Apart from having added a few diseases pretty much unheard of, the Malinois information isn't bad at all. For Papillons however it says parents should be DNA tested for PRA and von Willebrand -no such DNA tests available for the breed. The fact you can DNA test some breeds for PRA does not mean you can for all.

I've asked our genetic expert in our breed (Boxers)if there are DNA tests for DM and vWD.
As it's a first for me unless they are US based?
One US DNA test have also come up as not applicable in the UK population of the breed.
We have that in the DNA testing for Cardiomyopathy - big fanfare as they thought they had 'the' gene.
Lots of excited people on both sides of the pond.
DNA goes over of affected cases here in the UK (these cases properly confirmed by veterinary experts & tests)
but bizarrely some DNA tested reckons dogs negative for the affected gene....??

The US DNA test certainly doesn't seem applicable to UK dogs.
It's back to the drawing board and the search still continues....

Bit concerned about the last paragraph on our breed notes regarding breeders refunding or contributing monies towards health issues.
Why should a breeder contribute if say the problem has an environmental cause outside of their control?
Let's face it how many puppy purchasers think they know better than an experienced breeder with feeding & exercising for a start?
I have one case scenario of my litter 7 pups in the litter - One of puppies died last year of cancer aged under 4 years old.
The mother (now 8 yrs old) has no signs of cancer, the father died last year aged 12 years old of a suspected brain tumour.
No other pups in the litter have had any signs of cancers. Breed common 'average' age is 10 years old.
My fault as breeder?? Should I have paid for all the veterinary bills? (The people had insured her and claimed off the insurance company).
Then if I also add into the mix the fact that they lost another Boxer completely unrelated to cancer when she was young....
Do we now start to think that there could perhaps be something environmental in the mix or is it just a cruel twist of fate and they
have been very unlucky?
I know as a breed Boxers have a high predisposition to cancer and on chatting to our genetics expert in the breed he feels we probably have fixed the gene in the breed - but as a owner/exhibitor and occasional breeder I have accepted that the odds aren't good for the breed
re cancers but do try to research pedigree's and go for dogs that have longevity and health behind them.
Being a breeder these days certainly isn't for the feint hearted and we can't always predict what mother nature will do no matter how good health testing is. There will always be things outside of our control - sadly common sense and logic are becoming a rare breed in the human population, sadly for some coming into/or already in the 'dog game' it's all about the kudos of the show ring wins and not the long term future of the breeds and the rest of us suffer the consequences of their actions.

Re: Refunding and contributing to health costs for the entirety of the dogs life, as is suggested on this site.

Individual owners have the ability to insure against vet treatment and death costs. Breeders cannot insure against these costs - for dogs they have bred but sold. It could finacially cripple some breeders (even with a one off but expensive procedure the owner may chose to have done)

The authors must have realised this when adding this statement .......so one can only surmise that breeders giving up is seen as no bad thing?
Presumably with those who do it small scale, spare no expense and extensively health test - at some cost  - going first.
Health testing will reduce the likelyhood but cannot, in the lifetime of a breeders activity, ensure that nothing will go wrong in a living animal.

Tagging on at the end ...

"Ask to see the five generation pedigree certificate of the dog before agreeing to purchase.  If the same name appears more than once on the pedigree it is a sign of a high level of inbreeding"

Erm ...

Does anyone want to contact her to correct her statement about Breed Clubs:

"The main purpose of breed clubs is to organise and run dog shows. Its members compete with each other to win challenge certificates in various classes and hope that their dog will eventually become a champion. Dogs are judged according to how closely they represent the breed standard (the official Kennel Club written description of the breed). To a certain extent choice will depend on the particular preferences of the show judge (who is also a breeder and member of the breed club). The dogs who become champions are very valuable to the breeder. If male, they will command high stud fees and the offspring of male or female champions can earn more for the breeder in puppy sales.  Owners of champion dogs win prestige among their fellow exhibitors and often rivalry is intense."

The judge is sometimes a member of the club, but not always, and most Championship shows are run by General Canine socieites, not the breed clubs. Breed clubs are far more than just show-runners!

Her page about the responsibilities of dog owners is good, though.

> Re: Refunding and contributing to health costs for the entirety of the dogs life, as is suggested on this site.

Just wondering what the sale of good act says  about this? If you bought a car for example  that was faulty would the manufacturer be responsible  for continuing repair costs through out the life of the vehicle?

Lots of goods have guarantees for say a year or two against manufacturing defects but I not for the life of the object? Surely a puppy would be the same? I don't see how a breeder could be held responsible for any health problems that occur for the life of a dog. With a living thing it is not possible to know exactly what genes a puppy will inherrit. Breeders can only do their best with the health tests available and I don't see that a breeder should be forced to offer in effect a lifetime guarentee when other objects are  not covered the same.

And also doesn't the Sale of Goods act allow for replacing or refunding the cost of faulty good? If an article is found to be faulty but uneconomical to repair then a manufacturer could refund the cost of the item or replace it. I would have thought that the same would apply to pups. Surely a breeders liability would only be up to the purchase price of the pup and if they refund this then that should be the limit of the liability.

> If male, they will command high stud fees and the offspring of male or female champions can earn more for the breeder in puppy sales. 

This needs to be seen in context.

These well known campaigners and contributors to PDE are all working within many high profile committees to change how dogs ( and which dogs) are bred.
Show success is often portrayed as an indication of lack of morals and low COI is seen as the Holy Grail ...no matter what.

> If an article is found to be faulty but uneconomical to repair then a manufacturer could refund the cost of the item or replace it. I would have thought that the same would apply to pups

I think the courts factor in Love and attachment with associated distress.
In there lies the problem. If an owner wants to run up thousands for procedures - heart valves, hip replacements -whos liable?

Japanese Spitz is also missing

I'm glad she's not listed my breed so she can misinform people :-p

Show success is often portrayed as an indication of lack of morals and low COI is seen as the Holy Grail ...no matter what.

Seems just another stick to batter us with :-(

> huh sorry actually the garden is of no use- its the walks that do the exersise. <IMG class=qButton title="Quote selected text" alt="Quote selected text" src="/images/mi_quote.gif" width=20 height=10>

I have never really understood the size of garden thing in relation to suitability of breed.

As far as my dogs are concerned the bit of Garden they use (about a third of my 60 x 25 foot) is for a quick pee or morning poo, and maybe to sit out and soak up some rays and get some fresh air

As you say their daily walks are for their exercise and for their main toileting (one will only poo at home if desperate).

So unless you have wall to wall dogs that physically may not fit in the tiniest back yard, I don't understand the garden size thing, unless of course they are never taken for walks.

Same with Town and Country, your actually more likely to find safe (no livestock away from fast roads) off lead walking areas in town where there are RECREATIONAL open spaces, than in the country where the open spaces are someones living and private property. 

Granted the open spaces in town may be more congested, but at least your dog isn't likely to be shot or get onto a road where speeds of 50 - 70 mph are the norm, often with no pavements for road walking.

> If male, they will command high stud fees and the offspring of male or female champions can earn more for the breeder in puppy sales.&nbsp;
>

Well that's not true at all in my breed, stud fees across the board are the cost of a well bred puppy (no differential pricing of puppies).

Same here, Brainless.   I've only ever heard of one breeder who was rumoured to have charged higher prices for stud fees and pups. 

> Re: Refunding and contributing to health costs for the entirety of the dogs life, as is suggested on this site.

Wonderful!  

So you breed the healthiest pups you can, test for everything possible, rear carefully and ensure that the likelyhood of inherited disease is as low as is humanly possible and then the owner proceeds to feed the dog on the most unhealthy foods, give treats of whole sausages five times a day, never walks the animal and allow it to become twice as fat as it should be.   The dog then gets hip problems, knee problems, bowel problems and tooth problems.   

Should the breeder pay for that too?

Once the pup leaves the breeder, a lot of the pup's health is down to the new owner, at what point is the breeder no longer liable in this perfect world that these people live in?

> Tagging on at the end ..."Ask to see the five generation pedigree certificate of the dog before agreeing to purchase.  If the same name appears more than once on the pedigree it is a sign of a high level of inbreeding"Erm ...

Precicely! My latest pup has the same dog appearing 5 times in the fifth generation (the reason I went to considerable lengths to get him was because of his breeding!) and 5 other dogs appear more than once, although none in the first three generations it has to be said. His COI is 7.2% - I don't think this can be classed as 'high'!

Just repeating again, if there are inaccuracies then please contact Carol Fowler and let her know so they can be ammended. It isn't in anyones' interest if a website carrying this kind of endorsement and likely to be widely promoted in the pet dog magazines (Dogs Today) perpetuates advide or information which is misleading. Certainly the statements that border collies make good family pets and staffies get 'cross' need rephrasing at the very least!!

I agree it isn't possible to 'police' everything that is on the internet, but buyers will give this one a lot of credence and the administrator is prepared to make changes.

Same here, Brainless.   I've only ever heard of one breeder who was rumoured to have charged higher prices for stud fees and pups. 

> Re: Refunding and contributing to health costs for the entirety of the dogs life, as is suggested on this site.

> Wonderful!   So you breed the healthiest pups you can, test for everything possible, rear carefully and ensure that the likelyhood of inherited disease is as low as is humanly possible and then the owner proceeds to feed the dog on the most unhealthy foods, give treats of whole sausages five times a day, never walks the animal and allow it to become twice as fat as it should be.   The dog then gets hip problems, knee problems, bowel problems and tooth problems.    Should the breeder pay for that too?Once the pup leaves the breeder, a lot of the pup's health is down to the new owner, at what point is the breeder no longer liable in this perfect world that these people live in?

Too right! Everyone always seems to want someone other than themselves to blame, even when it is something they have blatently brought upon themselves. I think it is entirely unrealistic to call for this (breeder lifetime responsibility) because if nothing else, it would be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt for many situations that the breeder was wholly at fault.

I have never really understood the size of garden thing in relation to suitability of breed.


Ditto. Most people in Sweden live in flats, lots still have dogs of all sizes. I knew two Saint Bernards (as in two different owners) both living in flats, no problem at all. Hand on heart, having a garden makes you lazy as you don't HAVE to walk the dog several times every day, just to let them pee. If you only have one or two dogs it shouldn't make a difference at all if you have a tiny garden or a huge one -or none at all. It's easier to have a garden (especially with a puppy), but not essential.

> It's easier to have a garden (especially with a puppy), but not essential.

In the same vein, I have always wondered about the advice given for size of house/flat for larger breeds too. Providing it's not a bedsit, even a 1 bedroom flat is big enough if the dog can have room to move around and is also adequately exercised outside. Access to stairs within the home is not a good thing in some cases. I would reckon the average dog in an average home has 2-3 rooms to freely move in on a daily basis, sometimes less. On the other hand, I found a lovely rescue dog for one of my neighbours who did live mostly in one room in a big shared house - he had sole access to the garden - and for him, his dog was the passport to going out more and enjoying life.

I have only ever had accommodation with very small gardens. But I've lived 10 mins away from miles of seafront, with acres of playing fields in the other direction (though that was at your peril as it was infested with less responsible dog owners and gangs of nasty teenagers!) and now, endless fields in a rural location, and not too many other dogs.

> Once the pup leaves the breeder, a lot of the pup's health is down to the new owner, at what point is the breeder no longer liable?

And why should the breeder alone be liable? what about the stud owner? the dogs genes contribute half to the pups. Hasn't the stud owner some liability if things go wrong?

Hasn't the stud owner some liability if things go wrong?

Depends on how you see it -you could argue that the bitch owner should have done enough research to know if there could be any problems popping up. Although if the stud owner isn't 100 % honest then what do you do? Or if problems with the dog appears AFTER the litter is born (adult, even) then I wouldn't say anyone is to blame -we don't have crystal balls unfortunately.