg, whereas a typical 19th century dog was approx. 60 cm high and weighed less than 50 kg.

The 1955 photo in this article shows St Bernards of mid-thigh height to a human.

If you look at the hocks the dogs have sunk into the snow quite a bit as the people are wearing snow shoes

WOW!!! I haven't been on in a couple of days and just look at all this fun I've been missing!!!

Ok I will own up now and risk being put in the naughty corner by the avid showers!!!!

I have a large working breed and my boy comes from exceptional lines, however he wouldn't cut the mustard in the ring. He is 2" and 10kg above the limit of the breed standard. I feed my dogs well and excercise them hard (obviously building up very gradually until their peak at 4yrs old). Even though he is 10kg heavier than standard there is not an ounce of fat on him and he moves like a highly trained dressage horse floating across the ground. You can see every muscle under a layer of skin. So going off what JH is saying about big dogs should be smaller does that mean that 29" and 68kg my boy is unhealthy and unsound even though my vet has said he has never seen a healthier, fitter and sound dogs in his 30 yr career.

Well I thank you for your expertise and input JH or else I would have never have realized that my poor boy was at deaths door!!!

It's interesting that taller humans are more successful; it seems to be innate in our human psyche that small = weedy. Certainly for many species of animals and birds the bigger and showier the male the more sexually successful he is.

lol We must be doing something right then! lol

I was involved in that thread and I don't remember us coming to that conclusion?

Jeff.

There will always be individuals who ok when the rest are not.

Even if with proof that large breeds would be healther if they were bred a little smaller, there will always be some who will be big and healthy, it does not mean we such ignor the facts.

> Even if with proof that large breeds would be healther if they were bred a little smaller, there will always be some who will be big and healthy, it does not mean we such ignor the facts.
>

The facts are that developmental diseases effect ALL sizes of dogs -including the tiny ones. The very term 'developmental' means the diseases show up DURING growth, but it does not mean they are CAUSED by growth.

"Skeletal development in the dog results from an interaction of genetic, environmental, and nutritional factors"

Overnutrition intended to maximize growth rate is incompatible with optimal skeletal development in many species.

Conclusion : The large and giant breeds are the most susceptible to skeletal disease. Genetics, environment, and nutrition play key roles. Nutritionally, rate of growth, feed consumption, specific nutrients, and feeding methods influence our ability to optimize skeletal development and minimize skeletal disease. Maximizing the growth rate in young, growing puppies does not correlate to maximal adult size; however, it does increase the risk of skeletal disease. The growth phase of 3 to 8 months and possibly the phase prior to weaning are integral to ultimate skeletal integrity. The giant breeds may be limited in their ability to cope with excesses of minerals such as calcium, and the results are abnormal bone remodeling and skeletal disorders. This apparent increased sensitivity makes these breeds somewhat of a monitor of dietary influences. Taken from here.

As the above shows - forcing the rate of growth via over-nutrition is a big factor in giant breeds, rather than the natural growth rate of a giant breed being the problem (I think JG had a point earleir when she mentioned 'undernourished runts').

It doesn't matter how many people want to disagree with that, the FACT remains that developmental diseases effect all sizes of dogs. You can make giant breeds smaller - you can make them tiny, you can completely do away with tme but that will NOT get rid of developmental diseases.

Horses (waaaaay bigger than a giant breed dog!) suffer from developmental disease, the summery is the same - nutrion has a major impact, envirnment & excersise can play a role, but the genetic component should not be ignored. Between 2 horses (horses bred to end up the same size as each other), if one has a higher growth rate brought on by over-nutrition it will be more at risk for developing a problem. However - both the horse will still grow to be the same size. Making horses smaller is not considered to be a strategy in erradicating developmental diseases, so I see no reason why a giant breed of dog should be made smaller as a strategy.

I too have wondered why Jemima has flatcoats when she does not seem to have a good word for any pure-bred dog? Newfoundlands are a giant breed and the majority live to over 10, often 12 + so maybe this shoots down the large dog/ short life theory. There are large breeds without longevity but that is not necessarily because of their size: it can be a cancer problem. Why is J's rescue only for "retriever crosses" when she feels so strongly about retrievers who are, of course, a pure-bred dog. Why doesn't she home all the mongrels in need of help? I'm afraid, Jemima, it does come across as pure hypocracy.

You don't understand. I love pedigree dogs. I just don't like the way they're too often bred for form rather than function within closed gene pools that are diminishing with every generation.

My rescue is an offshoot from Independent Flatcoat Rehoming - born out of the realisation that lots of black shaggy dogs in Ireland (mostly retriever/collie crosses) looked a bit like a flatcoat and it might be possible to rehome them to people who want a rescue flatcoat (not many of which come into rescue). Mary Haines still runs the purebred side, very succcessfully, and I focus on the mutts although I do rehome a handful of purebred gundog breeds, too - setters, labs, golden retrievers and spaniels.

I have over 150 people on my waiting list. Could rehome loads more dogs given greater resources and more time. To refer back to another conversation, most of the homes on my waiting list are pretty well-off middle class people who've "done" the pedigree pup thing and now want to do their bit re rescue. I've just rehomed a gorgeous young sprocker girl to a home to which I rehomed a chocolate spaniel/setter x last year. This home has lost two flatcoats to cancer in the past six months (one 6, one 3) - another reason a LOT of people contact me (at least one call a week and sometimes three).

I can't in all honesty recommend anyone to get a flattie pup at the moment for this reason. But I would really love this to be different and believe it could be - just not the way it's being done at the moment.

Jemima

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.

I think this is the area that comes across in your articles and posting and where I think you fail to get your message across and loose respect of people.  I am not a breeder and I rescue dogs and can't see myself paying for a specific breed of dog while so many dogs die in rescue and yet I feel my back being put up by the way you right things and make judgements a bout people. 

It's such a shame that you write the way you do and think that the thing you want are so different to that of many others.  It is somewhat arrogant to suggest that what you are different to everyone else because you think much more needs to be done than is currently being done. There are many many many people that feel as you do and are trying to do things about it, albeit moe quietly and maybe with some thought about trying to keep the people whose mind need to be changed on side.  How can you think you are ever going to make your point while you are sniping at and getting the backs up of the people that you need to listen to you?

Like I say I think it is a real shame the way you go about things, you are clearly passionate and much of what you say has merit and value but you are clearly missing a very important point and that is about how to get your message across with the most impact and benefit and I think that goes a bit deeper than actually just geeting noticed, which you have clearly done, sadly because of the way you do it you aren't getting people to listen and I doubt you will if you keep approaching things in the same manner.  I think it's so easy when we feel passionalteyl about something to let our own egos get in the way, it doesn't benefit the cause we are fighting for though - I hope you managed to find another way of getting your message across and dealing with people and using that all imprtant balance so that the importance of some of what you ahve to say can be listened to!

ETA sorry I tried to bold the bit I was quoting and now can't unbold it.

It's interesting that taller humans are more successful; it seems to be innate in our human psyche that small = weedy. Certainly for many species of animals and birds the bigger and showier the male the more sexually successful he is.

You're not using this as justification for breeding ever-bigger dogs, now, are you JG? Not when I've provided the documented, peer-reviewed evidence that there is a welfare cost to those dogs?

The over-sized dogs that we have bred through artificial selection has nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence of biological fitness/adaptability that earns an individual - in the wild - the right to breed.

Jemima

>You're not using this as justification for breeding ever-bigger dogs, now, are you JG?

Why would you think that?

> I can't in all honesty recommend anyone to get a flattie pup at the moment for this reason. But I would really love this to be different and believe it could be - just not the way it's being done at the moment.
>
> Jemima

Thing is if you attack pedigree dogs per se and encourage people to have casually/irresponsibly bred crosses and rescues (which are largely there because of irresponsible breeding and ownership) you are further reducing the gene pools for the pedigree breeds as without homes to go to litters won't be bred by responsible breeders who are doing their best to tackle any problems.

Malcolm Willis has said about his wifes breed the Bernese that despite the short lifespan due to cancer the breed is such a wonderful one (as are all breeds for those with a deep love of them) that is is worth the heartache to have them, and to work to improve matters.

So instead of damning good breeders with the bad your message should be that people educate themselves on the problems within a breed and contact breeders who are working to reduce these issues.

Some people may be happy with something that looks like their breed, but having fostered a cross of my breed (Elkhound Cross Husky), there is no way I would take something a bit like, it's the real thing for me. :)

My own breed in just the time I have been involved has gone from 150 pups a year to two years with only around 50 registrations, this mainly due to the worry over finding homes and the costs of responsibly breeding by breeders who care for the breeds welfare.  We at least have the option of importing which we try to do regularly but it isn't something that most of us can afford to do very often.  this is a breed that is only modestly priced compared to most breeds, but is a breed little known by the general public so puppy enquiries come from those who really want one of this breed in a steady trickle, and breeders work together to help place pups and help breed enthusiasts obtain a pup.

Have you noticed that it is some of the breeds with small gene pools but numerically small numbers and very devoted breeders that are doing their best re health.  In some ways when you have a small nucleus of breeders all singing from the same hymn sheet quality or progress is maintained.

With my own breed all except the very odd litter with dubious breeding history of the owners and past breeders (a steady trickle come in from wartime lines that got into puppy farmer/causal hands in Ireland) every litter registered is by club members that by peer pressure and their own ethics adheres the the breeds code of ethics re health testing and breeding, lifetime responsibility to pups.

The breeds that are popular puppy farm fodder will never as a whole breed improve even with the small nucleus in caring breeders hands doing their best by the breed, because the puppy producers don't care to do anything they don't absolutely have to that will cost them money.

This home has lost two flatcoats to cancer in the past six months (one 6, one 3) - another reason a LOT of people contact me (at least one call a week and sometimes three).

Are you honesty saying that we can breed  for cancer free dogs. I think maybe you should get in touch with Cancer Research as you seem to think that breeders could have the answers to curing Cancer, wow, I want a bit of that too as I hate to see people/animals dying of cancer and you seem to think that you have the answers.
Do you really believe that we want to see our pets dying of cancer, have you not thought that there are all sorts of outside influences that can cause cancer. Seriously disillusioned springs to mind. Quite honestly JH I think your time would be better put to broadcasting about stopping puppy farming, especially in Ireland, Wales and some parts of England. However, some of these people are very bad characters and it makes me wonder if it because you think that potentially good breeders are the soft option instead. I feel that I could go along with some of your ideas if it weren't for the very bad attitude that you seem to have for all breeders.

Wow, I want a bit of that too.

It is common knowledge that some cancers are heritory, if people don't want to see their pets dieing of cancer they such take notice and stop breeding dogs with inheritory dieases.

The adverts on TV tell us that is it one in 3 or 4 of us will get Cancer.

The infant mortality rate has dropped, we can prevent or cure many other diseases that would kill us sooner.

Our dogs are likely to be similarly affected, especially as we dose them with a lot more chemicals they are more likely to pick up environmental contaminants by being dogs, and they are generally living longer than nature has designed them to.

Wild Canids and most other species are required to live long enough to reproduce, and ensure the survival of the next generation, they do not generally live long lives.

Some Cancers do have a hereditary element (unfortunately most hereditary problems do not have simple or understood modes of inheritance), but whether it is the same cancer or a different one a large proportion of dogs that survive into adulthood and have avoided dying of other things will get it same as us.

> It is common knowledge that some cancers are heritory,

I'd like to read that information if that is the case in dogs. What cancer in dogs is confirmed as hereditory? I always thought it was so complex that it was a number of predisposing factors and there was no way at this time to confirm or deny either way of its genetics.

This home has lost two flatcoats to cancer in the past six months (one 6, one 3)

In the grand scheme of things...my own breed the Border Collie....is a relative newcomer to KC Registration and being given a Breed Standard....and in turn I'm a relative newcomer to becoming the guardian of KC registered Border Collies. Prior to that...for almost 50 years I have known and loved either unregistered Border Collies or ISDS. The same wonderful spirit is still there...but in looking at the ABS scheme...and health testing requirements...and veterinary recommendation.etc....I find myself sitting on the fence....much concerned about what might become mandatory in future.

In my own breed I see a worrying rise in epilepsy (and a smaller dog than I remember..?) Now it has been known for a long time that Ivermectin kills Border Collies (and collie crosses) and the identification of the mdr1 gene has told us why...and now there is a growing list of veterinary drugs that are best avoided. (In my younger days there might have been the odd lame collie in old age...but nobody ever had an epileptic dog) To my mind if cancer is becoming an early onset problem in a breed then this isn't solely due to breeder selection. It could well be that this breed (and no doubt many others) has acute sensitivities too

You see what happens is that the pedigree puppy is taken to the vet at around 8 weeks old and so begins the vaccinations (containing foreign DNA and carcinogenic nasties/worming programmes/flea programmes/kibble diet recommendations/regular booster appointments...often leading to diarreah/sickness/skin problems...leading in turn to antibiotics/corticosteroids etc...leading to depletion of the immune system...leading to further veterinary drugs...in an endless merry-go round (of veterinary work-ups) Some of these pedigree puppies will have chemicals applied to their coats/GA for hip scores/regular boosters/other vaccinations etc etc.... and will go on to have the NEXT generation of pedigree puppies. Some of these precious puppies will have worming products/antibiotics/kibble diets...and thats BEFORE they even reach 8 weeks old...!

I too care passionately about the (Natural) health of pedigree dogs (all dogs) and sometimes get slated for my opinions....but in my view there is an entire "industry" to be addressed...and not just the KC breeders who do care passionately enough to keep debating the issues :)  

> You're not using this as justification for breeding ever-bigger dogs, now, are you JG? Not when I've provided the documented, peer-reviewed evidence that there is a welfare cost to those dogs?

What you have provided is a document that conludes:

"Artificial selection for extremely high growth rates in large breeds appears to have led to developmental diseases that seriously diminish longevity."

The overall size of an animal is not actually dictated or effected by the rate of growth.
There have been studies in horses that show if one foal has it's growth-rate forced via overnutrition it will be more at risk for developing developmental diseases. However, the higher growth rate of the foal that has been 'overfed' will not make it grow any bigger - both the horses will be the size of a horse......

Are you honesty saying that we can breed  for cancer free dogs.

No... I'm saying we can breed for less cancer. Certainly, in a breed that has a 50 per cent chance of developing cancer by the age of 7/8 (as flatcoats do) then we should be doing more to try to prevent it. Same goes for the Bernese. Personally, I am totally outraged by the "even if they die young they're worth it because they're so wonderful " argument that I have often heard in Berners and I think it is irresponsible of Willis to have said this because I really do think we need to be questioning at what point it is OK to keep breeding dogs that are dying young or horrible diseases.

Now I know that flatcoat breeders/owners send their dogs' tumours and pedigrees to Cambridge/Jayne Dobson - and that's great. I know others give money to the research. But my suggestion that the breed club promoted MHC haplotype testing was recently turned down (although was pleased to hear that a couple of committee members have approached the researchers to find out more). And there still isn't an open database of flatcoats which monitors cancer incidence. Data, data, data. Badly, badly, badly needed - because it will help you make better breeding decisions.

In Berners - again, there is research being done, and the breed has a terrific health advocate in Steve Green. But if dogs are developing histiocytoma young and they live on average just 7.5yrs (half that of some small terrier breeds) and it hasn't improved (which it hasn't) more needs to be done. Again, MHC haplotype testing is worth trying and also people need think about breeding from older, health-proven dogs and/or storing semen from younger dogs that you use once they've proven that they're not going to drop dead from cancer. You get what you breed for. So select for longevity. In cavaliers, for instance, the breeding protocol is not to mate a dog or bitch until they are 2.5yrs old and only then if those dogs' parents are 5yrs and heart-clear. This won't rid the breed of mitral valve disease but it should push back the age of onset.

As for me having a bad attitude towards all breeders - join the Canine Genetics-L list. Lots of wonderful breeders there - of everything from Manchester Terriers to Leonburgers to Standard Poodles to Salukis to PRTs and the occasional breeder of intentionally-bred crossbreeds - and I'd be the first to praise them. There's a lot of wisdom there for those who geneuinely want to learn and are keen to get perspective from other breeds - and to learn from the many experts, some of whom are also biologists, genetics counsellors, etc etc.

For those interested, here is the data on longevity of various breeds (and crossbreeds):

http://users.pullman.com/lostriver/breeddata.htm

Jemima

>There have been studies in horses that show if one foal has it's growth-rate forced via overnutrition it will be more at risk for developing developmental diseases.

That's an excellent point which is frequently overlooked.

This is very interesting, but going off thead a bit because we are debating breeding. I too have always had border collies. I would never buy a 'pedigee ' one.
luckely it is still a much valued farm dog so will still be bred ramdomly with the collie from the next farm or a friends dog. So the gene pool remains wide.
Border collies are meant to work not be paraded around a show ring.

The subject of feeding and injecting too many chemicals is a good one,  I have wondered about people feeding raw kidneys and liver. Lambs have to be wormed very often so their kidneys and liver will be full of it. 
Going off thread but worth a thought. 

what is MHC haplotype testing.

http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-breed-dogs-with-stronger-immune.html

Jemima

> I think this is the area that comes across in your articles and posting and where I think you fail to get your message across and loose respect of people.&nbsp; I am not a breeder and I rescue dogs and can't see myself paying for a specific breed of dog while so many dogs die in rescue and yet I feel my back being put up by the way you right things and make judgements a bout people.&nbsp; <

> It's such a shame that you write the way you do and think that the thing you want are so different to that of many others.&nbsp; It is somewhat arrogant to suggest that what you are different to everyone else because you think much more needs to be done than is currently being done. There are many many many people that feel as you do and are trying to do things about it, albeit moe quietly and maybe with some thought about trying to keep the people whose mind need to be changed on side.&nbsp; How can you think you are ever going to make your point while you are sniping at and getting the backs up of the people that you need to listen to you?<
>
> Like I say I think it is a real shame the way you go about things, you are clearly passionate and much of what you say has merit and value but you are clearly missing a very important point and that is about how to get your message across with the most impact and benefit and I think that goes a bit deeper than actually just geeting noticed, which you have clearly done, sadly because of the way you do it you aren't getting people to listen and I doubt you will if you keep approaching things in the same manner.&nbsp; I think it's so easy when we feel passionalteyl about something to let our own egos get in the way, it doesn't benefit the cause we are fighting for though - I hope you managed to find another way of getting your message across and dealing with people and using that all imprtant balance so that the importance of some of what you ahve to say can be listened to!<

I agree with everything said above.

I have said this before. This is exactly what I knew would happen the moment I saw the programme. You cannot talk at people you have to talk to them and remember they have the right to hold an opinion even when it differs from yours. So instead of moving things forward, the attitude of "I am right, you are wrong, I am the God to save dogs from the wicked breeders" has resulted initially in a digging in of opinions, and now it is becoming like an annoying bluebottle buzzing around the picnic, nobody wants to listen, they have heard it all, time and time again...buzz buzz buzz... The researchers and good breeders who are quietly getting on with supporting research by funding it or doing it are the real heroes not those who constantly 'buzz' they are right and there is no other way. Hence take note of the title of this thread.... "You can't have a discussion with some people".

It is not that the good breeders are not listening, they are listening to the experts those researchers and experienced breeders who support health testing, it is just that they are not listening to you any more, they have heard what you have to say and you are not trying to help in positive ways, and we have heard it all before like a "constant repeat on TV which we all groan about and then switch off".

Data, data, data. Badly, badly, badly needed

What do you think that Cancer Research has been doing for years and yet we still have people and animals dying of cancer. If only it was that simple.

Hear, hear, Polly

> It is not that the good breeders are not listening, they are listening to the experts those researchers and experienced breeders who support health testing

And one of those experts, Cathryn Mellersh of the AHT, was somewhat dismissive of haplotype testing at the KC Breeders' Symposium. I think she said it had very limited value. So maybe the breed clubs are right to proceed with caution.


"Now I know that flatcoat breeders/owners send their dogs' tumours and pedigrees to Cambridge/Jayne Dobson - and that's great. I know others give money to the research. But my suggestion that the breed club promoted MHC haplotype testing was recently turned down (although was pleased to hear that a couple of committee members have approached the researchers to find out more). And there still isn't an open database of flatcoats which monitors cancer incidence. Data, data, data. Badly, badly, badly needed - because it will help you make better breeding decisions".

Have not been on this forum for some time. But feel that the above remarks made by Ms Harrison need addressing.  The Trustees of the Tumour Survey, who incidentally have the full support of the Flatcoated Retriever Society, was formed in 1988, please follow the link:

http://www.flatcoated-retriever-society.org/content/view/506/10/

The following is quoted from Dr  Jane Dobson, Oncology Dept, Cambridge Vet School regarding the Flatcoated Retriever and their cohort study "This study was quite unique, very few other breeds have been subject to such scrutiny and who knows what the figure might be for others".

Your comments Jemima are an insult to all those who have worked so hard regarding the incidence of the various cancers in the breed, and as of yet a cure has not been found.   How we all wish for that 'cure' and not just for Flatcoats but all canines.

Owners of the Flatcoated Retriever can send in tissue samples to Cambridge (these biopsies are free) or blood to the AHT (for any condition) with a 5 generation pedigree - all this information is logged and collated, and no the information, as of yet, is not on an open database.   However, a database has to have accurate information, it is not any good unless all the dogs that have cancer are biopsied and an accurate diagnosis given.    Much has been given over the years by owners/breeders etc.,to fund various research their pockets are not limitless - please read the link above all the way through. 

Regarding Haplotypes (to put it very simply the more haplotypes that a dog has the less chance of doubling up on a undesirable condition) by using the new Kennel Club programme Select Mate will have the same effect, it will increase genetic diversity.  You infer that MHC haplotype testing would go some way to reducing neoplasia, I have not read this to be correct, only by yourself, ahh another wish if only it were that easy!!. 

Finally a link as below regarding the FCR'S Health Survey 2006 (20011 is just about to begin) - yet more data!! you need to scroll down to read.

http://www.flatcoated-retriever-society.org/content/view/499/10/

Your sentiments are sometimes admirable Jemima, but not when you constantly knock down those owners/breeders/professionals who are doing their best.   It is very easy to sit behind a screen and criticise.

Well said Val.

When ever I have a look at this forum its full of -

my dog has slipping patelas
my dog has a tumour
my bitch has had a caesarean
Half the litter has died
The others half are dieing
my dog has diarrhoea
my dog is constipated
The pups would eat
the bitch is lame
my dog is vomiting
my dog has a skin diease
etc etc ect

Speaks for its self to me.

People come here because the advice given is good and many post these things having been to the vets and have  come away not necessarily happy with the vets diagnosis or have not really understood what the vet meant, others post about their problems here because they find the people here are supportive on the whole, unlike some other forums. Also for every poster with a problem there are far more posters with no problems at all who just come to discuss things that interest them or share a joke.

The posters who come here and ask health questions like the ones you have noted are a minority when you consider the number of dogs owned in the UK.

I recently had to ask a health question which was about a dog which attends the club I am a trainer at. That dog was a crossbred dog who has a problem with badly tear stained face and it is only 5 months old. The face is getting sore due to the excess moisture on the facial skin caused by the excessive amount of tears being produced. I am glad I asked my question as I have been able to advise the owners. Clearly you would prefer it if I did not ask and the poor dog ended up with a really bad skin condition?

> Speaks for its self to me.

Not really, why would anybody ask for medical advice for a healthy dog?

>When ever I have a look at this forum its full of -

Have you had a look at the NHS-type forums recently? They're full of almost identical questions.

Any living organism will have problems at times. That's Life.

Some of these posts just show a complete lack of understanding about what dog breeding is all about.  There is absolutely no comprehension from those who have blinkered views or have read a few articles posted by whoever on the internet, that there are many, many breeders who are working under the guidance of our top specialists to improve the health of their chosen breed.  Even with the guidance of specialists, they are struggling to make progress.  If only it was as simple as they think it is.
May be if we switched to making robots rather than deal with genetics and then we might produce perfect pets that would satisfy all the armchair critics. :(
As I've said before, the vast majority of problem dogs and bred from poor quality pets by people with little interest in breed standards.  GOOD breeders don't want to produce unhealthy dogs - they also don't want the worry and Vets' bills.

This is very interesting, but going off thead a bit because we are debating breeding. I too have always had border collies. I would never buy a 'pedigee ' one.
luckely it is still a much valued farm dog so will still be bred ramdomly with the collie from the next farm or a friends dog.

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't this still a pedigree? as its still bred to its own type, just not kc reg.

>May be if we switched to making robots rather than deal with genetics and then we might produce perfect pets that would satisfy all the armchair critics.

The people who complain that animals aren't 100% perfect 100% of the time are clearly robots, not living beings, themselves!

Have you had a look at the NHS-type forums recently? They're full of almost identical questions.


Took the words right out of my mouth, we are the species with the knowledge to repair and heal many aliments, but we still suffer from them, there is no such thing as 100% health in any species, we still have cesarians, still births, often for no reason to be found, it's part of life, we are born and we die from something, genetic disorders where we or other animals pass on hereditary problems to our young can be dealt with.

But all the things mentioned on Jocelyn's list there, are not necessarily genetic, but part of everyday life suffered by all species, don't quite get the point I'm afraid.

> Speaks for its self to me.

Jocelyn,  This board is full of dog owners of pedigree and cross breeds, a complete mix.. To have a dog forum of having totally happy uplifting topics would be totally unfounded.. We have good news stories on here too you know..
Normally though forums are there for people seeking advice, advice is sought when problems arise..

> Jocelyn,  This board is full of dog owners of pedigree and cross breeds, a complete mix.. To have a dog forum of having totally happy uplifting topics would be totally unfounded.. We have good news stories on here too you know..

Very true - I read several forums regularly, and one is rescue-based. Just as many ailments and health issues on there, with a very high proportion of the dogs owned by members being crossbreeds and mongrels of all kinds, and not all of them rescues. This forum though, would naturally attract a higher percentage of pedigree owners since a greater number of members here breed and show, but many also do not.

>When ever I have a look at this forum its full of -

Jocelyn, it's in the nature of forums that people come to ask questions, gather opinion and seek advice.  It's the advantage of THIS forum that many posters are willing to give their time and experience to help them.

The high number of 'problem' posts does not indicate that there are great numbers of sick dogs, rather that there are large numbers of dog owners who wish to speak with like minded people about their pets.  If they come here they are likely to find clear answers to medical questions and a lot of personal support and encouragement (and some plain speaking!)  I notice that you too give advice and opinion so you must consider it worth your while to join in. 

Sometimes we all need the reassurance offered by anonymous posters and I for one have learnt so much by keeping my ears open and my mouth shut.  I rather resent Jemima using this site as a negative example to suit her own ends.  She sees what she wants to see, uses threads as free research for her articles and fails to acknowledge those that contribute views to all sides of the debate.  Lazy journalism

are you trying to say these only occur in pedigree dogs sorry but all dogs of any make and shape can have these problems.

> I too have always had border collies. I would never buy a 'pedigee ' one.
> luckely it is still a much valued farm dog so will still be bred ramdomly with the collie from the next farm or a friends dog. So the gene pool remains wide.
>> Border collies are meant to work not be paraded around a show ring.

Out of interest Jocelyn what type of work do your border collies do? One of my agility trainers has a young BC - from health tested parents- who has qualified for Crufts for life and who also competes in agility. He is very happy doing both jobs :-)

I also have a neighbour who has three BCs - all three are farm bred, one has been lame since she was two years old, one has epilepsy and the other has a very unreliable temperament.

Are the farm dogs you know health tested before being bred from or are the owners convinced their dogs can't possibly have any health issues because they are are farm dogs?