Anyone else watching it

me

And me ...eventhough I said I wouldn't !

It seems to be showing that the kc did make some improvements.,.. A bit more than I thought it would have

I really don't think that she and her band of merry men will be happy till we all own the same collie/lab and all crosses in between and all take up wearing wellies and fleeces as part of our hobbys (not that im against wellies or fleeces you understand) :-p

Wow .. She mentioned puppy farms !

>Wow .. She mentioned puppy farms !

It's only taken her three years to acknowledge them - any bets on how long before she gets around to making a programme on them? After all they are the biggest breeders of large numbers of puppies from inbred unhealth-tested parents in the country.

Mark Evans was as incoherent and rabid as before. Shame.

I thought the first part of the programme was basically saying that any improvements made by the kc was down to her the first PDE.  That may well have been the case but as my mum used to say 'self recommendation is no recommendation at all'!

It was more balanced than the first one, and did mention the other problems facing the dog world, eg puppy farms, albeit briefly at the end. 

Agree with you totally about that idiot Mark Evans Jan. Oh and it had my vet on it, Harvey Locke (not going to comment any further on that one!!!).

I also thought it was more balanced. Pity it won't have the audience the original film did so all the references to measures taken by the KC will only be heard by those already involved I would think.

Just a pity that the focus is still on the tiny minority who breed dogs to show, with no references being made to all those back yard breeders out there. I think the reference to puppy farms appeared as if it was a seperate issue all together, which completely misses the point that dogs from this source are likely to have the same issues as the show dogs as well as other problems caused through terrible rearing and welfare. And of course there is no way of knowing the extent of inbreeding practiced by puppy farms and BYB.

The DDA showed plainly that it is impossible to 'ban' people from breeding certain types of dogs so those who said that some breeds shouldn't be bred are not obviously realising that this cannot realistically be done, even if desired. If dog showing ceased and breed standards disappeared, pugs, bulldogs and cavaliers would still be bred. And they would be bred with no regulation or control at all by those who are only interested in lining their pockets. It's all very well Mark Evans saying the KC are not fit for function but I can't see any other organisation being able to even come close. Certainly not the RSPCA!!!

Puppy farms mentioned in the last paragraph, along with strays and dangerous dogs. I think most of it would go over the general public , if they were watching anyway ..it also got boring....
Mark Evans ..lets remember X RSPCA and why he left....is scary, mad as a hatter....
Quite  a lot of criticism aimed at the KC for not appearing  but as the edits of KC representatives were edited badly and reshown this time , you can't blame them .
Dr Bruce suddenly being the darling , remember when he wasn't so popular with boxer folk for his breeding practices.
Showing that Jet , the  veteran flatcoat that won Crufts has a higher COI than the breed average ...why ?
'After PDE 'got a bit repetitive ....will we  be watching the next one ?

is Mark Evans still a vet he seems to do a lot of car programmes on tv and diy things on tv or am i on the wrong person ?

I watched it later on. I found it a bit odd to be honest; it's like she's run out of things to say. I found the KC film much much more informative, showing what had changed and why, evenly paced and without the...sheer haste of having to get one's opinion across that JH's films seem to be full of.

Same tiny statistics blown out of proportion. Same clips replayed. It all gets rather dull. I'd like to see somewhere in the film that JH actually owned a Flatcoat that lived a long healthy life, and incidentally, has another one. Seems very peculiar for such an anti-pedigree posture.

I really laughed at the Cesky COI...I'm sure she didn't take into account that the breed is tiny, so fewer dogs to contribute to the average, and because it's endangered on the Native breeds list, that would surely play some part in why it has a higher COI than say, a Labrador. A breeding program for one breed is not the same for another...

I didn't even manage to finish it if I'm honest, I got a bit bored.

> Seems very peculiar for such an anti-pedigree posture.

I don't see her as anti-pedigree at all, but anti the bad breeding practices and lack of health tests from so many breeders.  That's the same reason two of my three dobes have been rescues (dodgy breeding of the first being the prompt to not buy again) and will be for the foreseeable future.  I love the breed, but the breeding is a problem (although I do acknowledge that some breeders are working hard on the issues).

She's said before that her flatties are rescues, surely if she were anti-pedigree she would rescue mongrels?

I watched it and agree with a lot of comments above, but I actually feel it's sad that such a film (and its predecessor) has needed to be made.  Where are the concerned people breeding the breeds involved?  They seem so focussed on changing dogs and creating such changes that mean the dog's health is at risk and many of their lives forfeit :-( and even with the 'evidence' of problems with kidney failure in boxers... those involved can't stop using the dogs, can't contribute and can't accept that something needs to be done :-(

I see it in border collies with epilepsy.. many will accept responsibility but others repeat matings where pups have previously died... blame the 'other' dog involved.. (it can't be their dog!) and some completely ignoring the problem, telling puppy buyers that 'all puppies do that' (ie fit)

It seems that breed clubs can't or wont take responsibility and perhaps she's right, an independent body (not the KC clearly) needs to oversee.  It's a great thing that vet checks are to be introduced and dogs with such extreme breeding, like the bulldogs, imo shouldn't be allowed in the ring... breeders should have to lengthen the nose that they're responsible for shortening :-(  Judges should have to comply with rulings that such extremes don't do well.. that dogs like the cavaliers have to be health tested and be eg clear if they're to show and to be bred from.

I am totally against the back lash against pedigree dogs, but really, it's no wonder when a few breeds have been so badly affected.

I'm going to hide now.....

But if your dogs are rescues, how can you have any idea of what their genetic and health background is like? That, to me, seems more risky than going to a carefully selected breeder who knows their health backgrounds. I find it really hard to understand that if I'm truthful.

Does anyone know which 15 breeds are having to be vet checked before entering the ring at Crufts?

  Basset Hound, Bloodhound, Bulldog,
Chinese Crested, Chow Chow, Clumber Spaniel,
Dogue de Bordeaux,
French Bulldog,
German Shepherd Dog,
Mastiff,
Neapolitan Mastiff,
Pekingese, Pug,
St. Bernard, Shar Pei.

Thankyou very much

Hear hear PENNYGC - I agree with you.

I think the programme is slightly bias and could concentrate on puppy farms a bit more - but still shows that many pedigree big named breeder is no better than a glorified puppy farmer.

> I really laughed at the Cesky COI...I'm sure she didn't take into account that the breed is tiny, so fewer dogs to contribute to the average, and because it's endangered on the Native breeds list, that would surely play some part in why it has a higher COI than say

Well, that's the points isn't it.  Some breeds just do not have enough of a gene pool to work with in order to remain healthy and, therefore, it is not a bad thing to consider an outcross to improve matters.  The purity arguement doesn't really hold up.
The dalmatian breeder in the film summed it up well for me in saying that all breeds are man made so there is no reason why man should not recreate them in whatever way is appropriate.

We have two threads on this, probably less confusing if things continue on the existing one.
http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/135323pg1.html

PROBLEM IS GENETICS IS RARELY SIMPLE. 

A dog or bitch may produce a problem in a tiny percentage of offspring, but also produce the majority of healthy offspring, and a problem only comes to light if enough litters have been bred and something becomes statistically significant.

One can't scrap a breed and start from scratch when an issue emerges, as what do you breed with?

Every dog or bitch (Pedigree or mongrel) will have a relative that produced something undesirable, and in fact bottlenecks have occurred in breeds not only through popular sires and lack of breed numbers, but from removing dogs and lines when issues cropped up, leaving fewer and fewer and encouraging the emergence of other issues.

Out crossing is all well and good, but you will bring negative traits in with the good with the out cross and sooner or later problems will arise, there is no perfection in nature, and in fact nature is very wasteful in a way as the majority of most creatures born do not live to reproduce or live long lives, most are lucky to contribute to the continuance of the species before becoming part of the food chain, all the rest are just fodder for those higher up the chain..

> One can't scrap a breed and start from scratch when an issue emerges, as what do you breed with?
>

The Dalmatian example was not built on scrapping a breed and starting from scratch.
You may introduce other problems but, generally, the larger your gene pool the more escape routes they represent.

I don't actually understand why outcrossing cannot be done WHEN there is a genetic need. (But ONLY then!) In cats, it is fairly common. Certain breeds can be outcrossed to moggies. Birman to Persians was an allowed outcross for Birmans for a while . You are still able to mate Exotics to Persians, etc. Sure, it means lots of work, many generations of animals that cannot be shown etc -but in the long run it is often worth it as I think the Dalmatian example shows.

yes, you don't have to scrap the breed necessarily, but you do need some new blood and a lot of testing.... tests are the way forward, but breeders will have to accept that some conditions mean that some dogs (even those who do well in the show ring) mustn't be bred from.

In border collies when they discovered the storage disease (CL) in Australia they didn't have the DNA test, but worked together to eliminate it (it's a killer) unfortunately the small gene pool that is Australian border collies they found TNS - now there are DNA tests for both and we can have the lines back here in the UK without the killer diseases (my new pup is from Australian lines, but genetically clear of TNS, CL as well as CEA)

Without some help I don't know that some breeds will survive... interestingly I've had an email about how good it is that I've imported Jive from USA in order to widen the gene pool of his breed in the UK - it does help with diversity.

Using a popular stud dog can have it's problems - 99.9% of UK border collies (and outside UK too I think) have a particular dog in their pedigree - it accounts for the increase in brown (old red) collies and CEA as he was a carrier of both, but what if he'd also carried TNS or CL.... border collies would now be extinct, or pretty near it.

> I don't actually understand why outcrossing cannot be done WHEN there is a genetic need.

The kennel club does allow for outcrosses in this way.

Bull terriers are being mated to Mini bull terriers due to the high incidence of the eye condition PLL. 

The sticking point is probably over enough of the breed believing there is a need. Better the devil you know is many breeders view, and justifiably so when some outcrosses in the past have caused more problems than solved.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

I don't know the details of the case, but the KC accepted some Bloodhound crossbred or unverified pedigree bloodhounds onto the breed register, but most breeders don't want them and refuse to use them in their breeding programs (they may have good reasons).

Bull terriers are being mated to Mini bull terriers due to the high incidence of the eye condition PLL. 

And the various Belgians are mated to each other -but it still not TOTALLY different breeds in either example, is it. It's not like mating, say, one Spaniel breed to a different Spaniel breed.

I don't know the details of the case, but the KC accepted some Bloodhound crossbred or unverified pedigree bloodhounds onto the breed register, but most breeders don't want them and refuse to use them in their breeding programs (they may have good reasons).

Yes now you mention it I remember reading something about it. Maybe I should rephrase the question then -why do dog breeders find it so hard to accept outcrosses when it is for health reasons?  Most breeds are crosses initially anyway -such as cavaliers for instance. Yes, I can see the reasons for wanting to keep breeds pure, but if it would solve a difficult genetic problem by outcrossing, then I'd be all for it. Hard work, but that is breeding, isn't it. It's not instant success.

> why do dog breeders find it so hard to accept outcrosses when it is for health reasons?

Probably because these days we are limited to the number of dogs and generations we can keep in our time in dogs.

I am relatively young but it took me 3 generations before I had something really competitive, and having to take such huge backward steps in terms of breed type, when I may not have that much time ahead of me. 

Bruce Cattanagh needed to breed 4 generations before having a decent boxer with his corgi crosses, and of course someone had to keep and love these dogs in that time.  The first crosses were nothing like Boxers, the breed traits that you want to own, yet you'd have to live with them.

So easy with small livestock to make progress in a short time, (and with Rabbits you can eat your mistakes) but it takes decades/generations to get back to even decent quality to show or work, so most people would be reluctant to do this unless there was no other option.

Breeders in the past when breeds were being established culled harshly (and we men killed), adn those with moeny kept huge kennels, so had the luxury to keep stock that had a use but wasn't suitable to show or work.

Probably because these days we are limited to the number of dogs and generations we can keep in our time in dogs.

I bet you are spot on there Barbara. This is of course why I have so many cats -I had to work so hard for years and keep many. Very difficult to keep as many dogs.

I was in Rabbits about three years and able to see the progress of 6 generations, in my current breed I have only reached that stage in 20 years and with far fewer litters/experiments. 

I am relatively young in dog breeding circles, as still under 50, but already over ahlf my time as a breeder likely behind me, and only just scratchign the surface.

Very few people will have much impact on their breed, in the time they have, and number limits they have, so it's all very piecemeal.

The health testing of the GSDs should be interesting, given the judge is known to favour the English type ;-)

> The health testing of the GSDs should be interesting

I really wanted to see that too!

> She's said before that her flatties are rescues, surely if she were anti-pedigree she would rescue mongrels?

Actually thats not true! A couple of her flatcoats could be termed rescue, although one was directly re-homed not rescued, via it's breeder. Fearless Freddie who she owned was purchased from it's breeder. Freddie lived to 15.5 years.
Another half truth...... from JH.....

Just to clarify, Maisie is rehomed via her breeder and Freddie was purchased as a puppy from his breeder.

> but still shows that many pedigree big named breeder is no better than a glorified puppy farmer.

And don't many of us know plenty of those across the board :-(

Anyway, just watched it now on Iplayer, was a wee bit dull in places. I do have to agree that there are breeds out there which clearly have conformation faults that are not acceptable, it won't happen over night in getting this changed. The point which clearly is being missed is that there are breeders out there continuing as they were, heads in the sand because they are still winning in the ring, it is then that the judges need to be questionned to as they also have a huge bearing on this.
If a certain number of breeds are of a concern, then they should be checking each and every exhibit, not just the BOB's..

I too think that there is an issue in this country with the top sire syndrome, in many breeds you see the same sire time and time again, are these males the best match for the bitches? Or is it because they are winning then it appears to be a good match? Looks good on paper eh? Why keep tying up the lines, why don't the owners of the sires say NO!!! I do think that there should be a stipulation on the number of litters a dog can sire in certain breeds.

A point on the Cesky, that was an import too, as many are I understand in the breed. As for the KC COI's, they have admitted that it will take years to get all the correct info uploaded and therefore you aren't going to get accurate scores on there at this time.
I checked one dog which was a total outcross and no signs of line breeding on any sides and it had a very high COI, which makes no sense and proved again that the Mate Select is no where near ready enough to be used.

I honestly believe that where health tests can be done on breeds they should be, they should be stipulated in all the relevant breed clubs that they WILL be done and scores/results not to be ignored and actually put down a benchmark of what is not acceptable to be bred from and the KC to then go along with this and NOT register litters from untested parents and over relevant scores/results. I will mention 1 such club which is doing this and it is logged in their COE and that is the Leonberger Club of GB, I applaude them for doing this and feel many others SHOULD follow suit.. Lets make KC reg dogs mean something as they do in Scandanavia(not sure which countries in total). 

PF's and BYB's are another issue all together...

>> why do dog breeders find it so hard to accept outcrosses when it is for health reasons?
> Probably because these days we are limited to the number of dogs and generations we can keep in our time in dogs.
>
> I am relatively young but it took me 3 generations before I had something really competitive, and having to take such huge backward steps in terms of breed type, when I may not have that much time ahead of me. 

but surely it is more important to breed for the future of the breed rather than just for our selves? We need to leave the breed in a better state when we retire than when we come in to it.

I think a lot of the breeds with health probelms could be improved with the judicious use of cross breeding and if it only takes 3-4 generations to get back to something that looks like the breed that it is supposed to then that will be the quickest way to eradicate the worst faults. I thought it was shameful that the Dalmatian breeder was having so much trouble for importing a dog that was not affected by a killer disease just because it had a pointer 20 years ago in its ancestry. She should be applauded for taking the step and if there were more breeders like her in pugs and bull dogs etc we might get back to healthier breeds sooner.

> why don't the owners of the sires say NO!!!

because they want the money! And they want their dog to top the top sires list for the breed.

> but surely it is more important to breed for the future of the breed rather than just for our selves? We need to leave the breed in a better state when we retire than when we come in to it.
>
> I think a lot of the breeds with health probelms could be improved with the judicious use of cross breeding and if it only takes 3-4 generations to get back to something that looks like the breed that it is supposed to then that will be the quickest way to eradicate the worst faults. I thought it was shameful that the Dalmatian breeder was having so much trouble for importing a dog that was not affected by a killer disease just because it had a pointer 20 years ago in its ancestry. She should be applauded for taking the step and if there were more breeders like her in pugs and bull dogs etc we might get back to healthier breeds sooner.

a very brave women that dally lady and I wish her sucess. a very sensible approach to a serious problem and a responsible breeder unlike some of those other dreadful people on there.
I really do not get this obession with racial purity- records need to be kept yes so problems can be traced etc but once you have something that meets breed standard minus nasty illness then whats the problem?  do it a lot in other livestock- animals lose vigor due to lines too close you put in an outcross- standard normal sensible practice.

The genetic purity thing baffles me too.  After all, the breed standard is mostly a physical description - not a genetic one.  So why should it matter if, say for the dallies, there's one pointer 20 years ago if she still fits the breed standard?

And especially so - why should it matter at all if she fits the breed decsription AND is free of a potentially excruciating and lethal problem?

Utterly mind-blowing, some of these breeders.  Out crossing should be a valuable tool in a breeder's toolbox, if there are serious problems that it could help - not something to be shunned.

> and if there were more breeders like her in pugs and bull dogs etc we might get back to healthier breeds sooner.

Can't speak for Bulldogs, but why are you assuming that the programme's stance on pugs is true?  In my experience the vast majority of pugs are fit and healthy dogs  - and guess what they can breath too!  Sadly for the breed even vets are buying into the assumption that they have to have breathing problems, without any evidence to back it up.  Before anyone asks, I am not in denial, but I do own a pack of healthy pugs and help run a Pugility Class, where we have up to 20 pugs ranging in age from 8 months to 8 years happily and energetically doing agility. WE also organise regular pug walks and get togethers with up to 50 pugs attending, a mixture of show and pet bred, and I have yet to see any of them with difficulty/ breathing trouble, even when flying around at top speed doing pug runs.  I am all in favour of breeding for wide open nostrils and not over exagerated nose rolls, but the only pug I ever bred with breathing problems also happened to be the only one I have owned with a longer muzzle.  Have had problems over the last few years with vets putting the fear of God into the owners of pugs with Kennel Cough or snuffly colds, 3 times  I have had to calm down hysterical owners who have been advised by vets that it is essential for the pugs to undergo extensive investigative procedures and eventual surgery due to compromised airways, the prognosis being a cost between £2000 to £4000 and possibly having to have the pugs PTS.  In each case a few teaspoons of Buttercup syrup and a bowl of hot water with vick or olbas overnight in the pug's sleeping space has been a quick and effective cure, along with a change of vets, however I am sure these pugs will still be recorded with their original vets as being health probelm pugs.

So Gwen, you are saying that having an extremely flat face doesn't lead to compromised breathing?

Sadly for the breed even vets are buying into the assumption that they have to have breathing problems, without any evidence to back it up.

I can well believe this as it is exactly the same with Persian cats.

> but surely it is more important to breed for the future of the breed rather than just for our selves? We need to leave the breed in a better state when we retire than when we come in to it.
>
>

Yes but if your only able to have three dogs in your time in a breed do you wish to be the one who cannot own the breed of your choice that looks like it's breed and can be shown etc?  bit like the NIMBY syndrome.

If your able to keep a large kennel then you can run one line that never sees the light of day, but that is not the majority of modern owner/exhibitors, and of course you have to home these pups , whose traits you can't be sure of (we don't cull like early breeders did).

You would have to be absolutely convinced there was no other way, which most people are not.

> The genetic purity thing baffles me too.  After all, the breed standard is mostly a physical description - not a genetic one.  So why should it matter if, say for the dallies, there's one pointer 20 years ago if she still fits the breed standard?
>
>

I don't think most people are worried about genetic purity, but cross breeding will give you generations of dogs with alien (to the breed) traits.

Did you see the first Dally cross generations, not the dog you would want to own as your only or one of a couple, if the Dally was your choice.

Jeangenie may be able to say, but I don't think there was as much resistance to the import so many generations on as was suggested.  Yes the American club was against it at the time it was done, because they looked and probably acted so different to a typical breed representative.

Also remember 14 generations would have been a long time ago, so our knowledge of genetics, and especially those breeding and running breed clubs at the time was not what it is now.

>Utterly mind-blowing, some of these breeders.  Out crossing should be a valuable tool in a breeder's toolbox, if there are serious problems that it could help - not something to be shunned.

And contrary to what some believe it is a tool that has and is used in various breeds when the need has arisen.

English springer blood, was added to Field Spaniel lines, with not entirely desirable results (apart from springer coloured pups still being born, some negative health and temperament aspects came in).  As I have said over the last 20 years Standard Bull terriers have been mated to Mini bulls to increase the gene pool due to the high level of PLL carriers.

> Also remember 14 generations would have been a long time ago, so our knowledge of genetics, and especially those breeding and running breed clubs at the time was not what it is now.

I don't know how long ago that particular project started, perhaps bearing in mind there may have not been the same regard to breeding at a more mature age than we may prefer, but there was clearly enough genetic knowledge to understand the gene that they were breeding away from.

As far as the way in which we breed today I have been giving this quite a bit of thought since the programme and, whilst I would not claim to have come up with any answers, one thing that keeps going around in my brain is how much the common, present day model of small hobby breeder may be actually contributing to the problem.

Maybe we have to explore that and consider whether we need to be less critical, for instance, to the sort of breeder we used to have, just as dedicated to the breed but keeping larger kennels, breeding more often and prepared to rehome brood bitches and any offspring that do not make the grade either in type or health screening. 

Many of us, I am sure, would not be prepared to adopt this type of model of breeding but maybe, if it is beneficial to the health of a breed, more would be inclined to continue in this way if we stopped all the criticism around numbers of litters, rehoming of broods, pricing policies etc and just considering the quality produced, in particular in terms of adapting to health requirements. 

Otherwise, it seems to me, all we are left with are the truly commercial breeders who will breed only for the pet market, ticking all the boxes on health screening, coefficents etc without any regard for either breeding type or worst still keeping up the exaggerations, that hopefully the KC are going to get tougher about in show awards, because the buying public are looking for it.  
Just my thoughts :)

> Yes but if yoru only able to have three dogs in your time in a breed do you wish to be the one who cannot own the breed of your choice that looks like it's breed and can be shown etc?

Well actually if it is that or having a dog that suffers from a life threatening disease then yes I would. (And indeed I am doing something similar in my breed at the moment).

  It seem to me that outcrossing is a much more reliable and quicker way of improving the health of a breed than selective breeding. If you keep breeding from dogs from the same gene pool even if you only pick the soundest individuals to breed from you will still get  range of puppies produced. Some will be closer to your goal and some may be worse than the parents. Those substandard pups (for want of a better word) will also need to be homed. As you say we no longer cull.

Are people more likely to want a dog which is purebred but with health problems or a cross which is healthier, especially when they are working towards the goal of healthier dogs in the future?

And in some breeds you would not even have to cross breed. Thinking about GSDs there are several types around, that are already KC registered, There are pet types which are not particularly extreme, English types which are not as angulated as the Germanic types so if people would start combining those it would be relatively quick to breed away from the extreme type of today.

> Utterly mind-blowing, some of these breeders.  Out crossing should be a valuable tool in a breeder's toolbox, if there are serious problems that it could help - not something to be shunned.

Perhaps not shunned but a little better understood by those who have a certain breeds.

I am all for an outcross mating when I can genetically test that the dogs Im mating dont have the late onset condition my breed is plagued with.
Simply looking (or in the case of hearts listening) at a dog phenotypically cannot tell us if either..........
a) we are chosing the right parents or b) keeping the right resultant puppy.
Locating the genes so that we can scientifically chose clear dogs is the way to go.
Until then selecting away from the trait by use of the tools available to us today is all we've got.

> It seem to me that outcrossing is a much more reliable and quicker way of improving the health of a breed than selective breeding.

I think it depends on the problem.  If we are just talking about retreating from an exaggeration I don't think there should be any need for an outcross.

Well I just watched the 2nd documentary...

Out of interest I looked up both of my dogs COI on Mate Select.. a little surprised (but kind of knew from studying pedigree/ancestry) that one of my dogs COI is 3 times the average for the breed.

Just tagging on to the end here, not replying to anyone. Does anyone know how it works with the LUA Dalmatians? I mean, bringing in ONE bitch presumably means she will have been mated to a UK stud dog that will have the gene they want rid of, so can they DNA test to see if pups are clear or not? How is it inherited? Is there anything to say the entire litter might not have problems if they all take after their dad?