Hi

I was just wondering why you cant show a dog that does not have 2 fully desended testicles? i,e, been nuetured!

Is there a specific reason?

You can show any registered dog. There is no problems about showing a nuetured dog although some judges will downrate it a bit. As to a dog with less than two decended testicles, this tends to be an inherited problem and as breed shows were originally a shop window for the breeders wares they would be seriously penalised.

Regards, John

You can show a dog without any testicles, but almost every (if not all) breed standard states at the end "Male animals should have two apparently normal testicles fully descended into the scrotum."

Therefore, if you are judging to the breed standard (if you are not, you should not be judging), you would count the lack of testicles as a serious fault.
It should be taken into account and balanced against the dog's virtues, the same as any deviation from the breed standard, but I would be extremely surprised if a dog without testicles ever won regularly at any show.

The reason for the importance is because conformation showing is supposed to be for the betterment of dog breeding and the 'best' specimens that consistently win are used to propogate the future generations.

There is also the suspicion that if a dog has been castrated, it could be because he was a monorchid or cryptorchid (either one or both testicles were missing). This is a serious fault, which is quite often genetically inherited.

A neutered dog is completely irrelevant in the breeding pool of pedigree dogs and taken to the extreme, if every dog was neutered there would be no more representatives of the breed!

Basically, if you want to exhibit a dog, keep it entire.

Snomaes

Thanks very much you two.

Unfortunately I cannot show my dog as he is not recognised by the UK Kennel club, he is by the American one, just not here :(

Hopefully that will all change soon though :)

Guessing your breed, do you work them Gonzo? I know there is a lobby group trying to get KC recognision for Lucas and Plummer Terriers and thought yours was an older breed?

Regards, John

He's not worked really. Apart from ridding mice, rats and chasing foxes away from family and friends houses and gardens and the likes.

He's a Patterdale Terrier btw!

I guessed right then ;) Course, I did cheat a bit by looking at your profile.

Regards, John

Cheeky Cheeky ;)

Hi Gonzo,

The Patterdale is not a breed recognized by the American Kennel Club.  What registry in America are you referring to?  There are one or two "rare breed" registries which hold their own shows.

Stacey

Snomaes

"The reason for the importance is because conformation showing is supposed to be for the betterment of dog breeding and the 'best' specimens that consistently win are used to propogate the future generations"

I quote you above but have to point out that there are important questions being asked about the 'closed stud book' method of breeding which has prevailed for some years now. 

Using the 'best' specimens that consistently win does NOT promote the betterment of the dog is promotes the worse.  What it does do is provide income for the breeder of the line as the demand for his/her pups increases. 

Research done over several years has proved that 'closed stud book' breeding that exaggerates certain physical conformation results in physically impaired dogs that can't eat, breathe, walk or even breed properly.  It also promotes such inherited weaknesses or deformities as hip, back, eye, skin  and heart problems.

Breeders do not always want to acknowledge this but leading experts have had the information out there for some time.  The lastest reference is Bruce Fogel's piece in the latest issue of Dogs Today but R Coppinger and J J Bray have done their own research and published results in the last 4 years which supports the need to do away with the 'closed stud book' artificial selection type breeding. 

So you advocate crossing breeds then ?

How about a breed simply bred to do the job it was orginally designed to do, not breeding to a standard just so that they can do a job of work, going on your theory all this "breed"in a loose sense of the word as other"breeds"added to better the dog ? Should all be healthy no problems as they use stud dogs that can do the job on similar bitches. tell that to a chap in our village who had his dog PTS with severe HD & other conditions. The breed ? a foxhound  Dead at 5 months of age so severely displasic that it had no hips at all, the pup was going to be the foundation of his drag hounds, but apart from being unable to walk the bitch also had seizures thought to be epilepesy. One of 16 puppies born a working bitch, most of the puppies also have dysplasia & 13 out the 16 have been PTS. Foxhounds are not bred to standard & have no closed stud book so shouldn't they be perfectly healthy

A patterdale terrier belonging to the local pub landlord has seizures & also has slipping patellas but the parents were & do work & were from a line noted for it's working ability(patterdales are a mix of various terrier breeds of course)Shouldn't  this dog also be perfectly healthy Patterdales have no closed stud book

My old X breed the result of generations "surivival of the fittest"stud on the block breeding had HD, leg malformations & retinal folds definitely no closed book breedong so why was't she perfectly heatlhy ????

I'm sorry suzieque but that is complete rubbish. Do you mean to tell me that I would be better breeding my working Labrador bitch to a pet dog rather than a dog with proven working lines? Do you think that the pet dog down the street from you, which was bred by a puppy farmer with no health tests done would make a better sire than one from health tested and fully documented lines?

Dogs Today magazine has a lot to answer for I'm afraid!

Regards, John

I remember the editor when she used to breed beardies from very tight line breeding it didn't seem to bother her at the time Funny how people change their minds isn't it

Better people than I have researched this subject John but I have read the findings from different sources (Dogs Today is only one). 

Leading biologists, scientists and genetic experts have proved that the closed stud book breeding programmes are damming for our pure-bred dogs. 

We may not like it but, reducing the gene pool it a sure fire way a ruining a breed.

I have to assume that you are talking about crossbreeds because I cannot believe you are entertaining the thoughts of breeding from poor specimens of a pedigree breed.

The usual argument used for cross breeding is "Hybrid Vigour" so let's look at it for a moment.

HV depends on the gene for a particular hereditary problem occurring at a different point in the genome on the two breeds in question.

If you accept this as true then HV can only last for one generation because after this point the defective gene COULD be present at both points in the resultant puppy's genome making even more likely that there will be a match of at least one, possibly both in the sire and dam of the next litter! Of course, this is only recessive gene problems. Dominant gene problems don't even need the problem to be on both sides so a dominant gene problem could be carried even at the first cross!

Looking at hip problems. How many dogs do you know with bad hip scores who do NOT exhibit the problem? Dogs are a very stoic specie and often show no pain even with quite bad hips. What of the cross breed which perforce is not scored? It could also have bad hips! Only the few which actually SHOW the bad hips would ever be known about. The tip of the iceberg!

As co organiser of eye testing sessions I am in a position to categorically assure you that we get quite a few crosses and mongrels referred to us who have hereditary eye problems! Again, because most or these people never test we only see the tip of the iceberg.

Another oft used argument is temperament. Highly strung pedigree dogs. It is a fact that the guide dogs for the blind often use Golden X Labradors. They have been proved to make very good guide dogs. It has also been proved that the advantages ONLY apply too first crosses, second crosses just do not work!

I will accept that "Chasing Champions" is not always to the benifit of a breed. How often have we said on there that you need to know your breed and your line in order to be able to select the best sire FOR YOUR BITCH. Just picking the flavour of the month is not the way to pick anything other than perhaps an icecream!

Regards, John

>Using the 'best' specimens that consistently win does NOT promote the betterment of the dog is promotes the worse.

How can only breeding from the best animals be bad for the breed? The best animals are of course the healthy ones who are capable of carrying out the task for which the breed was designed - in an ideal world these would of course be the only ones that existed, and everyone's dog would be suitable, but we're not in an ideal world.

JG

There is not a quick answer that can be written on this board.  I don't about anyone else who has studied the subject but Genetics is very complex.  I have attempted to come to grips with it several times over the years and abandoned it more than once.  However, you only have to look at what happened in our artistocracy a few hundred years back to see what happens when 'closed breeding programmes' occur - madness was just one side effect - there were many other physical implications of interbreeding. 

Limited gene pools for each breed of dog is now common as any offspring not conforming to breed specs are discontinued from breeding programmes.  Interbreeding is now rife.  Pure-breds are NOT the healthy animals they should be - deafeness in Dallies is common, HD is spreading amongst more breeds than ever before, so are eye conditions, epilepsy, etc etc. 

These are not my personal opinions but scientific facts based on scientific evidence resulting from in-depth research by people who do know what they are talking about.

>deafeness in Dallies is common,

80% of those tested have completely normal hearing, and as more breeders eliminate the carriers from the gene pool, the numbers are improving.

>so are eye conditions, epilepsy, etc etc. 

These conditions are found in crossbreeds and mongrels as well. So these also should be removed from the gene pool. It is by allowing dogs with faulty genes to reproduce them that problems become more widespread. If two animals which are genetically clear of a problem are mated together, then 100% of their offspring will be clear as well. So it can be argued that limiting the gene pool can actually eradicate problems, not create them.

>However, you only have to look at what happened in our artistocracy a few hundred years back to see what happens when 'closed breeding programmes' occur - madness was just one side effect - there were many other physical implications of interbreeding. 

'Side effects' can only occur if the genes for it are there, or are introduced into a line from 'outside'.

Side effects don't only occur if they are there already.  Quite often side effects occur indirectly and because another trait has been selected for.  It is called pre-adaptation. 

Neither can you avoid emergence of recessive genes over dominant ones in close breeding.  The trait may not be seen in the parent but it is still there and surfaces where not intended by the breeder.  Of course faults occur in mongrels and cross breeds as in anything else but mutation and defects occur naturally and less frequently than in artificial selection simply because natural selection ensures that only the fittest survive.  If only the fittest survive then the  genes within the fittest get to survive within the off-spring etc etc.  Artificial selection means that the genes selected for get to survive and that's not always what is best for the breed. 

>If only the fittest survive then the  genes within the fittest get to survive within the off-spring etc etc. 

Exactly my point! This is why only those who are fit for the purpose should be bred from. Those with faulty genes (as demonstrated when recessive conditions are 'doubled up' and the condition manifests itself) should be removed from the gene pool. Which is why only about 10% of pedigree dogs (and quite possibly fewer crosses, but very few people bother to do any testing of these so the figures aren't available) are suitable for breeding.

You need to know not only your bitch, but her siblings, parents, grandparents etc, and any conditions they may have shown. Then you need to go through the dog's pedigree in the same way. If problems have occurred on both sides, then that potential stud is discarded and another one selected.

But knowing the parents does not mean that you know all the genes the parents are carrying.  Some recessive genes can only be identified by DNA testing which is not available on mass as a screening process for breeding stock.  These carriers do not need to be mated with another carrier to emerge they may not appear in one sex (female) but do appear in another (male).

Breeding dogs for showing is what sparked this debate in the first place and this is the main area of contention IMO.  Breeders do not breed for the health and welfare of the dog they breed to reach the standard laid down for the breed.  The focus is incorrectly placed and in selecting for one trait they 'overlook' the enormity of the emergence of another.

It may well be that 80% of Dallies are not deaf but how many of that 80% will be discarded from breeding programmes because they don't conform to standard?  You will already have a reduced gene pool because of deafness, then a further reduced gene pool for none conformation so out of the remainder you are going to breed and get emergence of recessive genes, mutations and deleterious effect from carriers.  Result - other weaknesses and deformities in the breed. 

Of course, the unfortunate thing for Dallies (and bullies and other white dogs)  is that selecting for the predominant white coat with black markings is what produces deafness in the first place! Quite ironic but no-one would have selected FOR (or AGAINST) deafness in a breed - they selected for something else - so deafness is an unintended side effect which is what I said in my earlier post.   When interfering artificially in producing/maintaining breeds within a species you very often get what you didn't bargain for and we only have to look at what has happened in our pure-bred dogs to realise that ill-health and deformities are more prevalent in recent years than they used to be.  Breeding to meet a standard will not produce the fittest it will produce a dog that meets a standard and any unintended 'problems' will then take years to unpick - who suffers in the meantime - our dogs and why? because winning the ribbon at crufts is the driving force.

I do not believe for one minute that the biologists and geneticists that have spent years studying these issues have any axe to grind in revealing the results of their research and knowledge.

 

>But knowing the parents does not mean that you know all the genes the parents are carrying.

Which is why I said you need to research the siblings, grandparents and great-grandparents too.

>we only have to look at what has happened in our pure-bred dogs to realise that ill-health and deformities are more prevalent in recent years than they used to be. 

I personally don't believe that is true. I believe the only reason we see more of these problems is that the sufferers are treated and not culled.

How can you eradicate deafness in Dallies though JG?  Knowing their parents lineage is useless because the deafness is tied in with the pigment which gives the 'colour' white, which then goes on to destroy the hair cells within the ear which in turn carry the air waves to the sound receptors.  If hair cells are destroyed the sound can't be transmitted resulting in deafness.

White is not only the dominant colour in Dallies (as in black is secondary) it is also that the gene for the colour white is a dominant gene in the breed - it wouldn't be a Dallie if it wasn't white.  So deafness is not related to a 'recessive' gene. The gene for the colour white is in every Dallie so every Dallie is at risk of deafness.  Even eliminating the 20% of dogs that are known to be deaf is no 'cure' for the problem.    The problem of deafness could be eliminated by having Dallies that have no white colour on them but according to the breed standard this would no longer be a Dallie.  Quite a dilema.  So is the only answer, as you suggest,  to cull every Dallie and start again OR change breed standards, open up the gene pool and start breeding for healthy dogs  rather than breeding to meet a show standard?

I'm afraid you need to do a bit more research about deafness, suzique. Hearing receptor cells are linked with pigmentation cells, but dals with almost no pigment have had normal hearing, and those which are very heavily marked have been bilaterally deaf. Visually it is unpredictable. It is not a simple recessive gene, but there are lines where every single puppy over the past 5 generations has had bilateral hearing. Many of these have also been successfully shown, so are both healthy in their hearing status and conform to the show standard (which is one that calls for structural moderation, and the ability of the dog to trot for many miles.)

When the deafness gene has been isolated we stand more chance of eradicating it (at least among breeders who care). The important factor is to breed healthy animals. This is not done by mating just any two animals together.

The gene which causes the pigmentation in white has been shown to be linked without question to deafness as in the research in USA where coloured bullies have approx 2% chance of deafness but white bullies have 19.9% - quite a big indication. 

And yes, deafness does occur without white pigmentation as in Dobies who can also have an unusually high %age of deafness without the colour white.  Again research proved that hair cell destruction was at the root of the problem but the gene that is causing the destruction has not been identified.

There is no getting away from the fact that white dogs/dogs with high %age of white markings/merles/piebald/blue eyed dogs  etc are high on the risk of deafness and not breeding from known lines will not eliminate it if it is in the dominant colour of the breed.

I don't quite understand how 'opening the gene pool' and admitting new problems is going to help?

I said at the beginning that this is too complex a subject to be debated in depth on a public board but the research and evidence IS out there.  It makes for very interesting if sometimes very 'dry' reading!!

And lets not forget that despite our different approach to the subject our overriding interest is the same - the well-being of our dogs.

<<because natural selection ensures that only the fittest survive>>

This may have been true in the wild but nothing could be further from the truth in a pet dog. It is subject to exactly the same vet care as a pedigree dog so would survive exactly the same as a sickly pedigree dog would.

Regards, John

Slightly off topic, but IMO, I would NOT like Breeds like the Plummer Terrier and Patterdale to be recognised for different reasons.  I do not see the point of developing a breed to do a job, i.e the Plummer Terrier doing Ratting, when we have many proven old breeds doing the job perfectly adequately.  Patterdales, a much older breed are exceptional ratters and Fox dogs, like the breed I have, Border terriers, but the Patterdale remains unspoilt to a large degree.  Whilst we are lucky that the Border remains largely unaltered, there are umpteen that do NOT fulfill the required breed characteristics and temperament which is highlt disappointing.  Leave the Patterdale alone, let it be bred by working folk who are interested in preserving the breed's heritage and working foundations, no being produced for a pet market!
Dawn.

Just as the Rev John Russell, being dis-satisfied with the ratters around at that time and set about breeding his own so the same with Dr David Plummer. I personally think he made a mistake working with both Lucas and Plummer terriers at the same time and think he would possibly have been better occupied centering his efforts on one breed rather than two. But that is really just my aside.

I remember reading somewhere that Dr Plummer did not want his breed to become recognised because he reared that once this happened the breed would enter the show ring and this would then become the aim! A matter of the tail wagging the dog. Sorry to say, rather like has happened in Labradors.

Regards, John

Hi John.
From what I gather John, he wasn't against registration at all.  Especially when the breed has had "pedigrees" as such for a long time, what other intentions could there be?  The breed clubs for this breed (Plummer) seem hell bent on registration. I just do not see the need for a breed such as this, I could understand all those years ago with Rev Russell, but not now with the breeds that already exist.

The breed also has "club" shows, so really because many do say their working abilities are limited, showing could only be the real purpose.  Just my opinion, and going back to the original posters breed, I would hate Patterdales to go the same way as the Labrador, would be a big shame.
Dawn.

p.s  Just met my neighbours new Lab pup, real sweetie He does a lot of shooting and is a gunsmith, "Barley" will no doubt fill his breeds original function in time!

I have to disagree with you Dawn. For Dr Plummer to attempt to breed without documenting in the greatest possible detail would result in the breed failing. One of his aims, as it should be in the founding of any breed was health and it was only as a result of the documentation that he would have any idea where any problems came from. There was an article about him in Shooting Times a few weeks ago.

Talking about Labrador puppies, I've started looking at pedigrees again so it must be getting near "That Time" again. I happen to know that there is a plan to mate the dog I always intended to use on Anna to a bitch I hold in high regard. Maybe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A lot of water to pass under the bridge yet though.

Best wishes, John

We will agree to disagree John! :D
Plummer did far too much meddling with dogs for me to like anything he did, to me it would be like having a Plummer Retriever that did the same job as the lab, but was a different colour and had a different head shape, totally pointless.

Anyway, I hope "that time" comes soon for you John, if plans are in the pipeline, it can't be that long!
Dawn.

<<I hope "that time" comes soon for you John>>

It all depends on so many things falling into place Dawn. As things are at the moment there is no chance but things might not stay that way and after loosing Kate some 3 years ago I think just maybe I can see light at the end of the tunnel. One thing is certain, I will not be getting another puppy until such times as I'm in a position to look after it. Fingers crossed!

Best wishes, John

Crossing them here too.
Dawn.

Thanks Dawn, any help appreciated! :)

<Research done over several years has proved that 'closed stud book' breeding that exaggerates certain physical conformation results in physically impaired dogs that can't eat, breathe, walk or even breed properly.  It also promotes such inherited weaknesses or deformities as hip, back, eye, skin  and heart problems.>

What absolute rubbish!

The breed in which I have an interest obviously has inherited defects, as do all animals. However, careful breeding over many generations has reduced the incidence to the point where some eye problems are so rare as to be almost eliminated, hip dysplasia is on the downward trend and general health is okay.

It is an insult to the caring breeders who have more than a little concern over the breed that they spend their lives propagating, to suggest that they are not mindful of their health.

There are no more genetic diseases in these dogs than in the average mongrel, it is just that pedigree dogs are tested for certain conditions and mongrels are not, so they appear to be in more robust health!.

<Using the 'best' specimens that consistently win does NOT promote the betterment of the dog is promotes the worse.  What it does do is provide income for the breeder of the line as the demand for his/her pups increases.>

You are very naive.

If breeding dogs was producing worse and worse specimens, do you really think that it would be good for a breeder's reputation?

If our puppies were becoming unhealthier with each generation, do you not think that we would be aware and taking measures to correct the problems?

Bad health would result in a LACK of demand, not in an increase! 

<The lastest reference is Bruce Fogel's piece in the latest issue of Dogs Today but R Coppinger and J J Bray have done their own research and published results in the last 4 years which supports the need to do away with the 'closed stud book' artificial selection type breeding. >

You obviously have not bred many litters but have read many articles!

I personally would not wipe my a**e on 'Dogs Today', the Editor has a personal vendetta against pedigree dogs and the articles in this magazine over the years have caused great controversy due to the inaccuracies that are published.

ALL pedigree dog breeding is "artificial selection type breeding", do you suggest that we just randomly breed any dogs that take our fancy, no matter what breed they are?

This would certainly be the end of pedigree dogs but would not be the end of genetic disease!

Dogs have only a fraction of the genetic diseases that human beings suffer from, but no-one is suggesting that we prohibit reproduction without full genetic testing............well not since Adolf Hitler anyway.

As a matter of interest, what breed of dog do you have and what has turned you so vehemently against pedigree dog breeders?

snomaes

"The Patterdale is not a breed recognized by the American Kennel Club.  What registry in America are you referring to?  There are one or two "rare breed" registries which hold their own shows.

Stacey "

Hi Stacey, sorry taken so long to reply, didnt notice your post I made a little whoopsie, I actually meant the United Kennel Club, not the American one  ;)

Dawn,

As for the Patterdale debate. I agree with your sentiments, but what about the ammount of people that already have these wonderful dogs as pets? The majority of other working breeds are recognised, the Patterdale is an older breed than some of the terriers, yet they're recognised by the KC and the Patterdale is not. Its ok for people to say that they do not want the breed to be with the KC, but having one with which you would like to do alot of things with but being unable to, is a bit fustrating at times. Do you get where im coming from?

Regards

Ben :)

There is no reason why not being recognised by the KC should stop you doing anything bar showing and, if you are a gundog, field trails etc.

You can have your dog registered on the obedience/working trial register to enable you to compete in obedience, working trials, agility, flyball etc here in the UK

Hi Ben.
The Patterdale has ALWAYS been bred primarilly for working, it is a Terrier that knows its job, and any KC recognition will only result the destruction of a breed who's working instincts will be bred out in favour of looks.  Some of the Patterdales I board have dreadful temperaments, windy, shy, nervous aggressive etc... and yes, some of those have been bred from because they think they are "cool" to look at.  I think everybody should have the dog they want Ben, but in many cases the KC recognising a breed has led to it total destruction.  At present the Border Terrier still retains much of its working ability, but there are plenty that do not.  Nobody has to work their dogs, but to be honest Ben, a Patterdale that is happy being a fireside family pet, is a Patterdale with a VERY untypical temperament for that breed, and those are the ones that will be bred from if the KC recognises them, because the true tempered ones are being worked!
Dawn.

Hi Gonzo,

Thanks.  I used to volunteer as a ring steward when I lived in the U.S..  Once we were asked by the UKC to steward at their "rare breeds" show - it was really a fantastic experience and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing breeds that were new to me. 

Stacey

So  suzieque why did my Cross breed, who was not a first generation Cross but a mongrel the result of years of the dominant dog on the block breeding with any bitch around that was in season, had severe HD & eye sight problems ? Surely these conditions would have been bred out ?
By the time I got her she had had several litters of puppies to spread her genetic disorders to.

You sound very much like PETA who advocate NO pet animals & all dogs to revert to the wild breeding indiscrimately. A friend who had her dogs "freed"at a dog show in the US by PETA found their messages scrawled all over her motorhome about breeding sickly disabled dogs-very odd as my friend has ISDS registered BC's that she shows & does agility etc with as well as working sheep etc on her ranch. Her dogs are all health screened & any conditions such as CEA, HD that are found mean they will not be bred from. Fortunately for her the dogs did not run away like her neighbours dogs that were taken to a busy highway & killed in the road traffic.

They also have a lot of "evidence"on the net of very dubious origins.

There are wild cattle on an estate in the UK that has had no imported blood for 100's of years, the gene pool therefore being very small. Yet these very hardy cattle survive without pampering & are extremely fit & healthy animals So how can that be ? if what you allege is true Suggest you lookhere & then explain it too me