It seems very sad that all the organisations know there is a problem and even comment on it at parliamentary meetings, but none feel inclined to work together to try and sort it out.  You will always get the lazy consumer and I do agree with you about buying a car from a private dealer. 

It never ceases to amaze me that people buy from breeders who are always advertising litters, thinking that they must be good breeders.  I've had to contact these puppy farming websites on various occasions and I did manage to get one breeder banned but then they got their friends to advertise for them.  Got them removed too.  Its hard work and a thankless task at times.

what has always upset me though is the fact that the breed clubs do nothing if you report the person to them.  If they are a member and you're not, they do nothing if they are not members they again do nothing.  Surely a good breed club should be trying to protect their breed from puppy farmers and they could have advertisements on these sites on how to buy a puppy of their breed.  None seem to do it though and my experience is that they use the breed clubs as a way to get up the ladder in the show world. 

@ West Coast.  But you are saying that the documentary vilified everybody that breeds dogs!  I don't understand how you can say that if you have had no problem selling your puppies to responsible owners.  Surely the whole point is to educate potential puppy purchasers.

I know that the KC registered puppies are a small minority of puppies born but the KC are able to change the registration process to incorporate only registering health checked puppies.  They choose not to do that and I believe the reason is because their revenue will fall substantially.  That will happen initially but the people who are not health checking will very soon realise that they will not achieve the price for an unregistered KC puppy that they would for a registered one and hopefully they will then do the basic health tests.  What also has to happen though is that the KC only registers the puppies of parents who have passed the health tests.

Its not rocket science and I believe that any reputable breeder will not be disenfranchised by this course of action because they have been doing it for years.

Its like a cog in a wheel; if everybody does something in their own area it will make a huge difference to the overall outcome.

There are no figures Tessies Tracy! 

> Good, ethical breeders need to point out at every opportunity that this type of breeding goes on.  Its the only way because the KC arent doing it for you.

And you are here to tell me that?

How very patronising, how lacking in insight.

Lecturing the lecturers it seems.

I think the "oodle" came from the USA.

actually the oodle started in australia which was where labradoodles were first created

I'm assuming you mean pups from health tested parents, not health checked pups?  If so, who decides what health tests should be used, and what the pass/fail is?

I know one person who is using his PRA 'affected' dog (and it is, sadly clinically affected), in his words, the dog of his lifetime, and aims to breed clear, using the dna health testing scheme.  Hips and elbows are a minefield, who would decide what score/grade is acceptable?  Not that I agree at all that any limitation should be put on hip scores/elbow grades, because all of the health tests need to be taken in context with the dog in front of you.  It could be a horrendous representative of the breed, with perfect health scores, and yet a very good representative, could miss out on being able to be used if any such cut off point were introduced for health test results. 

There are currently seven health tests available to be used for my breed, two are not worth using imo, although one may well be more useful in the near future. 

Can I just say, I do do something, all the time, I spend time going through breeders websites, helping people, giving them contact numbers, looking through pedigrees, pestering other people to help look through pedigrees, health test results etc, etc.  And I know many others like me, we're not all sat here on our hands doing b*gga all, I think you're pretty much preaching to the converted on here.  I also have a section on my website, which isn't for dogs, but for my business, but tells people about how to go about buying a pup.  One person who approached me recently wanted a chocolate Lab pup, as many prospective pet owners do, it's a more popular colour, and had found two ABS websites.  I looked at the websites and told them I'd look elsewhere, and offered to help, why?  Because although they health tested, and appeared to be abiding to the guidelines for the ABS, they openly stated they only bred chocolate Labrador pups.  There is only one reason I can think they do this, because they are the most saleable out of the three colours to pet homes, and for that reason, I would always recommend people don't support that type of breeder.  Breeding is so much more than producing a saleable litter of pups.  Unfortunately, that was yet another enquiry where it went quiet :(

>KC are able to change the registration process to incorporate only registering health checked puppies.  They choose not to do that and I believe the reason is because their revenue will fall substantially.

You might believe that - however it would also mean that the gene pool would also shrink dramatically - which is what seems to a major gripe from another 'anti-pedigree' faction.

@ West Coast.  But you are saying that the documentary vilified everybody that breeds dogs!  I don't understand how you can say that if you have had no problem selling your puppies to responsible owners.  Surely the whole point is to educate potential puppy purchasers
By the way - I'd rather be spoken to than at!  You're not going to make any impression speaking to people like that.

I have had no problem selling puppies because my puppy buyers come through recommendation either through previous buyers or other exhibitors.

the people who are not health checking will very soon realise that they will not achieve the price for an unregistered KC puppy that they would for a registered one
There is very little difference now.  Some cross breeds are more expensive than pure bred pups.  The difference is that I wouldn't sell my pup to a family that I though were unsuitable for a variety of reasons.  Puppy producers, I won't call them breeders, will sell to anyone with the money to buy and unfortunately but realistically THEY are the vast majority.  We live in 2 completely different worlds!  And you and yours are trying to convert the wrong world!

Its like a cog in a wheel; if everybody does something in their own area it will make a huge difference to the overall outcome
Very wise.  It's what good breeders do everyday, both on the internet and in the street.  But you can't convince those who just want to make enough money to go to Disneyland or those who want to buy a disposable toy and that is how the way of life has changed in the past 30 years!

PS In my opinion health testing is only part of being a educated, knowledgable and responsible breeder. :)

> I think there is something that you can all do as a group of good, ethical breeders - and that is to contact the new Advisory Council and ask them if they could get funding from all the organisations involved in dog welfare to run an educational advertising campaign to bring this to the attention of the people who buy from their armchairs.  It makes me really angry to see puppy farmers and how they operate.  They have lots of protection but the dogs have none.  This could be a real way forward and a very positive step to raising the issue of good breeders and bad breeders.  Just a thought but I think everyone on here are exactly the type of people that should be promoted as doing the best for their breeds and breeding ethically for the betterment of dogs.

A lot of us did but we were not asked to 'give evidence to the APGAW enquiry and so nobody will listen to us, but they listen to Jemima who does not want to know. The RSPCA simply will not listen to dog lovers much less breeders. I have reported dog cruelty and had my son in law a Doctor of veterinary medicine willing to support them in a court case, and they did absolutely nothing! They would not even come out of their office to see a dog I had taken to them to show them a typical dog from this vile puppy farm! They said I should have left it to die after accusing me of being the one who caused the cruelty. I drove home so angry I cannot remember the journey I rang the KC and they helped me even though the dog was not a KC registered dog. Luckily I followed KC advice and got the police involved instead they went and shut the puppy farm down, while the RSPCA sat snug in their offices.
The chief vet of the Dogs Trust is Chris Laurence who is also on the committee of Bath Championship show, so he has a foot in both camps but was instrumental in getting the Dogs Trust to pull out of Crufts I have the Dogs trust press office emails here still. To go to Crufts all dogs have to qualify at championship shows.

If you want to help with health testing pm me privately and I can show you plenty we do and I know there is plenty we can do IF we can get around a lot of 'red tape' and personal views.

the worse owners aren't interested in KC registration '

Alot of owners don't bother with the KC although they could, because they are not interested in showing or breeding, fair enough, does that make them worst owners than those who do?
No it does not.

What a load of rubbish, which is an understatement I would like to say something stronger!

I'm not trying to be patronising; I was asked what I suggest should be done.  We are all cogs in a wheel and its fact that the voice of many gets heard over the voice of one.  That was my reason for the suggestions - no more and no less.

Some on here will always continue to put the blame at the feet of PDE and, in a way, I do understand that but IMO the documentary was not aimed at good breeders, but merely to show what the current state of health is with pedigree dogs.  Only a small minority of breeds were shown but what was shown is what was happening.  You can't hide that.

Has anything changed?

It seems that my point of view is annoying some people so I will stop commenting now and just go away.  I have only tried to throw in some new ideas.  Its also common to start a post with @whoever.  Its not meant to be a symbol that you are being talked at, merely that your points are being answered.  I wouldnt take offence to that personally but I apologise if it is seen as being rude.

Boody, I stand corrected.  The labradoodle was created in Australia.  Lots of other "oodles" originated from the USA

>IMO the documentary was not aimed at good breeders, but merely to show what the current state of health is with pedigree dogs.

The programme was aimed at all pedigree dogs; the title made that self-evident.

The makers chose to focus purely on the most extreme examples and, by implication, tar all breeders (of pedigree dogs) with the same brush. It certainly didn't show the "current state of health" of pedigree dogs.

If you breed an affected dog to a clear dog then you will still get affected.  What's ethical about knowingly breeding an affected dog when some of the puppies will have the disease.  I would prefer to have this dog taken from the gene pool.  I think this is just a sound example of what is going on.  I don't understand it at all.  If a dog was a carrier you could breed it to a clear and get carriers and clear.  You could then test all the puppies and only breed from the clear but at least the carriers would not be affected by this horrible disease.  I just think that beggars belief.  Astonishing!

>I would prefer to have this dog taken from the gene pool.

What if that same dog was genetically clear of another condition that affected the breed, where his genes would be useful? Nothing is that black and white. A dog is more than just a medical condition, and the more you reduce the gene pool the more problems are likely to become apparent.

Boody, I stand corrected.  The labradoodle was created in Australia.  Lots of other "oodles" originated from the USA

actually i corrected you about the oodles not boody

Actually, if the disease is recessive, as prcd-PRA is, if you mate affected to normal/clear, you will get carriers. None of the resulting offspring will develop the disease.

The issue is in using a clinically affected animal for breeding.

The chief vet of the Dogs Trust is Chris Laurence who is also on the committee of Bath Championship show, so he has a foot in both camps but was instrumental in getting the Dogs Trust to pull out of Crufts I have the Dogs trust press office emails here still

Never knew that. Bath won't get my entry this year then!

I was under the impression with PRA, affected to clear produced all carriers?  So he won't produce a pup that has the potential to develop the condition, and as long as he's very careful about where pups end up, they won't be indiscriminately bred from.  PRA is a difficult one in any case, as even those with an affected status, rarely develop the condition within the lifetime of the dog.  It's an easily avoidable condition, but should it be avoided where you loose valuable genetic material, and tighten the bottleneck for a non-life threatening condition, that may not affect most dogs???  It's a very difficult ethical decision to make, and I'm glad I'm not facing it. 

But that's just one condition, out of how many different tests?  There is no way you could set a pass/fail for the reasons outlined above, you could only stipulate dogs that had been tested, which again leaves the KC open to criticism if someone bred from a poor dog with poor health scores. 

> The chief vet of the Dogs Trust is Chris Laurence who is also on the committee of Bath Championship show, so he has a foot in both camps but was instrumental in getting the Dogs Trust to pull out of Crufts I have the Dogs trust press office emails here still
>
>

never knew that either... thanks for the heads up... no Bath show for me this year..

many thanks for making this public knowledge

I was under the impression with PRA, affected to clear produced all carriers?
My impression too!  We've just about sorted PRA in my breed but have another eye condition that seems to be much more difficult to shift.

As I've said before, those who shout loudest don't have a clue what dog breeding is all about!  It really is a shame they don't SHOW us how to breed the perfect dog - they've got all the answers after all. :)

Quote doglicious: "If you breed an affected dog to a clear dog then you will still get affected"

No you won't if the condition is recessive rather than dominant. You can mate affected to clear and get all carriers. If they are then mated to clears you then will produce both clears and carriers.

Affected to clear when a recessive gene is being considered will only produce carriers no affecteds and to remove all carriers and affecteds with one swipe will reduce genepools far too drastically .

The total KC registrations last year were around 250 thousand.  I have assumed an average lifespan of 10 years, giving a KC registered population of some 2.5million of the estimated 7 million UK dog population.

> I know one person who is using his PRA 'affected' dog (and it is, sadly clinically affected), in his words, the dog of his lifetime,

As PRA is a recessive condition needing two copies of the defective gene it is perfectly possible to use an outstanding example of a breed even if it is affected by a condition for which a clear DNA test exists, and do this without producing ANY affected offspring.
All the offspring of an affected dog of course can only be either affected or carrier dependent on the mates status. 

Of course if mated to a  clear NO AFFECTED offspring will result, but all will be carriers (one copy of the gene for the problem, the other healthy copy will come from the other parent making them a carrier).

A carrier from this breeding can then be mated to a clear mate and produce statistically half CLEAR  offspring.  In two generations you have bred out the problem in the line without loosing the dog of a lifetimes good points.

In most cases people will rarely use an actually affected animal but a Carrier with a clear, until such time as removing the carriers prematurely from the population will not have a detrimental effect on the whole gene pool.

This is why health testing is rarely black and white pass or fail with regards to breeding.

I'm not trying to be patronising

Doglicious, you are not being patronising, pedigree dogs need people to speak up for them and make suggestions. Keep chipping away and you will make a difference.
People like us are anoying to some who don't like anyone who has different ideas, or is getting to near the truth for their comfort, or supporting someone else who is.
Take no notice keep posting if you want to.
I have had some awful really rude come backs to some of my posts, it's like water off a ducks back. 

People who still breed dogs who can't go outside in summer because they can not breath, or other horriable deformities they still suffer with all their lives, should be prosecuted.

Not being able to register them with the KC is not enough.

Its cruel, we are still seeing it, it has to stop. 

>People like us are anoying to some who don't like anyone who has different ideas

Different ideas are fine; getting facts wrong (such as doglicious' belief that breeding from an 'affected' individual means that all the offspring will automatically be affected too) - and basing ideas on them - isn't.

People like us are anoying to some who don't like anyone who has different ideas, or is getting to near the truth for their comfort, or supporting someone else who is.

People like you (who are now going on ignore) are annoying to people like us that already breed happy, healthy dogs from parents tested for everything they should be tested for and that ALSO look the way they should AND have the temperament they should have, that turn more buyers down than they accept as only the best homes will do, that only breed infrequently when they want something to keep, not for money, etc etc. Why on earth are you not on one of the fluffy boards frequented by people who think it will be fun to let their cute doggy woggy have a littler of ickle cute furbabies? No pedigree, no health tests -not needed because they are not awful show dogs, and the money will SO come in handy for that holiday or new kitchen.

Apols but why is a clinically affected dog, different to an affected status dog?  If you test a dog for PRA at 12 to whatever months of age, and it comes back affected, if your dog proves to be an outstanding dog, the best you've ever owned, in your experienced opinion, do you then not use that dog at all? 

I think, this individual, is using the tests in the way they are meant to be used, they know the status of their dog, they have weighed up all the corresponding factors, and have implemented a plan to breed clear from their dog.  I see so many posts on forums about the need to breed clear to clear when this isn't necessary, and excluding huge sections of the gene pool for a breed.  I applaud this decision, it's brave, and bold, and I hope he manages to breed the line he wants to carry on from.  I can, looking at the pedigree of his dog, probably name one of the dogs at least, that has landed him in this situation, a very influential working dog, and one that would probably have been lost to the breed, had the same genetic test been available today. 

I'm not against using an affected status dog in the way you describe - I am one of the people who argued successfully for just that to happen when prcd-PRA was confirmed in our breed, as Brainless will tell you.  As it is, few people have, and not many more have used carriers, which will in the long-term be detrimental to our gene pool.  In terms of numbers being bred, the damage is already done, and it becomes hard to see any way back for the breed in this country.

The issue for some people will be in whether the sire, or more particularly the dam, has already lost sight or indeed is totally blind.  Not all affected elkhounds lose their sight, others not until they are very old and well past their breeding age, but some still are at an age where they can be bred from.  The owners then will be in a position where they need to weigh up all of the factors, as you say.

I have an outstanding dog - he was first cousin to an affected animal diagnosed before mine was tested.  My dog could so easily have been at least a carrier, but as fate would have it, he was clear.  It might have gone another way.  The affected animal was personally known to me, and her owners are my friends.  It was a tragedy, not only for them but for the rest of us that love our breed.

Doglicious, you are not being patronising, pedigree dogs need people to speak up for them

...WOW ..and that's not being patronising ?? ....or indeed downright insulting to the rest of us .!!..what qualifies you to 'speak up ' for Pedigree dogs ? ...have you contributed a single thing to any breed ? - do you really think that the dogs owned by  all the breeders on here need you to 'speak up' for them  .....?

I tell you what ....YOU choose a breed, breed it down several generations dedicating your life, time and a huge chunk of your finances to it's health and well being ...and then listen to those that have done none of these things stating that they will 'speak up' for your dogs

...just breathtaking arrogance !!

Yvonne

just breathtaking arrogance !!
And obvious ignorance and no understanding about dog breeding the more that is posted. :(

Very well said Trevor, there is a very good saying "All mouth and no trousers" very applicable here.  I don't think anyone has been so regularly insulting to those worth their weight in gold to the breeds we love.

or indeed downright insulting to the rest of us .!!..what qualifies you to 'speak up ' for Pedigree dogs ? ...have you contributed a single thing to any breed ?

You do not have to be a breeder to be able to see the problems  that exist within some breeds and stating that you have to be a breeder in order to have the 'right' to speak up about those problems is unacceptable.  As is telling people who do speak up to join in the breeding profession and get experience before they speak out.

That view reminds me of those delusional, talentless people who think they can sing, and audition for X Factor or whatever other opportunity will 'fast track' them to the top.  When they hear from the Judges that they would do better to give up on their chosen path they turn on said judges and have an outpouring of bitter, offensive abuse which usually includes telling the judges to get on stage and try their hand at their chosen 'talentless' singing talent.

Quite rightly the judges will say they didn't choose to become singers, they chose to become professional in other aspects of the same industry - record label producers, sound recordists, agents or managers, song writers and that's what they'll be 'judged on'.  That does not mean that these judges can't identify talent or hear a bad voice when they hear it just like most of the rest of us!!. 

You do not have to be a breeder to see the problems that exist in dog breeding and you do not need any other right to a voice other than a love of the species. 

The unfortunate thing seems to be that here we have some very good breeders who still feel that PDE was aimed at them and instead of joining forces and fighting together to make change along with non breeders who have concerns over what is happening to our dogs have become embroiled in fighting themselves.

How can you join forces with someone who constantly writes negative articles about you? 

I'm at a loss as to how you see that any breeder with a good reputation, could possibly join forces with someone who constantly writes negative and inaccurate articles about pedigree dogs, and the breeders of pedigree dogs, and is very much against the show world from the way they write?  Surely that would do nothing for the reputation of the breeder, who, has probably worked hard over a number of years to build up a good reputation for their dogs.  And why should they, when many people who show and breed, are already working hard without any huge publicity machine shouting about their own personal achievements, to improve the health of their dogs where they can. 

Miss Harrison perhaps does have the health of dogs at the heart of her message, but she's a very selfish person to have used them in the way she  has, to boost her own image.  The start of the paragraph in the minutes of the meeting to AGPAW say it all for me, where she immediately introduces herself as the presenter of the PDE programme, what does that have to do with anything?  It's not a qualification, that's for sure!! 

The old saying "An ounce of experience is worth a pound of theory" is so very true.

When they hear from the Judges that they would do better to give up on their chosen path they turn on said judges and have an outpouring of bitter, offensive abuse

This analogy could be a description of said poster, not the breeders on CD. There is nothing wrong with fighting for the welfare of pedigree dogs, we are doing that already, many for years, many on this very site, but when people make continual and I mean continual sweeping statements with incorrect facts and quite literally don't know what they are talking about of course it gets people's backs up, I'm sure it would yours, someone is trying to preach to those with more knowledge in their little fingers, it's like having an irritating little fly buzzing around.

There are plenty of people with opposing views about the PDE programme, that's fine, when people intelligently put their views across that is fine too, Jemima apart from one incident is always polite and gives full explanation, she never acts like a spoilt child when others don't agree with her, neither does Adam. (Who doesn't have many agreeing with him.)

There is no need for rudeness or infighting because we do all want the best for the pedigree dog, on this site anyway, to be honest this constant niggling gets on my nerves, some treat us like the enemy (how frustrating is that?) it's just that if anyone is going to try to belittle breeders on here they need to make sure they know what they are darn well talking about, so knowledge is needed if anyone is going to say anything further than wanting to help, with regards to genetics or breeding.

Maybe the new people on the board with a bee in their bonnet, need to research the site and what it's posters actually stands for rather than jumping in and attacking people they know nothing about. :-)

Miss Harrison perhaps does have the health of dogs at the heart of her message,

So, join forces and start working together.  So much energy has been wasted on these two threads already, splitting hairs and worryng about whether a lay person understands the theory behind the result of crossing an affected (rescessive gene) with an unaffected one!  It doesn't matter.  Just like you don't have to know if someone is singing a ?flat or x? sharp to know the tune is wrong!!

but she's a very selfish person to have used them in the way she  has, to boost her own image.  The start of the paragraph in the minutes of the meeting to AGPAW say it all for me, where she immediately introduces herself as the presenter of the PDE programme, what does that have to do with anything?  It's not a qualification, that's for sure!! 

But maybe she didn't mean it like that.  I watched the PDE prog and didn't bother with who had made it, only the content of the message.  When she first wrote in dog magazines and on here I still didn't connect the two.  Maybe she just said that so everyone in the audience knew who she was and what her stance was on certain aspects of dog care - instant clarification without having to reel off loads of explanation.

Please let it go.  Spend your knowledge and time, efforts and energy on better things to make positive change instead of bickering when basically you are all on the same side.

Spend your knowledge and time, efforts and energy on better things to make positive change instead of bickering when basically you are all on the same side.

Here, here! To one and all. :-)

Suzieque, I find that response quite offensive :( I spend a lot of time helping people to understand more about my chosen breed, and the importance of supporting responsible breeders, even helping people find a pup from a good breeder, or recommending a breed specific rescue if they're willing to take on a rescue dog.

I don't, however, waste my time writing inaccurate articles about other peoples' dogs, which are misleading, and indicate to some that pedigree dogs are all unhealthy, all breeders of pedigree show dogs are corrupt and unethical, so go and buy the latest oodle breed instead, which won't be an inbred mutant with numerous health problems.  I wouldn't want to be associated with JH for that reason, and I doubt many others with many years experience (which I haven't got btw) breeding would either.  Why not ask JH to stop writing contradictory articles, and instead, join forces with the responsible breeders of pedigree dogs, and lead the way forward with a new programme highlighting what poor breeding practices are, and showing the effort made by many breeders of pedigree dogs to breed ethically, and produce happy healthy pups. 

> You do not have to be a breeder to see the problems that exist in dog breeding

but you do to fix them or keep them from happening.  All the theory in the world will not breed better dogs or stop problems occurring. 

Even puppy farmers don't aim to produce pups with health issues (poor business), but the difference is that caring breeders seek to minimise this chance through careful study and selection of the AVAILABLE  breeding stock and current knowledge. 

Breeders who live with generations of their dogs (waiting to keep 7th generation) cradle to grave are not interested in having unhealthy dogs with problems, those who breed commercially or dabble short term, don't keep them that long so the expense of health testing careful selection of breeding partners, perhaps travelling long distances, importing new bloodlines etc is unnecessary extra expenditure.

They only need pups to stay alive, appear basically healthy to point of sale and a short time after.

In common with most long term breeders of the type we advocate here the majority of the dogs sitting around me are veterans (over 7 years). 

As someone who is not wealthy (can't afford to Insure  the dogs), it's in my own self interest to breed healthy dogs and I do my utmost to do so, though one cannot ever be sure to do so, every time, nature just isn't like that.

My oldest is a fit 13 1/2 year old, never needed the vet for over 12 years other than a spot of bacterial conjunctivitis at 12 weeks from getting into a pile of rather putrid leaf-mold, and at 12 having a little warty lump removed from her eyelid and ear.  One was a wart the other an inflammatory lump probably from a puncture wound from youngster.

Her daughter is strapping 11 year old who still holds her own with much younger dogs when shown and was reserve best bitch at two championship shows in 2010, including our breed club championship show for the second year running.  Her 7 year old daughter is in her prime doing better than ever, and of course all are fit and energetic companions. 

They can cope with all weathers, but I avoid extreme heat (no dog should have to cope with it, it's against their nature, they are not designed for it), and prefer for my own comfort to avoid too much of the wet weather walking.

>> You do not have to be a breeder to be able to see the problems  that exist within some breeds and stating that you have to be a breeder in order to have the 'right' to speak up about those problems is unacceptable.  As is telling people who do speak up to join in the breeding profession and get experience before they speak out.

What I find very interesting is that people "who speak up for pedigree dogs" like Suzique and Jocelyn have never done anything proactive to help. Why should they 'speak up' if they are merely shouting the odds? I know many here feel that you should be a breeder but what can either of you say hand on heart, you have personally done for the betterment of any breed? Have you raised funds for research? Have you submitted your dogs when they died to research? Have you even had them autopsied? While they are alive have either of you taken them for any form of health test? (I include crossbred and heinz 57 varieties as well as pedigrees in these questions)
I have not bred a litter since 1996, but in support of my breed I have had my dogs regularly health checked for eye disease hips elbows and other tests, and I also organise health testing for other breeds. I do DNA collections for breed clubs and breeders as well I also raise funds for research and other the years have raised thousands of pounds. I am not a rich person I do not have a fancy house, I actually live in a housing association house, add to that I know I have health issues which mean some of the things I do with dogs could put me at great personal risk, but I believe you only have the right to criticise if you do not do anything to help these dogs. EVERY breeder and owner on this forum spend hours planning breedings to maximise the puppies future good health. They also donate to research money, their dogs if they die of a suspected health problem and regularly health test their stock.
So what have you ever done to promote breed health?

>worryng about whether a lay person understands the theory behind the result of crossing an affected (rescessive gene) with an unaffected one!  It doesn't matter.

But it does if a person intends to breed living creatures; a working understanding of genes is vital, so if that lay person is basing their criticism from a standpoint of ignorance and misunderstanding they need to be corrected.

Sorry Polly I should have been broader in my terms. Though of course the actual dogs are bred by someone, for good or ill.

I think you have to be involved in dogs in a practical way, this doesn't just have to be breeding yourself. 

Interestingly it is the passionate breeders and others devoted to their breeds that raise the money for the research for rescue (picking up the pieces from those who don't care) etc.

Suzique

The unfortunate thing seems to be that here we have some very good breeders who still feel that PDE was aimed at them and instead of joining forces and fighting together to make change along with non breeders who have concerns over what is happening to our dogs have become embroiled in fighting themselves

This is exactly what we have been saying all along. I think you will find that most good breeders would have been wholeheartedly in support of PDE if it had not been so unbiased against pedigree dogs in their entirety. The statement was made that pedigree dogs were mutants. A most stupid statement. The statement was also made that crossbreeds were more healthy. I do believe we should be working towards the one aim, but, we have someone trying to diss us at every stroke. That is why we are so negative towards the programme.

As is telling people who do speak up to join in the breeding profession and get experience before they speak out.

This statement said IT ALL about the ignorance we see from these posters. Breeding is NOT a profession for anyone responsible, it is a very, very expensive hobby and way of life! It is those in it AS a profession you need to talk to -the puppy farmers!

Maybe the new people on the board with a bee in their bonnet, need to research the site and what it's posters actually stands for rather than jumping in and attacking people they know nothing about.

Absolutely rather than say what someone said below - quote:

What I find very interesting is that people "who speak up for pedigree dogs" like Suzique and Jocelyn have never done anything proactive to help.

What on earth do you base that on?  You know nothing of what people do privately behind the scenes.?

Interesting discussion.  There aren't many weekends when one finishes up with three extra people on the "IGNORE" button!

Agree, it comes to something when they even manage to upset the mild mannered people on the board, yes this subject may bs long in the tooth but so is the constant berating of the downright decent breeders who take their time to share knowledge on this board.

You know nothing of what people do privately behind the scenes.?

Then go ahead and tell us all what you have done for your breed. I'm sure all of us would be very happy to explain what we do for our breeds.

Just out of interest how many people have to press the ignore button for anything to happen? Not as a particular reference to this thread but thought I'd ask as it had been mentioned.