to ChinaBlue,

oh dear, can't say I'm overly impressed with his comments :(

I'm very much of the same view as Brainless here

>So I think it is very unfair to suggest that breeders who really care about a breed are not breeding with the whole animal in mind

IMO you either care or you don't and are either responsible or not!  To be deserving of the name a breeder should always be looking at and working with the info they have researched and investigated for years and ensuring the animals they are actually breeding from, however closely or not they are related, are going to ensure good health, character and breed type - not compromising on any of them.  If there's a need to compromise then personally I'd question if there's a need to breed in the first place.

regards, Teri

I do get what your saying but im afraid the programmes on TV make out it is simple and we all know it isnt. Yes not all trainers are great but common sense tells you when a trainer is good or not.
You say about clicker based training but that is something where timing is crucial - how would that be taught over the tele?!!!!

> Yes not all trainers are great but common sense tells you when a trainer is good or not.

Not necessarily - the good folks who go along to a training class with their pup have possibly never owned a dog before or haven't needed to train one for 10+ years.  They may neither know at all nor recollect how to train a dog and could easily have their *common sense* tell them that the trainer must be a pro and experienced simply because they run a class!

> You say about clicker based training but that is something where timing is crucial - how would that be taught over the tele?!!!!

That's where I learned it :-D :-D :-D  From a one off AFAIK programme with (I think) Mary Rae which was screened a number of years ago :)  She demonstrated with her own and then several pet dogs how to 'mould' certain behaviours from simple sits and downs to send aways/collect cloths.  I'd heard of it before then but never tried it and didn't appreciate just how easy it can be - plus it's FUN for the owner as well as the dog!

The point is any form of reward based training could be screened and serve better than just ONE attendance at a badly run training class/session.  The programmes on TV, certainly CM's, IMO demonstrate exceptionally rough, cruel and hands on methods to train dogs with existing problems, some of which are real 'sledge hammer to crack a nut' reactions.  It is THIS type of training which ought neither be screened nor demonstrated live at classes.

Oh come on ! when you get a puppy training starts right away that very night of course it neednt take the place of training classes but many dogs are well behaved and know basic commands without having been to a training class ...It would be  lovely to see the problems that the average man or woman in the street dealt with in an entertaining and educational fashion  ....

JimJams

> Oh come on !

who are you replying to?

> It would be lovely to see the problems that the average man or woman in the street dealt with in an entertaining and educational fashion ....

Sorry, I don't understand that comment.....

Could you elaborate :)

I was just trying to point out that to the average person i would recommend training classes.
I dont think we should underestimate the importance of a good trainer and having that hands on feel, as opposed to copying off the tv.

Couldn't agree more Teri. Finding training classes that aren't based in the dark ages are few and far between, and even changing people's views from the Barbara Woodhouse days is incredibly difficult. Even some of those that advocate "kind, positive" methods seem to revert to heavy-handed at times. 

<I'd like to see fun fuelled programming whereby basic commands and easy tricks were taught using (as example) clickers and treats :-)  This could prove to be light entertainment (essential for viewing figures!) and a major breakthrough in educating the dog owning public at large on how simple and fun it can be to give their pet acceptable social skills.>

Definitely the way to go!

Freds Mum

The trouble is the very people that need training are the ones that DON'T attend classes. If a positive approach TV programme is screened those very people may well try the "kind" methods at home rather than following, for example, the Cesar Milan approach.

Hi Brainless

No I agree, it is a simplistic view, but would be a great first step. In fact, it seems that you are there already having worked it out yourself &#61514; He has more or less quoted from an article that he wrote back in 1990 (yes 18 years ago) titled Eugenics or Dysgenics.

I think that problems that the breeds are suffering broadly fall into three 'camps' which also to some degree overlap

1) The deliberate breeding of body and head shape that cause various problems, as in the case of Cavs, Pugs and Bulldogs etc
2) Health problems caused by inheritance (and those that are polygenic too) Such as Haemophilia, (think Syringiomyelia may fall into this category as well as the first category for Cavs as well, as I understand the cause to be head shape and it is also inherited) Hip Dysplasia, CEA, PRA etc etc
3) Unknown mode of transmission, ie predisposition to bone cancer, tumours, skin diseases etc

The solution to 1) to use his phrase is a 'no-brainer' and is totally within our power to change. This however depends on the Kennel Club, Breeders and Judges taking the bull by the horns and actually taking action. Again, these are all interlinked. If Judges were compelled to judge to the breed standard and any that did not were banned from judging, we may begin to make headway. That GSD would never even have been placed if that had been the case. Some breed standards would clearly need to be reviewed, say in the case of the Pekes, Pugs, Bulldogs etc to gradually bring the exaggerated characteristics back to a level where health was maintained. It is remarkable how quickly new characteristics can begin to show, in just a few generations. Unfortunately this is how we have managed to do so much damage so quickly too.

Considering Ian Dunbar's statement, purely inherited conditions (not polygenic) (2) and predisposition to certain diseases (3) would certainly improve if not be completely eradicated if stud dogs only over the age of 7 were used for breeding. One of the problems I would foresee with this is that some stud dogs are less prolific at an older age, and so fewer puppies may be conceived. A good thing in my book, but not for those looking to make lots of money, and let us not deceive ourselves, for many, many breeders, this is the most important aspect.
It would be interesting to see whether it had an effect on the polygenic diseases, such as Hip Dysplasia too, since using good hip scored parents has had little effect. It is 3 years now since the KC collected DNA to see whether there were any genetic markers for HD, and to date I have not heard of any results.

I would just like to re-post Spenders link here as to how a GSD should move
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIFpKL0qRQ0
.......does that not make your heart swell?

Surely we should aspire to this level of function and health in all breeds - starting right now.
K

 

Teri

Didn't say I necessarily agreed with them, other poster asked what he had said. Although having considered his comments since I can see a certain amount of value in what he says. Has to be an improvement over what breeders have achieved thus far with all the

> info they have researched and investigated for years and ensuring the animals they are actually breeding from, however closely or not they are related, are going to ensure good health, character and breed type.

It hasn't worked though has it? I agree with you that there should not be any level of compromise, but to date breeding has continually and deliberately compromised the health and fitness of certain breeds. In this situation his compromise seems far less damaging, which is I think what he is trying to say. It is better read in full in his article of 18 years ago 'Eugenics or Dysgenics?'

Hi ChinaBlue,

I didn't actually intend for my post to seem as though I thought you were agreeing with him - merely replied to and referenced you as you posted the info on his statement :)

Re my own comment earlier comment which you've quoted "info they have researched and investigated for years and ensuring the animals they are actually breeding from, however closely or not they are related, are going to ensure good health, character and breed type". you state

> It hasn't worked though has it?

It most certainly has worked and exceptionally well in my breed and I'm confident this will be the case in a great many others too :)

>I agree with you that there should not be any level of compromise, but to date breeding has continually and deliberately compromised the health and fitness of certain breeds

I can't agree that it has deliberately compromised the health and fitness of certain breed but that in certain breeds only, numbering a very few, do agree that a lot of damage has been done to the health and fitness of animals whose custodians have seriously let them down to follow fashion and winning trends :( 

IMO anything which breeders have caused to change some breeds so drastically as to compromise their ability to breath, walk, whelp and basically live a natural normal healthy and long life is to their shame :(  I also think it is something which the KC should have ensured breeders and judges addressed long ago because as you rightly state in only a very few generations things can do disasterously wrong.

regards, Teri