It should be if it is a recongnised breed and people replied?

The breeds that did not get ENOUGH replies were not published by the KC as the data would not be reliable enough.The figure less than 200 replies springs to mind but I might have imagined that!  Papillons for instance are not on there.

must have had a statistically too low return. :(

> I feel size is not the main cause for their short lifespan and to push for the breeds concerned to be smaller IMO wouldn't make a jot of difference.

I've been looking at the figures JG linked to (the KC health survey) and found more suprises:
Death from musculoskeltal problems in:
Greyhound = 0
Italian Greyhound 2%

>Maybe so, but it's almost twice the length claimed by the insurance company.

Regarding the anomoly in the lifespans given by the insurance company (which one, based on dogs in which country?) it occurred to me that their figures would be skewed for two reasons: a) that they only have data from insured dogs (and with no verification of the breed - some owners say their dogs is a XXXX when it clearly isn't!) thus limiting their input and b) many people stop insuring their dogs once they reach a certain age and the premiums get too high. In this case the insurance company has no idea of how old the dogs that people have stopped insuring become - because they're never told. They only know about dogs that die unexpectedly young.

Absolutely JG as statistics are only as good as the integrity of the data that feeds into the findings.

This is where statistics should only be used when the data is proven fit for purpose to use to quantify a theory.  This is where proper controlled research projects should really be used but only again where the data collected is deemed wide enough to prove a theory. Using insurance data means there is little control over the information collected eg i can say my dog died of this ailment but without a proper postmortem how can this be proved ? The data can also be manipulated to serve a purpose. In this case justifying their charges .

its pointless argying over what causes poor health (I'm not aiming this at anyone in perticular)

So what would you rather do, ignor it? There are many different reasons for poor health in dogs, and we such be talking about it and trying to find ways to improve it.

Some breeds are long lived, but have problems bred into them which means they dont have the healthy life they such have although the condition does'nt kill them.

Some breeds have long lifes and are very healthy and happy dogs. Maybe they don't have exaduated features bred into them.

If someone is trying to do something instead of sitting back and just carrying on regardless, that person such be encouraged and supported, not be subjected to bullying, nasty, rude comments. (you know who you are!)

Breeding dogs with such exaduated features is not nessesary, it is wrong.
If it doesnt applie to your breed dont take it personaly, just take care that it stays like that. 

Can I just double-check... Are you disputing that big dogs die younger than small ones?

Jemima

> If someone is trying to do something instead of sitting back and just carrying on regardless, that person such be encouraged and supported, not be subjected to bullying, nasty, rude comments.

Well said - the breeders who are actively trying to better thier breeds need support rather than slating by journalists.

....and can I double check that you are actually going to answer my question ?

It's just not good enough to say " I love pedigree dogs" and then slam the very method by which they are maintained - tell me how someone who breeds Schipperkees ( for example )  can continue to breed the very individual look and character of their breed without using a closed gene pool ?-

Yvonne

It's just not good enough to say " I love pedigree dogs" and then slam the very method by which they are maintained - tell me how someone who breeds Schipperkees ( for example )  can continue to breed the very individual look and character of their breed without using a closed gene pool ?-

Hadn't seen this - sorry Yvonne.

Shipperkes have a useful health section on the Club website - with only three problems, which appear to be very low-level in the breed, mentioned. Clearly, this is a fairly robust, long-lived breed with natural conformation. Unless someone came forward with evidence that health problems are being swept under the carpet, it seems to me that what is needed is surveillance rather than outcrossing - along, ideally, with a thorough assessment of genetic diversity in the breed (pedigree analysis/DLA testing) which will provide  a useful benchmark and a concerted effort to maximise available genetic diversity.

If it isn't such a healthy breed, there is no one-size fits all outcrossing programme. It depends on the breed and the nature of the genetic disease it suffers from (recessive/dominant/simple/complex etc). But given that Bruce Cattanach crossed a boxer with a Corgi (totally different phenotype and character) and was back to type within four generations, clearly it is possible to bring in new blood/genes and restore look and character pretty quickly. This actually affords the possibility of choosing a very healthy breed regardless of its look/character. However, it would be quicker with a breed that looked/was similar.  Eg, perhaps a cross between cancer-prone Berners to their not-cancer-prone cousins the Swiss Mountain Dog.

If you go back to old breeding books, outcrossing was done all the time. Many stud books did not close that long ago. Flatcoats were crossed with labradors after the war, for instance, because so few flatties were left. And now we have so many useful genetic tests available, it should be able to be done with much less risk of bringing in new problems. But outcrossing within breeds should be considered first (and of course is being done already by some breeders who bring in dogs from other populations) - there will be dogs out there in different countries that may carry useful genetic material. Lynne Sharple's Brambledale Beardies, for instance (not currently KC registered but definitely still Beardies), have some extremely rare DLA haplotypes which really could be useful in a breed that suffers some immune problems.

Jemima

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.

Just wanted to highlight this, as it's so sensible :)

Lindsay
x

> And now we have so many useful genetic tests available, it should be able to be done with much less risk of bringing in new problems.

As John constantly points out with 5 DNA tests plus the other health tests and a 6th DNA on the cards is there a danger of having the most healthy extinct breed on the planet?

Are you disputing that big dogs die younger than small ones?

NO I am apsolutly not disputing that fact.

rather than slating by journalists

Mastifflover

You are delibratly trying to twist things that people say.
There is no jounalist that I know of that are 'slating' any breeders. It is the BREEDERS that are slating people who are trying to help dogs who are surfering the conquences of haveing to live with exaduated features like long backs, heavy coats, short noses etc.
It is not slating as you put it, it is hightlighting it, it is exposing it, it is careing about it, and if no one does anything about it the problums WILL get worse. 

>There is no jounalist that I know of that are 'slating' any breeders.

Jocelyn, you obviously missed the PDE programme that slated all breeders of pedigree dogs and very clearly gave the public the message that all pedigree dogs were unhealthy mutants. There was absolutely no mention of any genetic testing and health screening that can be done by breeders who try their damnedest to produce puppies that will live long healthy lives, and the fallout is still continuing.

That's not 'caring' or 'exposing' - the mildest term is 'slating'.

> It is not slating as you put it, it is hightlighting it, it is exposing it, it is careing about it, and if no one does anything about it the problums WILL get worse

It is a jouranalist that is saying giant breeds need to be bred smaller in order to erradicate developmental diseases .

It is breeders that are actually hip & elbow scoring in order to actively illimate these problms.

As allready said, developmental diseases are a factor in ANY sized dog, so 'highlighting' the issue of developmental disease by blaming it on breeders producing giant breeds is not productive or helpfull in any way.
Highlighting problems and coming up with solutions that will work -  ie HEALTH screeing by ALL breeders (rather than size-screeing by giant breeders) would be seen as constuctive.......

I care about 'my' breed. However I do not breed, so all I can do is bang on about health-screening in the hope that other giant-breed enthusiasts will look for healthy, sound, giant breeds rather than be put off giant breeds and get smaller breeds instead (if the listen to Jemeima saying that SIZE is the problem).
Frightienng people away from breeds is not doing anything to actively help those breeds, the less people that are interested in a breed then the less homes can be found for puppies - when this starts happening the breeders have to cut back on breeding & breeds can become numerically smaller. When breeds are numerically small there is less genetic diveristy for the breeders to use for health improvements......

The public need to be made aware that they can find well-bred dogs from breeders that are doing all they can to improve the health of thier dogs NOT be put off of pedigree dogs or specific breeds....

Mastifflover

You are delibratly trying to twist things that people say.
There is no jounalist that I know of that are 'slating' any breeders. It is the BREEDERS that are slating people who are trying to help dogs who are surfering the conquences of haveing to live with exaduated features like long backs, heavy coats, short noses etc.

I totally agree with with your last statement Jocelyn !!

I have been trying to stay out of this 'debate' but will just say that I posted on here 12/11/04 in response to someone who replied  to a posters question of why castrated dogs can't be shown. The following answer was given and I quote from the thread:

"conformation showing is supposed to be for the betterment of dog breeding and the "best" specimens that consistently win are used to propogate the future generations" unquote.

I queried that statement at the time because research and studies had already been conducted that showed that breeders who bred their dogs  to 'win' in the competitive show ring were actually the main contributors to the root cause of many health problems emerging in pedigree dogs.  I referred to the reseach and studies that  identified the ailments and  conditions, all of which have been resurrected on this and recent threads and not only did I get slated but so did the people who had carried out the research and studies.  Everyone, according to CD breeders, had got it wrong but not them; they (breeders) were clearly in denial.

This was over 6 years ago and although I would like to think that there has been some change of mind, the tendency is still there to slate those who are working to raise awareness of the problems that arise from un-educated or irresponsible breeding. 

Surely, those who are breeding from a point of knowledge, experience and responsibility are not those that recent work published in a dogs magazine is referring to!  It is aimed at all those who are NOT aware of just how specialised the field of breeding is and who are, as a result of their ignorance, damaging the health and well-being of our dogs.

Instead of 'slating' those jounalists and others who are working to raise awareness of the pitfalls in breeding pedigree dogs, wouldn't the energy be better placed in supporting those, like Jemima H , whose prime concern is for the health and well-being of our dogs? 

Isn't that what we all want?

Why fight each other when your objective is the same?

>Can I just double-check... Are you disputing that big dogs die younger than small ones?

Who are you asking, Jemima? I can't see that anyone here has said or implied that, just that the quoted insurance company figures (I repeat, which company and based on animals in which country?) don't tally with the figures from a much wider survey.

If this had been aimed at uneducated and irresponsible breeders then no one here would be complaining. However it wasn't, it was sensasionalised using mainly pet bred dogs to support attacks on ALL show breeders and the K.C.
Was there any information on the health tests that have been in existance and been available at shows for 30 years or the bva schemes that the KC support, or the push by breed clubs for research including fund raising for DNA testing which inturn allow gene pools to remain wider than they would if dogs had to be excluded by responsible breeders?
I do not think Jemima had it in mind that by doing so this would lead more people to source their puppy from puppy farmers and backyard breeders that dont KC register or health test or that every crossbreed would be given a fancy name and be proported to be the miracle dog that would be totally healthy. However even she must be disappointed in the number of adverts for these unregistered dogs and crosses that have used PDE to advance the breeders sales at the expense of more poor puppies being churned out with out any thought or care.

The bit that always comes to mind in pedigree dogs exposed was the GSD in the showring going off his legs. He kept staggering on his back end. He won the class!
So much for health tests.
Apsolutely appauling and needed to be exposed.

What evidence is there that more people are sourcing their puppy from farmers and backyard breeders as a result of PDE.

> So much for health tests.

Are you saying that health tests aren't needed then?
Oh and the best way to source a dog is go to the farm down the road????
Nope been there done that learnt that although shes lovely she had a very bad start needing hand fed at 4 weeks old  or she wouldnt have lasted another week as her mum was back out working and the farmer just wanted rid she has a fiddle front and has ruptured both her cruciates but then shes bound to be healthier than the rest of my collies because  she isnt KC reg and comes from working stock.

Hi Jocelyn,

Would you be kind enough to let me have an answer too the message I sent you.
Thanks,

Jeff.

are you saying that health tests arent needed then? Oh and the best way to source a dog is go to the farm down the road?

This is a classic example of what I said before about people twisting what people say!

No I asked for clarification. Thats why its a question.

Well it's getting to the point in the discussion where the naysayers on Champdogs stick their fingers in their ears and sing La-La-La-La very loudly but...

   >Can I just double-check... Are you disputing that big dogs die younger than small ones?

Who are you asking, Jemima? I can't see that anyone here has said or implied that, just that the quoted insurance company figures (I repeat, which company and based on animals in which country?) don't tally with the figures from a much wider survey.

Actually, JG, the insurance data (Petplan in the UK and Agria in Sweden) definitely does tally.

Have a look at the following link. It includes all the longevity data available by breed - inc the KC health survey data.

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

There are one or two exceptions both ways, but scroll down to the group data at the bottom of the age to see just how clearly giant breeds live less long than smaller breeds.

Jemima

Hi Jemima,

Although I can see your point, to some degree, and I believe you have said yourself that we need much more data which is more detailed - with which I would totally agree - I feel it is only fair of me to point out that whilst the "nay sayers" may not agree with your points you have yourself in the past ignored questions and views that do not fit comfortably with your line of argument.

Thanks,

Jeff.  

>Actually, JG, the insurance data (Petplan in the UK and Agria in Sweden) definitely does tally.

If you read what I actually said, not what you think I said, you'll see that I only referred to the quoted insurance company figures (St Bernards average lifespan of 4.1 years), which did not agree at all with the KC/BVA survey results (St Bernards average lifespan 7 years). None of the other breeds quoted tallied either.

Mind you, I can't find where Jocelyn said which company's figures she was using, so I'd be interested to know what makes you think it was the companies you mentioned.

My mistake. Thought you were referring to something I'd posted and assumed it was the insurance company data listed on my blog in relation to purebred v crossbreed health.

So... back to the longevity link I gave you. Can you see that it does, indeed, show that giant breeds live less long?

Jemima

We had 3 Rhodesian Ridgeback my mom had 1 and a aunt had one each they lived to 11,12 AND 13, cancers did not kill them nor did anything else sinister simply old age and short of breath. Now none of these dogs were on insurance so clearly not all dogs would be on these surveys ecspecially as insurance is most definatly a more recent thing.

Jeangenie, I did not mention a company, it was a uk survey.

In any case it shows that large breeds do have shorter lifespans. 4.1 or 7 years is not good enough.

>I did not mention a company, it was a uk survey.

You wrote "A pet insurance plan did a study on 3,126 dogs." It would be helpful to know which company it was, and to have a link to the result to see how they gathered their data.

> Surely, those who are breeding from a point of knowledge, experience and responsibility are not those that recent work published in a dogs magazine is referring to!  It is aimed at all those who are NOT aware of just how specialised the field of breeding is and who are, as a result of their ignorance, damaging the health and well-being of our dogs.
>
> Instead of 'slating' those jounalists and others who are working to raise awareness of the pitfalls in breeding pedigree dogs, wouldn't the energy be better placed in supporting those, like Jemima H , whose prime concern is for the health and well-being of our dogs? 
>
>

PDE slated all breeders, there was no mention of "those who are breeding from a point of knowledge, experience and responsibility" everyone was tarred with the same brush. How can that be considered a "prime concern for the health and well-being of our dogs"? If you truly believe that crossbred dogs are healthier are you pushing for those crossbreeds to be health tested as well? What are you doing to convince those breeders of all the designer crosses that they should health test the dogs they are using - surely labradoodle breeders should  be health testing both their labradors and their poodles? Or do they not count even though both parents are pure bred dogs who just have to be rife with health problems according to your beliefs?

Jocelyn, you obviously missed the PDE programme that slated all breeders of pedigree dogs and very clearly gave the public the message that all pedigree dogs were unhealthy mutants. There was absolutely no mention of any genetic testing and health screening that can be done by breeders who try their damnedest to produce puppies that will live long healthy lives, and the fallout is still continuing.

Obviously there wasnt anything like as much of this as you and other breeders would have liked, JG, but it is not true to say that there was "absolutely no mention of any genetic testing and health screening that can be done by breeders".

Here are some excerpts for you:

(after George the very sick pug - son of a Crufts champ who himself had qualified for Crufts despite have hemivertebrae, luxating patellas, a hernia, entroption, dystichias and several other probs)

COMMENTARY:
And, astonishingly, there's nothing to stop Joanne Morris breeding from George. The Kennel Club would happily register George's puppies - because no pug has to pass any health test before it can be bred from.  But what about other breeds? How many health tests do they have to pass before they can be bred?
RONNIE IRVING:
At the moment, there aren't many.

INTERVIEWER:
How many are there?

JEFF SAMPSON:
There will be...

INTERVIEWER:
Not will, but currently - what there is?

JEFF SAMPSON:
Oh, then just one. Then in 2 years time there'll be 3 others.
COMM
These three tests only relate to the Irish and Irish Red + White Setter. In the other 207 breeds recognised by the Kennel Club, there isn't a single health test than any dog has to pass before it can be bred from.

Pretty sure this is still true, btw - if any have been added it is only one or two.

COMM
The Kennel Club HAS taken some action to tackle problems. In 2003, they launched their accredited breeder scheme, which sets a code of conduct for breeders and asks that they make use of health screening schemes.

The KC is also funding the development of DNA tests which will allow breeders to check if their dogs are carrying certain hidden conditions.

AND

COMM
Recently, Ronnie Irving HAS also spoken out about exaggerations... And some breed standards have been changed ...bulldogs, for instance must no longer have a "massive" head, just a large one.
The Kennel Club has also stepped up training for its judges.
COMM
Not just anatomy, but health and welfare, is now part of the judge's curriculum.

AND

COMMENTARY:
There are those in the dog world who care passionately about health, who try to do the right thing.

I also think it is worth mentioning that our heroines in the film were those standing up for health eg Margaret Carter - a breeder who had been brave enough to go public about her stud dog who had been responsible for fathering several puppies with SM.  The film stressed big-time that breeders who did not health-test or who ignored the results or breeding guidelines were baddies.

Jemima

What are you doing to convince those breeders of all the designer crosses that they should health test the dogs they are using - surely labradoodle breeders should  be health testing both their labradors and their poodles? Or do they not count even though both parents are pure bred dogs who just have to be rife with health problems according to your beliefs?

Well, I was pretty blunt in a recent article about this: ".. just being a crossbreed or mutt is no guarantee of superior health and if a breeder of Labradoodles, Goldenoodles, Cockapoos, Puggles or any other cute mix tries to claim otherwise, vote with your feet and walk away - particularly if they insist there is no need to do any health-tests because their pups will be the automatic beneficiary of hybrid vigour.  It ain't true."

Re Labradoodles... the latest BVA hip score figs are just out and show that twice as many Labradoodles than Standard Poodles were hip-scored last year (195 compared to 98) . This is a breed that is at least partly embracing health tests (although I know that's not true of other designer crosses).

Jemima

, but it is not true to say that there was "absolutely no mention of any genetic testing and health screening that can be done by breeders".

Is it the first of April already? What you just quoted had absolutely NOTHING to do with what normal people consider to be health testing -and you full well know that. You're talking about what is compulsory, not what GOOD breeders do because they want to and it's the right and responsible thing to do. The fact the KC does not have hip scoring, eye testing etc etc as compulsory tests doesn't change the fact the tests EXIST and should be carried out. There are many of us who would love nothing more than to see them made compulsory.

Well, I was pretty blunt in a recent article about this
In fairness though exactly how many people will read that article in comparison to watching a hyped up T,V show?

> Well it's getting to the point in the discussion where the naysayers on Champdogs stick their fingers in their ears and sing La-La-La-La very loudly but...

Is this not a very childish comment to make in an adult discussion?

Errrrrm I am owned by a giant breed and the average life-span is now between 12 & 14 years. Can I have a pint of what you are drinking please?

> Well, I was pretty blunt in a recent article about this: ".. just being a crossbreed or mutt is no guarantee of superior health and if a breeder of Labradoodles, Goldenoodles, Cockapoos, Puggles or any other cute mix tries to claim otherwise, vote with your feet and walk away - particularly if they insist there is no need to do any health-tests because their pups will be the automatic beneficiary of hybrid vigour.  It ain't true."

Which article was this? I would very much like to see it, not because I don't believe you wrote it but would like to see it in context.... and if it does come across in the way it seems, I would like to be the first to congratulate you for writing it.

MsTemeraire

It's from the blog, the original link posted on the first page of this discussion.

I know that Jemima is on a tangent, and although I know that the KC have no control over cross-breeds etc. I do think they should make submission of relevant health tests compulsory before any registration is allowed and not just for ABS memebers.

is this not a very childish comment to make in an adult discussion

the expression Pot calling Kettle springs to mind.

Singing La-La-La very loudly sums it up very well. If we did a survey on the advanage age of the naysayers on Champdogs it would come out at about 12!

The rudeness and sarcasm has been unbeliveable at times, towards people who have the best interest of dogs at heart.
I think you all do it on purpose to get the topic locked and you can stay in denial and don't have to keep defending yourselves.

>Well it's getting to the point in the discussion where the naysayers on Champdogs stick their fingers in their ears and sing La-La-La-La very loudly but...

It seems like this fits the title of the post most aptly. However we probably disagree as to whom it refers to :-)

It seems like this fits the title of the post most aptly. However we probably disagree as to whom it refers to :-)
So true,,, i never realised there was so many ways to say the same thing ;p

Quote Jemima: "Re Labradoodles... the latest BVA hip score figs are just out and show that twice as many Labradoodles than Standard Poodles were hip-scored last year (195 compared to 98) . This is a breed that is at least partly embracing health tests (although I know that's not true of other designer crosses)."

Firstly, "Labradoodles" are not a breed, they are a crossbreed.

Secondly, it would be really interesting to know just how many Labradoodles were bred last year as against how many Standard Poodles. I bet there were more than twice as many Labradoodles!

Jocelyn - you talk about rudeness!!

Jocelyn

>If we did a survey on the advanage age of the naysayers on Champdogs it would come out at about 12!>

I assume you mean average age?

I'm almost 40 and haven't yet taken part in this discussion, but goodness me after that sentence, I'm afraid I do feel the need to chip in.

To assume that the majority of us on this forum DON'T have the dogs best interests at heart, only indicates to me how completely blinkered some people really are.
No-one is in denial, and I'm fairly sure that no-one feels the need to defend themselves... good grief! 
Do you not think your comment is rude too?

I'm not a breeder and I only show my dogs occasionally.  But I have armed myself with all the knowledge I can about the health of my chosen breed, I try and educate OTHER people to the best of my ability about the health of my chosen breed.
But my knowledge, and my constant arguing is NOT going to stop unscrupulous people from breeding and ruining my chosen breed.
It isn't the pedigree breeders that are going to cause the downfall of my breed, it's the people who don't health test, money grabbing backyard breeders that are.
Even I can see that there was no distinction being made between breeders of pedigree dogs that work so hard to produce healthy and genetically tested/screened animals, and those who just breed to make a buck.
No, breeders were all grouped together as producers of mutants....and that seems to be the basis of your argument too.
**shakes head**

Singing La-La-La very loudly sums it up very well. If we did a survey on the advanage age of the naysayers on Champdogs it would come out at about 12!

Absolutely unbelievable, you PM'd me a couple of days ago to inform me that you had reported me to admin for daring to question your background in genetics and dog breeding as you thought me rude, :-D I actual refute that and still believe from your posts that I am correct, yet you feel you can insult CD members whom you do not agree with?

> >If we did a survey on the advanage age of the naysayers on Champdogs it would come out at about 12!

If that's how little you think of us, I think you might be surprised.... IQ is often dependent on age.

Quote Jemima: "Re Labradoodles... the latest BVA hip score figs are just out and show that twice as many Labradoodles than Standard Poodles were hip-scored last year (195 compared to 98) . This is a breed that is at least partly embracing health tests (although I know that's not true of other designer crosses)."

Firstly, "Labradoodles" are not a breed, they are a crossbreed.

Secondly, it would be really interesting to know just how many Labradoodles were bred last year as against how many Standard Poodles. I bet there were more than twice as many Labradoodles!

Beat me to it ridgielover but I think you are being generous in your guess at how many Labradoodles v. Standard Poodles . I would estimate twice the number is nowhere near the actual amount.  Multiply that by at least 5  - 10 times.