Sleeping Lion,

I have not noticed Jemima doing that, its seems to me breeders try to discredit her because she has exposed something they would rather not of been found out about.
It is all for the good of the dog, and those of you breeders who are doing their best to breed healthy dogs why are you makeing false acusations about someone who is trying to do something about bad breeding practices?

>those of you breeders who are doing their best to breed healthy dogs why are you makeing false acusations about someone who is trying to do something about bad breeding practices?

a) They're not false accusations (ask Jemima what those are!), and
b) You most quickly minimise bad practice by comparing it to good practice, not to imply that no good practice exists.

Judging by her output to date, if Jemima made a programme 'exposing' paedophilia in nursery schools (which has certainly occurred, shamefully) then she would imply that all nursery school staff were paedophiles. That's what she did with the PDE programme; she implied that all breeders of pedigree dogs were bad. And that's a blatant lie.

I have not noticed Jemima doing that, its seems to me breeders try to discredit her because she has exposed something they would rather not of been found out about.
It is all for the good of the dog, and those of you breeders who are doing their best to breed healthy dogs why are you makeing false acusations about someone who is trying to do something about bad breeding practices?

Nope no one is trying to discredit her,, she did that good enough herself saying unsubstantiated claims of a very respected person in the world of shar-peis, unless you know of the whole facts of what we are talking about then i would cease with the cheerleading and say soemthing constructive.

Jocelyn - we don't have to make false accusations - but sadly Jemima has allowed sensationalism to sully her story.

And I, for one, resent the implication that we, as reputable breeders are trying to discredit her because she has exposed something "they would rather not of(sic)  been found out about".    Jemima has discredited herself.

Jocelyn can you answer my question about whether the parents of dogs that you have have been health tested. Also, from your previous statement I cannot work out whether you breed or not

Jocelyn, I asked this question of you in the other thread and still you have not replied.

Jocelyn, I asked this question of you in the other thread and still you have not replied.
Now there's another similarity! ;)

Jocelyn, I asked this question of you in the other thread and still you have not replied.
Now there's another similarity! ;-)

I'm begining to wonder if they are all the same people :p

I don't know of any breeders doing that, however most when using that word mean they are culling it from the breeding stock, or put another way they are removing the dog from the breeding pool usually by placing it in a pet home, having explained to the pet buyer that the puppy did not have the required ridge of hair.

In this instance the breeder was very definitely talking about having the 'ridgeless' pups PTS and she stated that many of the 'young' vets were not  sympathetic to doing it anymore, probably because they knew medical science had proved that the ridged dogs were actually the unhealthy ones and the ridgeless ones the healthy ones!  That's why the breeders went out of her way to find 'old' vets who would go along with her wishes.

Obviously Tina remembers it too and she is right, the breeders said that historically the ridgedbacked dogs were better at catching wild game in Africa so the interviewer asked why it was important now as there isn't any 'wild game' to hunt in the UK.?  The breeder had no answer and looked extremely stupid for giving such a lame excuse for her behaviour. 

I don't know of any breeders doing that, however most when using that word mean they are culling it from the breeding stock, or put another way they are removing the dog from the breeding pool usually by placing it in a pet home, having explained to the pet buyer that the puppy did not have the required ridge of hair.

In this instance the breeder was very definitely talking about having the 'ridgeless' pups PTS and she stated that many of the 'young' vets were not  sympathetic to doing it anymore as they considered it unethical to put perfectly healthy pups to sleep.

Obviously Tina remembers it too and she is right, the breeders said that historically the ridgedbacked dogs were better at catching wild game in Africa so the interviewer asked why it was important now as there isn't any 'wild game' to hunt in the UK.?  The breeder had no answer and looked extremely stupid for giving such a lame excuse for her behaviour. 

I see that someone has now said that the ridge is not a form of spina bifada as was stated on the PDE programme but what about the fact that the ridge has holes in it which penetrate to the spine and cause infection so at the very least it is a physical weakness?  Why keep breeding a fault that is detrimental to the dog?

>the breeders said that historically the ridgedbacked dogs were better at catching wild game in Africa so the interviewer asked why it was important now as there isn't any 'wild game' to hunt in the UK.? 

That's a remarkably insular and blinkered attitude. Because it's important for breeders to keep any breed's original function to the forefront of their minds when it comes to their breeding programme. Don't forget that although we don't hunt 'wild game' in the UK any more (at the moment - in politics all things can change), they still do in many other countries, where the dogs or their offspring might be needed to keep the gene pool wide. So being 'fit for function' is vital.

to all of you who seem interested in my dog, it is irrelevent to this discusion and to the other one. I do not talk about your personal dogs and I am not going to talk about mine.

What ever I say to answer this, yes or no to both questions I will be slated by someone, so no I will not be answering you.

to all of you who seem interested in my dog, it is irrelevent to this discusion and to the other one. I do not talk about your personal dogs and I am not going to talk about mine.

What ever I say to answer this, yes or no to both questions I will be slated by someone, so no I will not be answering you.

Don't worry jocelyn i think we already have guessed what your answer would be, what with it being a random bred BC.

Newspapers, as well as telelvision programmes, print sensationalist stories which include untruths or, heaven forbid, misleading information that is perhaps not presented in the manner it should be.  The whole thing about making front page news is to make it "sensational".  Forget about the boring bits that lie behind the story; lets just go for the jugular!!!

While you all take the time to vilify JH and PDE, you are quite happy to believe a newspaper report in a newspaper dedicated to pedigree dogs and dog showing; the very area that JH has worked hard to expose the underhanded tactics - and unethical practices - of breeders in some breeds.

I watched PDE and I did not get the impression that all breeders were being categorised the same way.  I also have to ask, why this subject still included in the daily conversation of some people?  It was aired over 2 years ago - gee whiz - move on; build on that experience and work to prove JH wrong if that's what you want to do but don't let it take over your daily life.  Whatever anybody on here says, this programme needed to be made; the world of dogs and the health problems in some breeds was disgraceful.  There have been changes since PDE aired; those changes would never have come about if this programme had not been made.  However, there have not been nearly enough changes because the areas of health and litter registration are not compatible.  In order to bring in stricter health testing, litter registrations witht he KC would reduce  -and the profits of the KC.The KC is a money-making machine; they have the monopoly on everything.  They are the ones who are capitalising on puppy farmers and disreputable breeders.  They breed more litters and therefore make them more money. The KC are not interested in breeders to have one or two litters a year.  Health needs to be removed from the KC to another organisation better equipped to deal with health and implement "real" changes.  Its the only way our pedigree dogs will thrive.

I just wonder if anybody on here has ever had to take a complaint to the KC about the health of their breed.  I just wonder how they have felt when the KC have turned their back and offered no help whatsoever?  I've been there and I tell you, it hurts like mad. 

hugs

Why are people always so quick to make horrible remarks about people's dogs?  I have rescue cross breeds as well as my pedigree dogs but I still have an opinion and I'm still entitled to voice it.  Whether Jocelyn has a random bred BC or not, what's that got to do with her opinion?  I seem to remember reading another thread Boody when you said people that have cross breed dogs tend to be low income families with no money to insure them.  What poppycock!

We are still allowed to hunt game in the UK; we're just not allowed to use dogs to hunt game!  My partner regularly goes deer stalking with his GWP.

You should remember the heritage of a dog breed but it certainly wouldn't be good to breed a dog for bringing down lions if it was going to be taken to the local park and started attacking everybody's dogs.  What do you do in that scenario?   Breeding dalmations that are capable of running alongside carriages when they only get a trot around the local forest or park.  I think you have to take modern day constraints into account too.  How many people use their dogs for the original purpose they were bred? 

I don't think that in any way would compare to a lion hunt with a pack of dogs bred to do the job? 

Really you ought to look at the whole of the thread before you comment, the reason we asked joycelyn was as to whether or not her dog is health tested which is a fair question to ask seens as how we are all being tarred with the same brush r.e health testing.

I stand by my comment on how the dogs we rehomed went to low income families if you want to think that poppycock feel free, p .s my remarks are not about the dogs merely the people.

What business of yours if Joselyn's dogs are health tested?  That's not what this thread is about.  Its about a report in the newspaper - not about Jocelyn's dog.  I have worked with rescue for many years and lots of families and well to do people also consider cross breed dogs as being worthy of a good home.  Its not just low income families.

I got my first dog from the Dog and Cat home; my family lived in a very prosperous area and, although not rich, we could afford to buy pedigree if we wanted to.  We wanted to give a dog that needed a second chance a home.  Its not good to lump people together.  Perhaps people in your area are low income; they're not in mine.

Oh, and we didnt have insurance because we chose not to have insurance in those days.  I don't actually believe in insurance; I think its a bit of a rip off.  I'd rather just put money away each month to earn interest and use it if and when I need it. 

I think it was more to do with a comment initially made by Jocelyn, that they wouldn't buy a KC regsitered pup from a breeder, because farm bred dogs using the dog downt he road are healthier, not sure if I've got that 100% right, there have been so many posts and posters, so apols if I've got the wrong person. 

Sorry Sleeping Lion I don't understand what you mean.  Do you still breed dogs that are capable of bringing down a lion or is that something that you bear in mind when breeding ie conformation, strength etc.,  I don't know the history of the ridgeback so am curious.

thanks

Well, yes that its not the case ie they're not generally healthier but I still don't see why Jocelyn's dog's health screening has anything to do with her opinion in relation to this thread. It just seems bitchy!

What business of yours if Joselyn's dogs are health tested?  That's not what this thread is about.  Its about a report in the newspaper - not about Jocelyn's dog.  I have worked with rescue for many years and lots of families and well to do people also consider cross breed dogs as being worthy of a good home.  Its not just low income families.

I got my first dog from the Dog and Cat home; my family lived in a very prosperous area and, although not rich, we could afford to buy pedigree if we wanted to.  We wanted to give a dog that needed a second chance a home.  Its not good to lump people together.  Perhaps people in your area are low income; they're not in mine.

Oh, and we didnt have insurance because we chose not to have insurance in those days.  I don't actually believe in insurance; I think its a bit of a rip off.  I'd rather just put money away each month to earn interest and use it if and when I need it.

Bravo for you, i am not about to start bickering on this thread with you, the question we asked is relevant to many posts that joyclyn has replyed to and never actually answered to clarify one way or another but again that is also nothing to do with you.

My ignore list is growing longer each day!

What ever I say to answer this, yes or no to both questions I will be slated by someone, so no I will not be answering you.

What a surprise - a typical JH reaction!

My ignore list is growing longer each day!

Yep one more for mine too.

Doglicious, have a read of the APGAW report.

Chuckling away, I don't breed anything, but that's a Labrador in my avatar ;)

No, what I was saying is that deer stalking with a pointer, can't compare to hunting down a lion with rhodesian ridgebacks.  For a start, and very obviously, lions are large predators that for the most part live in prides, with the males occasionally roaming off to patrol the perimeter of their territory.  They are enormous animals, I've been lucky enough to be about six foot away from a buffalo kill in the Chobe National Park, in an open topped jeep.  So what breeders need to keep in mind, is that ridgebacks will need to have the tenacity and ability to take on such a huge predator, and possibly more than one.  I have no idea why the ridge is so important, or whether the dogs originally used in hunting, that had a ridge were more successful, perhaps someone else can point to, or suggest where you might be able to find out. 

Grow up!  You;re allowed to say what you want about people; talking rubbish etc., but when anybody puts their point across they're put on your "ignored list".  Boy oh boy; how enlightening.  But hey ho, I've said my piece so will disappear again and allow you to get on with your continuing obsession with PDE.

just one question doglicious.. does the magazine in which Jemima is published have a fact checker?

Grow up!  You;re allowed to say what you want about people; talking rubbish etc., but when anybody puts their point across they're put on your "ignored list".  Boy oh boy; how enlightening.  But hey ho, I've said my piece so will disappear again and allow you to get on with your continuing obsession with PDE.

Its all in the way people talk, words like poppycock and  grow up are not conductive into getting people to listen to what you have to say, it is just hostile and rude.

>does the magazine in which Jemima is published have a fact checker?

It didn't years ago, when I was vilified for pointing out that a puppy farmer they'd heavily promoted with a three-page article had tried to sell me a 5 week old puppy (I was doing a covert investigation), and that perhaps shouldn't be promoted that way. Publish first, deny later, seems to be their way.

Quote Susieque: "I see that someone has now said that the ridge is not a form of spina bifada as was stated on the PDE programme but what about the fact that the ridge has holes in it which penetrate to the spine and cause infection so at the very least it is a physical weakness?  Why keep breeding a fault that is detrimental to the dog?"

Susieque - please read what I have written before. There is no "fact" that "the ridge has holes in it which penetrate the spine and cause infection". What was stated in the programme was not true. As I keep having to reiterate, the RR can be affected by a condition called dermoid sinus and it is this condition which is related to spinabifida and causes the "holes" you are writing about. As I've already said, other breeds of dog, Thoroughbred horses and even people can be affected by this condition but I am certainly not denying that the RR (along with the Thai Ridgeback) is affected at a higher rate than other breeds.

Well said doglicious.

PD needed to be Exposed it was not a moment to soon, it was a wake up call to all breeders good and bad.

The only people to blame for it are the breeders of the dogs that were shown on the programe, and all the others like them. 

The GSD who could hardly walk round the SHOW RING and won! was a disgrace and thats just one example, no one can lie about it, it was there we all saw it with our eyes. You don't need to be a breeder to see thats wrong.

So don't blame JH or PDE the ones to blame (if you have to blame someone!) are maybe a little closer to home.
Like doglicious says, move on. 

Quote doglicious: "Sorry Sleeping Lion I don't understand what you mean.  Do you still breed dogs that are capable of bringing down a lion or is that something that you bear in mind when breeding ie conformation, strength etc.,  I don't know the history of the ridgeback so am curious."

I have had RRs for over 25 years. RRs were never meant to bring down a lion. They were bred to hold the lions at bay until the hunters could get a clean shot at them. A dog that actually attacked a lion would be a dead dog very quickly!

The breed's origins are in Southern Africa. The European's dogs of various breeds mated with the native small ridged hunting dog and it was noted that the crosses, which were larger than the native dogs, which had the ridges made the best hunting dogs. The breed standard was drawn up in 1922 so it is a comparatively new breed. The standard was based on the Dalmatian standard but rather larger and the colour ranged from light to red wheaten - and the ridge of course. The breed should be agile and athletic with the ability to have great endurance with a fair amount of speed. The standard was drawn up with the breed's function in mind.

Hope that answers your query.

Jocelyn - it's really difficult to "move on" when incorrect bumpf is spouted and when it originated from the programme.

Like doglicious says, move on. 

Oh believe me, Jocelyn, we have never had a position to move on from we concentrate on getting the message of good, responsible breeding of healthy puppies, fit for purpose,  over to the masses, and trying to get REPUTABLE TRUTHFUL journalists to spread the message that by "rescuing" puppies from puppy farms et al, the general public only serve to put money in the pockets of puppy farmers who do not breed responsibly.

We know that we'll never get straight answers from somr journalists who prefer sensation to facts.

Thanks for clarifying, I nearly added to my post replying, that, having lived in Africa, there are a lot of dogs wandering around, that you could say have a passing resemblance to ridgebacks in one way or another.  Big tan/red dogs for the most part, some with a ridge, but obviously not a ridgeback, but you can see that type of mix of dogs is still around in the population of dogs the locals keep. 

As I've already said, other breeds of dog, Thoroughbred horses and even people can be affected by this condition but I am certainly not denying that the RR (along with the Thai Ridgeback) is affected at a higher rate than other breeds.

There was a TV programme recently, cannot recall its name now, but it was about vets and unusual conditions in pets. There was a dog that had dermoid sinus all over its head, it required surgery. This was NOT a Ridgeback.

The only people to blame for it are the breeders of the dogs that were shown on the programe, and all the others like them.

The majority of which were NOT show breeders at all.

Well Jocelyn, I now have my answer. I mean you buy farm bred dogs? are they from the farmers who take their older dogs down the field and shoot them when past their sell by date. Oh dear I am generalising just like breeders have been generalised in the TV programme. Not nice is it!

The honourable thing to do would be to post a total retraction on that same website, making sure it was high-profile enough to reach all the people you've misled by it. A private apology for a public witch-hunt is just not acceptable.

JG, this part of the Our Dogs report is incorrect. I do not have - and never have had - access to this website. I have never posted anything to it, and nothing I ever wrote or said relating to this story was posted to it (or anywhere else). The website in question is a closed Facebook site that discusses Shar-pei Fever pedigree information.  It was concerned individuals from there who contacted me. It was this site that was the source of the original info.

I repeat, I handed out just two copies of the flyer at the APGAW meet. And as soon as I found out I was wrong, I did everything I could to limit the damage. Now that was bad enough, I know, but if the allegations made in that flyer are now doing the rounds, it is purely because one individual saw fit to make as much mileage as possible out of the fact that I had made a mistake. That's not much more professional (given their position) as I was in not checking my information more thoroughly - but I understand it must have been pretty irresistable and know I have to take it on the chin.

Jemima

With respect Jemima and I will repeat myself once again it's such a shame you cannot do something sensational to limit the still damaging effect your programme has on pedigree dogs bred by THE GOOD PEOPLE not BYB or PUPPY FARMERS.  The damage done is not something that can be turned back in time, you made a sweeping action right accross the board and trying to get back from that and gain the innocent puppy buyers trust again is still an up hill battle.  Several have contacted me wishing they had never seen your programme as that led them away from health tested dogs stright into the jaws of Mrs puppy farmer.  Still at least you were able to apologise to the people where you had bad information and went with it in error eh so that makes it ok I suppose !!!

> as I was in not checking my information more thoroughly -

So this could mean a high probability of  many more incorrect 'facts'

> It was this site that was the source of the original info.

So you did not check for any flaws in those facts before going to print?

The sad thing is Jemima, you could have done so much good for dogs... As it stands now, you have done damage beyond repair... BYB, puppy farmers, even the
'occassional' pet litter are going to overtake the demand for well bred, health tested dogs.. and no matter how much you backtrack, The damage is irretrievable.

I'm sorry but you handed out information about someone elses dog at a professional meeting, and that information was not only wrong, but implied unethical breeding practices.  It should NEVER have happened in the first place, and I'm sure you tried to limit the damage and ensure the dog owners never found out.  Personally, I think it's good that they did, perhaps it may make you think twice in the future about what you produce as 'fact' and where and how you publish it. 

I've said it before, I'm not against your general message, that anyone breeding dogs, must go about this in an ethical way, but you seem to think you're the only person pushing this message, and not only are you not the only one, but you're not even the first, and won't be the last.  It's how you've gone about it that riles those who have been pushing for healthy examples of dogs for many years, basically rollercoasting over and above anyone else, and tarring all show people with a huge great big bad breeder brush. 

Can I suggest that this be an end to it.

Jemima has been on the receiving end (for a change) and no doubt it hurts.

It does little good gloating. She will no doubt repent at leisure.

We too, are big enough to get over it.

Well said tooolz.

As I keep having to reiterate, the RR can be affected by a condition called dermoid sinus and it is this condition which is related to spinabifida

Yes I've been reading up on it!  And the percentage of carriers in RR is 33.9% so quite high and one report can't find any supporting evidence of DS being found in other breeds and only once in an RR without a ridge but obviously significantly higher in dogs with the ridge.

I've also read the report from the UK RR Club and if I understand it correctly,  the complaint that the RR Club took to Ofcom was not so much about the 'condition' found in RRs but the fact that they felt PDE insinuated that breeders KNOWINGLY bred from dogs with the condition which isn't quite the same thing.

But, this is really detracting from my original point in response to Polly which was that dogs that are healthy get PTS not just those whose owners were scared their dog may have lifethreatening conditions after watching PDE.  My example was the breeder on PDE who found vets willing to put down any pups born ridgeless even though they were entirely healthy.

> The only people to blame for it are the breeders of the dogs that were shown on the programe, and all the others like them. 
>
>

and most of the dogs shown were bred by people who didn't health test, a bit like the ones you approve of using the convenient dog down the road.

the Boxer with epilepsy, which is not a disease prevalent in the breed, it is something that is fairly common in canines in crosses and mongrels as much as any pedigree.

There are some breeds and individuals in breeds with exaggerated features,b ut there are more that are not.

The kennel Club breed clubs and 'responsible' breeders have been researching developing and using health schemes for decades to improve the health and wellbeing of their breeds.

The pedigree dog world were well aware that there were issues to address, and mostly were going in that direction.

Sadly most things take time.

For example in my own breed we worked so hard to eliminate PRA affected dogs when the condition was first noted by using clinical eye exams that when the science of DNA came about we didn't have enough affected animals to start research.  Over a 20 year period we had 3 cases, and then a fourth in the last five years.  This enabled samples to be taken from those still living and their relatives and we got a DNA test by pure luck due to comparing with existing forms of the disease already available for more numerous breeds.

It was fortunate that the form we were seeing most recently was the most common form affecting many breeds.  Had it been a different form we may have had to wait many decades for more cases to crop up to give a wide enough sample for research, as of course no-one would deliberately produce affected dogs, even though the condition is late onset and painless..

>Jemima has been on the receiving end (for a change) and no doubt it hurts.

Let's hope her lesson is well learned. Only time will tell.

Reply to Susieque

I'd be interested to see your source of the figure of 33.9% carriers for sinus - research is still being carried out - funded by the RR breed clubs.

Your "one report" that couldn't find any supporting evidence of DS being found in other breeds can't have looked very hard! I read a report of a spaniel (can't remember which type) being operated on for sinus in a magazine years ago! My vet knows of 2 people operated on for the condition too.