http://www.dogworld.co.uk/News/48-reduced-breeds
Worrying stuff!  Pedigree's beware!

I think their conclusions are very reasonable myself.

I am just concerned where it says that the breeding of some breeds can't be justified.  Fair enough with the certification of health checks etc.  I do believe that breeders and breed clubs should be the guardians of the breeds, there are too many unscrupulous people out there claiming to be "breeders".  Surely making the title of "breeder" respected will automatically reduce the unscrupulous puppy farmers and BYB?  I guess what I am trying to say is, where will it stop?  How far are welfare agencies willing to go?  I don't know, maybe I just make things out to be worse than they are.

>Surely making the title of "breeder" respected will automatically reduce the unscrupulous puppy farmers and BYB

I don't think defeating puppy farmers is the sole aim for responsible breeders.  To make the title "breeder" respectable the other major objective has to be that pedigree dogs are as fit and healthy as they possibly can be and this working groups conclusions seems very reasonable in that direction to me.

I personally wouldn't buy untested, unhealthy stock, so I find it quite easy (shameful I know only seeing part of the argument) to overlook the bits I take for granted.  So for that I do apologise.   I do see where you are coming from.

IMO the most worrying element of these discussions and potential proposals is that if 'they' decide that some breeds should no longer be perpetuated what will be the true cost to those breeds? 

I don't believe for a moment they will become 'extinct' - more difficult and so expensive to attain? perhaps   Even less healthy? definitely!

(1) they will be available world wide as what other countries (certainly not all of them!) are going to join forces with the UK on the banning of breeds on appearance alone?
(2) those most closely associated with the breeds will very possibly register their stock elsewhere and set up a separate 'show' or activity system
(3) puppy farmers and BYB will have a field day - only too happy to meet the supply of a breed in demand - take CKCS, pugs, pekes and bulldogs - these breeds have a VERY large following with the general public, the Cavalier in particular being a choice of many elderly folks as a life time companion.  They will be mass produced without any regard to health by the greedy were such a situation to come about.  The bulldog already fetches prices in excess of £2k for a pet - what price the 'endangered' breed!  The mind boggles at how much they will change hands for.
(4) The UK Government and legal system couldn't - and still can't - prevent the existence of pittbulls, allegedly neutered and died out since banned from importation, breeding, etc nearly 20 years ago.  No shortage of them around - in open view, not just the underground dog fighting brigade.

If they can't stop the pitbull, what hope getting public support for a sweet natured, fluffy, cute, particularly loving lap dog or similar, regarded globally as an ideal pet for families and those in their vintage years ....

Not a lot!

I got the impression from that report that the Cavalier would be more of a candidate for outcrossing rather than extinquishing as a registered breed all together.  I certainly think the aims are good and if some breeds by the very nature of their construction cannot, or more possibly, will not be altered to meet reasonable welfare expectations then really can any decent registry maintain them in this day and age?
It may be that they will then continue unregistered but a couple of the breeds indicated are already the darling of unethical breeders but if the KC registry is a more robust indication of healthy dogs the work of promoting that fact can move forward with confidence and hopefully will be an adjunt to all this.

I used the CKCS as an example - 'they' are throwing the number of around '20 breeds' into the pot.  This of course may end up being none, 1, 5, 10,20 or 40 - that's conjecture at the moment obviously.

I don't wish to offend anyone by mentioning too many breeds which may be assessed in similar fashion other than those specifically mentioned on the documentary, by the KC since and on the above link.

IMO outcrossing to another breed would be a better option, say once and then have to breed a minimum of 3 generations pure - if this helped towards remedying severe physical problems of any nature affecting a breed's general health and wellbeing then so be it.  But then that's easy for me to say as I don't have a breed which is likey to be included in this type of scheme.  Even were it required in my breed, apart from the fact that we have 4 varieties with which we could have IV breeding RE-INSTATED  (the KC in it's narrow-minded, ignorant and backward thinking attitudes ruled that option out - how dumb, eh!) would mean that we were better able to move on and retain type than many other breeds.

> can any decent registry maintain them in this day and age

who said anything about decent?  That may well be the ideal in pedigree dogdom but the facts speak for themselves - decency doesn't come into it for those who mass produce pups for money, no care of the animals' future health or the duped owners potential vet fees, behaviourists or often enforced euthanasia when their pet is simply impossible to keep for health or temperament grounds.

In any event, those who love and hold dear their breeds will naturally be devastated and enraged at the thought that any body, whether by KC involvement or not, would contemplate the suggestion their beloved breed should die out. 

I certainly wouldn't allow it to happen to my breed - I'd happily move elsewhere where they were welcome and rigorously campaign against this working party and anyone supporting it :)

I only outcross ckcs from health tested stud dogs, but i agree what has been said.
If show breeders do outcrossing maybe there will be healther dogs all round.
In there chosen breed

> IMO outcrossing to another breed would be a better option

This is what the report is suggesting.

> who said anything about decent?  That may well be the ideal in pedigree dogdom but the facts speak for themselves - decency doesn't come into it for those who mass produce pups for money, no care of the animals' future health or the duped owners potential vet fees, behaviourists or often enforced euthanasia when their pet is simply impossible to keep for health or temperament grounds.

I think the groups findings are designed to work against all that isn't it?

>In any event, those who love and hold dear their breeds will naturally be devastated and enraged at the thought that any body, whether by KC involvement or not, would contemplate the suggestion their beloved breed should die out. 

I have yet to read the whole report but so far this does not seem such extemist stuff and something most breeds can reasonable work towards. 

I believe they are referring to outcrosses to other breeds, Minnie mouses.  Show breeders do outcross to other lines but the suggestion is if you breed from successfully health tested stock, even because you only breed from successfully tested stock you are narrowing your gene pool and delivering other potential problems.

The pet passport scheme has opened so many doors for breeders.  Unfortunately it is still expensive, on top of an already expensive hobby.

If you have faith in this procedure then I'm pleased for you :)  I doubt such faith will be afforded to this group or it's notions by everyone who feels passionately about the continuation of their own breed but time will tell.  

Not outcrossing lines MM - using different breeds entirely to widen the gene pools and also help remedy physical traits regarded as undesirable in the pursuit of breeding healthier dogs.

> everyone who feels passionately about the continuation of their own breed

Actually that would include me :-)  We may see things differently Teri but please don't suggest anything like that.

I think you misunderstood me Isabel - I wasn't suggesting that you didn't feel passionately about your own breed/s merely that IMO not everyone will be positive because some breeds are more likely to be affected than others.

For eg the ones I've mentioned and any breeds with excessively long backs, short or long necks, short and/or bowed legs, creases/folds in the skin, prominent eyes, flat faces, exaggerrated angulation or lack of angulation

If I was to be looking at this solely from the POV of my own breed, I wouldn't care at all what was happening as the likeliehood of this or any proposal having a serious impact on my breed is slim to nil - but as it happens I don't just care about my own breed, I care about the bigger picture. 

Actually that would include me   We may see things differently Teri but please don't suggest anything like that.

Teri said, "I doubt such faith will be afforded to this group or it's notions by everyone who feels passionately about the continuation of their own breed but time will tell"

That is EXACTLY what Teri said.  Everyone including you. 

Teri for what it is worth I totally agree with you that there is cause for concern.  What we are seeing is "Knee jerk" reactions. Hopefully once this dust " actually" settles there will be more indepth thought out ideas.

The pet passport use if made more affordable, also AI use made more easily could easily help.

>also IV use made more easily could easily help.

Do you mean AI? I think the KC's rules on that are very good. The last thing we want is for that to become routine.

Yes sorry AI..    ( I managed to change it :-) )    The KC rules are NOT very good in my opinion. The conditions are not that easy or suitable for purely bringing in new blood from outside the UK ro help the Gene pools of those who need it..

The last thing we want is for that to become routine. who said anything about routine.  a lot of people seem to have a problem finding middle grounds to things.  Not everything has to be opposites of extremes in the world JG.  (at times on here it certainly does with some though :-D )

The pet passport scheme has opened so many doors for breeders.  Unfortunately it is still expensive, on top of an already expensive hobby.

Plus it doesn't always follow that you WILL find new blood abroad in rarer breeds -or health tested dogs.  Or good temperament.

Thanks Blue - I thought what I'd written was clear but obviously not as clear as I'd hoped :)

The trouble as I see it now is that almost everything is being done on a knee jerk reaction.  It's one thing to push ahead with plans which were in place or being developed and also to press breeders and breed clubs hard on adhering to standards while keeping health as a priority but some of the other things going on now will not IMO improve the lot of the dogs themselves :(

I agree IV being made more available could help - not for UK studs on UK bitches but for those not wishing to take their bitch overseas, especially to say the US or Australia.  As the current rules stand, a bitch must have at least one natural mating before IV is considered and I can see the point in that it's important to ensure a bitch CAN be mated naturally - and stud too - BUT, things being how they are now, it may be that the KC will see fit to allow special applications for first time litters through AI in breeds where the gene pools are seriously compromised ..... I wouldn't like to see it carte blanch but that seems to me a reasonable possibility if overseen by those most knowledgeable in a breed - not a bunch of suits being pontificated to by a celebrity vet come mechanic at a table in Downing St however LOL.

Ah I see, appologies. :-)  I think you are right some breeds will be far more affected. I am also a breed club member, and hope to return to owning, a breed of more extremes than my cockers with some of the issues that this group would certainly have concerns for, but so do I, so I would welcome any suggestions they are able to make myself.

> Plus it doesn't always follow that you WILL find new blood abroad in rarer breeds -or health tested dogs.  Or good temperament

Sadly very true Marianne as we know all too well.  Funny how those who know the real intimate details of breeds are the least likely to have a say in things, unless of course the KC has changed VERY radically in recent times and applied forethought to their decisions .....

> Teri for what it is worth I totally agree with you that there is cause for concern.  What we are seeing is "Knee jerk" reactions. Hopefully once this dust " actually" settles there will be more indepth thought out ideas.

Bingo...nail on head so to speak.

This was the review of a workshop which was attended by scientists who have spent much time and resources on establishing a potential route out of problems. This consultative document will include many peoples opinions but I'm sure will take into consideration that we are in the middle of a solution - in the creation of Estimated Breeding Values by the esteemed AHT. This will not be dismissed.

As to Teri's point in the governments total lack of implementing a Law regarding Pitbull registration/breeding/muzzling..I totally agree.. they wont be able enforce breeding practices on the ground.
I did warn recently of this possible anouncement (gleened from someone on the actual workshop panel).
When the government finds the time, between saving the economy, reducing knife crime and the reduction of child porn, I'm sure it will put it on a low simmer. 
Just my humble, but fairly well-informed, opinion of course

> The trouble as I see it now is that almost everything is being done on a knee jerk reaction. 

I would hope not either but no sign of that just yet.  This is a working group report and, it seems to me, whether you agree with their findings or not :-), that is just the sort of action that is required.  An exploration of the issues and suggestions before any action is undertaken.  I hope there will be a lot more of this and discussion before any question of legislation.

> When the government finds the time, between saving the economy, reducing knife crime and the reduction of child porn, I'm sure it will put it on a low simmer

Thankfully I'm sure it will too :)  I think the greater concern at the moment is that our KC seems to be bouncing around like a headless chicken and trying desperately to be seen to DO something - ANYTHING.  That's IMO what is most likely to cause the greatest problems.

Less speed more haste ....

The pet passport scheme has opened so many doors for breeders.  Unfortunately it is still expensive, on top of an already expensive hobby.

Plus it doesn't always follow that you WILL find new blood abroad in rarer breeds -or health tested dogs.  Or good temperament.

Yes I agree with that.  I briefly thought about bringing over a dog from abroad, due to the minimal bloodlines in my chosen breed here, but stopped when I realised I don't actually know anything about the dogs abroad.  I know the bloodlines here.  I know there has to be better "out there" though.  And I am not in a position at the moment to go abroad and investigate what is on offer.  A better job with more money is required lol!  And a fair few trips to Crufts to see what has made it over here, and the World Dog Show of course.  OH would die of boredom lol.

The puppy farmers/BYB are going to have a field day it this working group advocate first crosses, more-so than they do already.

I agree IV being made more available could help - not for UK studs on UK bitches but for those not wishing to take their bitch overseas, especially to say the US or Australia.  As the current rules stand, a bitch must have at least one natural mating before IV is considered and I can see the point in that it's important to ensure a bitch CAN be mated naturally - and stud too - BUT, things being how they are now, it may be that the KC will see fit to allow special applications for first time litters through AI in breeds where the gene pools are seriously compromised .....

Exactly my point.  Don't think it should every be made easy UK to UK dogs but certainly easier for overseas matings.   With the correct guidelines I see no problem at all.

The KC definitely had a knee jerk reaction in the case of the Pekingese breed standard Isabel ..... 

While some may fall somwhere between fearful and mildly cautious of potential intervention by government backed bodies, IMO we have greater need to be wary of the KCs next move - there seems to me to be a loss of professionalism of late

> The conditions are not that easy or suitable for purely bringing in new blood from outside the UK ro help the Gene pools of those who need it..
>

Do you mean the KC conditions?  They seem like reasonable conditions to ensure healthy genes to me.  Or do you mean restrictions imposed from Government on the importation of living organisms?

> The KC definitely had a knee jerk reaction in the case of the Pekingese breed standard Isabel ..... 
>

Do you think so?  I'm not sure if I could find the link again but I recall posting the letter sent to the club some considerable time ago regarding the welfare issues.

> Do you think so?

Yes - I do :)

> Yes - I do :-)

I'll have to try to find the letter then :-D

That wont change my mind Isabel :)  Letter or not, the speed at which the changes were put in place and the fact that there was no prior deadline for a new standard to be put in place is what I have based my opinions on :)

I have, after all, lengthy experience with my own breed being dealt with in similarly inappropriate fashion by the KC - they have proved time and again they do not always make decisions based on sound judgement or which are necessarily in the interests of the breeds, their clubs or members.

>Letter or not, the speed at which the changes were put in place and the fact that there was no prior deadline for a new standard to be put in place is what I have based my opinions on

Discussions had been going on for some time.  I think, following that programme they were damned either way.  If they had not acted precipitously some would have complained as the state of this breed had obviously been of concern for some time.

> they have proved time and again they do not always make decisions based on sound judgement

Maybe not but they are what we have :-) and it is the future that is important so I feel we must judge suggestions and innovations on that basis and I don't really see anything particularly unsound in what this report, not just from the KC, has stated or suggested.

> I think the greater concern at the moment is that our KC seems to be bouncing around like a headless chicken and trying desperately to be seen to DO something - ANYTHING

But you're one of the good guys Teri and part of their economy so I'd imagine any new 'knee-jerk' actions they bring in won't shoot themselves entirely in the foot.

I think we all have to ask ourselves " what else could/should they ask us to do for the welfare of our own animals"...in all honesty I cant think of anything too terrible.

As to the consultative document re: CKCS I think that they will not dismiss all the MRI scanning/DNA research which has been frantically going on since the 'programme'.
"At that meeting, three kinds of approaches to tackling genetic welfare problems were identified :
* breeding to reduce prevalence or eliminate within the breed,
* outbreeding to reduce prevalence or eliminate,
* or ceasing to breed at all from potential carriers."
In  breeds with major problems 2 of the 3 options could and will be used to eliminate same. Time is required now that people seem finally to have accepted that there is a 'pressing' need.
It was only a matter of months ago that top names in my breed were stating 'loudly' " I will never scan my dogs".Now they're arranging mini-bus loads full !!

>As the current rules stand, a bitch must have at least one natural mating before IV is considered

No longer the case - maiden AI litters are allowed for one generation. Daughters of maiden AI litters must produce one litter naturally before AI litter registrations will be accepted.

M.