Jemima - you have done "us" - the responsible and caring breeders, who make use of the health tests available, who contribute our dogs' DNA to ongoing research, and only go ahead with matings after a great deal of research - a huge dis-service.  I really wish that you had made some effort to distinguish between ethical and non-ethical breeders, that you'd guided people towards doing some research on their chosen breed and using the breed clubs. 

And you are right - most of us who are ethical have such a good reputation within our breeds that we don't need to advertise.

Very well said ridgielover, I don't breed however myself and many others are working on collecting samples etc for testing in our breed and looking towards the future and had been long before the program.

Yes, you're right. But there's positive and negative eugenics. The burden on dog breeders is to use selective breeding to the benefit of the dog. Inbreeding within closed gene pools is a very risky strategy - and particularly when cosmetic points very often dictate the choice. As Jeff Sampson himself volunteers: "Unfortunately, the restrictive breeding patterns that have developed as part and parcel of the purebred dog scene have not been without collateral damage to all breeds. Increasingly, inherited diseases are imposing a serious disease burden on many, if not all, breeds of dog"

Jemima

Jemina - you say - correctly that Inbreeding within closed gene pools is a very risky strategy - and particularly when cosmetic points very often dictate the choice.   Should you not have enlarged on this by pointing out that this is exactly what puppy farmers do?

Or is there not enough sensationalism in this point for you?

> But there's positive and negative eugenics.

Exactly, could you not have made more of where the positives are practiced and what work was already in hand to ensure more of it.

> Let me turn this round. Do you approve of the tougher line now being taken by the KC? Would you like to see mandatory testing introduced and some limits on inbreeding... perhaps some greater awareness of the importance of genetic diversity.. some limits, maybe, on the amount of times a top-winning dog can be used.. particularly if they have not passed breed-specific health tests...  less emphasis on looks and more on health?
>

I don't think any dog should be bred from unless health tested, full stop.

Any breeder with any wit should be looking at the wider picture of the gen pool when breeding.  I know when I plan a mating I am taking into account what others are doing so that I don't breed myself into a corner, always looking at what there will be in generations ahead to continue the lines.

I see the main problem with breeding dogs is the lack of long term commitment.  The average person is in dogs for 5 years, so they never see or take into account the long term effects.

If you look at this page http://ravenstone.awardspace.com/history.html (take away the quality or lack of of photographs) you will see that some breeds with caring knowledgeable breeders (numerically small breeds have the advantage here over the over exploited popular breeds that are puppy farmers bread and butter)stay typical to the template if the breed for half a century or more.  Of course it does help that in this breed in it's native country there is no possibility of separation into show and working liens.  A show dog cannot gain a  title unless it passes hunting tests, a top hunting dog cannot gain it's hunting title unless it is also typical and capable of gaining first quality awards at shows.

Admin the breeder whose site I have given has died and it is being kept up for information and historic reference.

Also in order to preserve breeds selective breeding for traits typical of the breeds needed and the negative effects of reducing the overall canine genome in any breed require the need to weed out the recessive traits that cause Ill health, which is what is happening, and screening tests being developed.

The alternative would be to do away with breeds and end up with a homogeneous brown Spitz/shepherd type mongrel, such as seen in the various street/pariah types around the world that reproduce uncontrolled. 

We would no longer have the wide diversity we enjoy today.  One mans meat is another mans poison in regards to the kind of dogs they wish to share their lives.

Ms Harrison your program was sensationalist, your content was biased, flawed and factually incorrect.
Your Eugenics slur was both Racist and offensive to Jewish people, especially those who are pedigree dog breeders or those who lost their entire families to Hitler's Eugenecists.
I feel making that analogy will come back to haunt you.
During your "program" you stated that any KCCS diagnosed as suffering from syromengelia is immediately euthenased.
So why then did we see a KCCS allegedly in agony with this terrible affliction ?
Did it's owners wait for the cameras to come and visit ? in which case both you and them are guilty of gross cruelty, causing it unneccessary pain and suffering.
That being the case you should be prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act or was it that the dog was merely trained to roll around making a screaming noise ?
Perhaps you would like to explain !!
I do not agree with "in breeding" and in many breeds now that practice is rarely seen, however it goes on all the time with livestock and in the wild .
This is not of course to be confused with LINE BREEDING which is totally different.
Why did you not use your program to better effect ?
You could have said that many of these hereditary diseases have appeared over the last ten years or so, many of them linked to Autoimmune problems.
The reason for that is vaccination reaction and our vaccination protocols which are wrong and are causing genetic damage to our lovely dogs.
This genetic damage could corrupt a gene which controls a disease and that gene is then passed on to a percentage of it's siblings.
Oh no Ms Harrison you would not take on the veterinary profession to whom these vaccinations make up to 40% of their income, neither would you take on the drug companies.
That would be too difficult so you took the easy option and played right into the hands of the puppy farmers at the same time.
If you really cared about the health of pedigree dogs as you say you do, then why do you not make a donation of all or some of your fee received from the BBC to The Kennel Clubs Charitable Trust, which raises money to investigate genetic health problems in pedigree dogs.
Incidentally you forgot to mention it's existence in your program, why was that ?
This is just like you forgot to mention how hard the breed clubs are working raising money themselves to investigate genetic health problems.
Someone once said "you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time", I think this explains your program's content perfectly.

 
  

miked
have to agree with all you have said

That still does not make it right Ms Harrison and he didn't put that on National Television.
Maybe he didnt lose all his family to the Nazis (there are some Jews who do not come from Europe).
I would still love to see you in court for those remarks, watch this space.

If you really cared about the health of pedigree dogs as you say you do, then why do you not make a donation of all or some of your fee received from the BBC to The Kennel Clubs Charitable Trust, which raises money to investigate genetic health problems in pedigree dogs.

Great idea Mike! Come on Jemima put up some money, you must have made profitted from your programme.

This is just like you forgot to mention how hard the breed clubs are working raising money themselves to investigate genetic health problems.

Myself and many others in my breed are fund raising for a health problems in my breed and are hoping the KCCT are able to assist also.

As stated earlier in this thread the dog was put to sleep before the documentry was made , the footage was taken by its owner.

Personally I am disgusted that you think that that poor dogs obvious pain was merely a "trick" it had been trained to do.

Personally I am disgusted that you think that that poor dogs obvious pain was merely a "trick" it had been trained to do.


I don't believe that is what miked believes at all - I am sure he just wants JH to respond.  It is a bit "sensationalist" but it might get results ;-)

>Any breeder with any wit should be looking at the wider picture of the gen pool when breeding.  I know when I plan a mating I am taking into account what others are doing so that I don't breed myself into a corner, always looking at what there will be in generations ahead to continue the lines.

Couldn't agree more; and a conversation I had recently with a breeder.

An issue in our breed is the division of linage and those who will not mix and finally breed themselves into a bottleneck, which is what they have done, in what is a numerically large gene pool.  We have English line v working line v West German show line etc, etc, etc. 

It's the one breed - The German Shepherd dog breed and it might be in a better state today if there was less of the nonsense.  Thankfully, there are some of those breeders with foresight left but they are a rarity.

Correct Granitecitygirl, but JH cant reply as she is too tightly backed into that corner !

pmsl! honestly, thats your counter? seriously??

well, while admittedly this man appears to be jewish and indeed likens dog breeding to nazi views on eugenics the problem with your referencing him is he's a moron with no clue about dogs :)

for example: "Westminster's judges don't much like big dogs to begin with". damn, an here i was enjoying watching the videos of the molloser breeds in the ring... and of course the standard poodles, rhodesians, bloodhounds... see i'm not a little dog person for the most part but all the breeds i enjoy get shown at westminister.

and as to pedigree dogs not being able to work, have you heard of schutzhound? or have a look at for example Sam's lovely website of beautiful bloodhounds who are worked and shown.

and yes, dog breeding was used as an example by the eugenics movement, it doesn't make it the same thing. he also references a feminist as a staunch eugenics supporter- if something being linked to something else makes them the same thing, such as your suggesting about selective breeding and the Nazi's, then shouldn't you be in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant? shouldn't i, a stauch feminist, be handing back my degree, whipping out my contraceptive and submitting entirely to my father and partners wills?

will you please answer the very reasonable questions posed to you? i assume that you are proud of your work and as such should be able to defend it to critisisms and answer any queries.

and btw, i'm a feminist (as previously mentioned), liberal, formerly catholic now pagan, pro gay rights, anti racist, future human rights lawyer of a pedigree dog owner- about as far from a Nazi as you can get.

>>Let me turn this round. Do you approve of the tougher line now being taken by the KC? Would you like to see mandatory testing introduced and some limits on inbreeding... perhaps some greater awareness of the importance of genetic diversity.. some limits, maybe, on the amount of times a top-winning dog can be used.. particularly if they have not passed breed-specific health tests...  less emphasis on looks and more on health?

yes i absolutely approve of the tougher line being taken by the KC but i don't believe that this can be laid at your programs feet- as Isabel has said this was all in the pipeline, albeit kudos for bringing it to a head but you did it in the most appalingly damaging and needlessly cavalier way.

> Eugenics, as based on aesthetics and the notion of purity,  is a flawed and failed philosophy

indeed it is, its a noncense, but since purity is not the aim of dog breeding, fitness for purpose is the aim, it is the first commandment, of responsible breeding, then eugenics has nothing to do with dog breeding.

> Most of the meat you eat is crossbred/hybrid because the stock is healthier/more vigorous and the yield is greater

thats a blatent mistruth, i suggest you do some research into domestic cattle- you'd be very very surprised.

> The link between dog-breeding and eugenics is well-established in academic circles (after all, it was Professor James Serpell and Prof Steve Jones who brought it up in the film) See also:
>

any accademic will tell you that there is always vast and varied debate within any science about accepted doctrine- to the extent that you can never really use such a term as not everyone of any merit does accept a certain doctrine. well established in accademic circles just means that there are lots of continuing arguments going on.

> I saw nothing in it shocking, and nothing in it that conscientious breeders should be worried over.

perfectly healthy pups being returned, verbal assaults from the public etc seem like reasons to worry to me. your ip is in canada, are you over there? it does not seem to have been quite so vicerol over there

I am "Joe Public" and I would like to thank Jemima for her excellent programme.  I think that it was very informative and long overdue.
What I don't understand is why most people on this board are attacking her?  Did JH force the show champ cavalier's owner to tell a bare face lie on camera? No, of course she didn't.
Jemima's programme has merely brought into the public domain some of the hereditory problems in certain breeds of dogs.  Her programme hasn't created these problems has it?
My opinion is that the programme has done a great service to "Joe Public" by making him aware of some of the problems in certain lines & assisting him on making an informed choice in order to avoid heartbreak further down the line.  I would have thought that "good breeders" would have welcomed this.
I really don't see how the programme encourages people to go out & buy "designer" crossbreeds from puppy farmers.
One aspect that I think the programme has highlighted, is that just because a puppy comes from championship show lines, doesn't necessarily mean that the dog is healthy & free from hereditory defects. THis has surely got to be a good thing as it will encourage JP to really research his breeder's lines.
What I don't quite understand though is that I thought endorsements on reg. documents were introduced to ensure that only healthy animals that had had the relevent health tests were bred with?  It doesn't appear to have worked very well in some cases does it?  It also doesn't look as if placing endorsements on pups have prevented breeding from them either, I can't ever remember seeing so many "designer" crossbreeds or unregistered litters advertised. I suppose endorsement issues should be on another thread, so I'll leave it there.
So on behalf of "Joe Public" Thank you again Jemima for the excellent programme.

Domestic cattle are not a really good example to use if someone is looking to disuade intensive breeding is it? :-)  The big meat producers, and in particular dairy producers, outcross for a while, then inbreed, then outcross, then inbreed.  Their breeding systems really are fascinating, and there are an awful lot of systems too.  And a heck of a lot more scientific research has gone into livestock breeding than dog breeding, due to the money involved in cattle production.

> I think that it was very informative and long overdue.
>

> Jemima's programme has merely brought into the public domain some of the hereditory problems in certain breeds of dogs.  Her programme hasn't created these problems has it?
>

these problems were already known in the public domain- they can be found when researching which breed to buy which everyone should do before seeking to buy a puppy- for example our next dog will be a GSD but this is unlikely to be for at lease 3 years or so. i am researching from now as they are a new breed to me.

the problem breeders have with the program is its sensationalist tone, the fact that it ignored many important facts and slurred the value of pedigree animals.

did you know that the KC spend the majority of the money it makes on funding research on health testing? the health tests available today would not exist without them.

the program was also misrepresentative- the boxer was pet bred. i don't know if jemima would like to clarify if its owners health tested his sire and dam for anything?

> One aspect that I think the programme has highlighted, is that just because a puppy comes from championship show lines, doesn't necessarily mean that the dog is healthy & free from hereditory defects. THis has surely got to be a good thing as it will encourage JP to really research his breeder's lines.
>

that is a good thing but i would hope that anyone who believes they can care for a dog would have the gumption to look into this anyway. every breeds breed club will happily tell you what health tests are needed AND give you a list fo breeders who do them! you an find all of them on google as well, its not hard to find out.

they also failed to mention the clubs that do already require testing such as the irish red and white setters.

> really don't see how the programme encourages people to go out & buy "designer" crossbreeds from puppy farmers

by villifing honest, caring breeders.

> can't ever remember seeing so many "designer" crossbreeds or unregistered litters advertised

because people 1) think they are getting something rare, which they are not. and 2) because they have been duped into believing they are healthier, which they are not.

i feel this program could have been used to far greater effect by showing what can happen to non health tested examples- as they did- but by following with a look at some great breeders and what they do from start to finish in breeding a litter- showing, health testing, the absolutely fraught process of a bitch in whelp, the birth, raising the puppies and homing. ie. what not to do and exactly what to do.

and i can think of about a dozen people off the top of my head on this forum who would be great candidates to be the example of a good breeder.

> My opinion is that the programme has done a great service to "Joe Public" by making him aware of some of the problems in certain lines & assisting him on making an informed choice in order to avoid heartbreak further down the line.  I would have thought that "good breeders" would have welcomed this.
> I really don't see how the programme encourages people to go out & buy "designer" crossbreeds from puppy farmers.

The programme gave the impression that problems were in entire breeds, not specific lines. It also neglected to mention the fact that many good breeders undertake the necessary helth tests and do all they can to ensure/improve the health of thier dogs.
The programme left 'joe public; with the impression that pedigree dogs as an entirety are unheathy and unethically bred by selfish money/show motivated breeders. It did nothing to educate the public about how to source a well bred, healthy puppy, leaving the public with the opinion that if you want a healthy dog you need to get a cross-breed.

I am 'joe' public', I don't breed or show. I have been left very frustrated that this programme missed a perfect opportunity to highlight the problems of BYB/puppy farmers. It is good that health issues have been brought to the publics attention, but it has been done in such a way as to leave the completely wrong impression - so on behalf of joe public - I am disgusted!

> Domestic cattle are not a really good example to use if someone is looking to disuade intensive breeding is it? :-) 

no! many breeds have terrible trouble birthing etc. awful example.

> What I don't quite understand though is that I thought endorsements on reg. documents were introduced to ensure that only healthy animals that had had the relevent health tests were bred with?  It doesn't appear to have worked very well in some cases does it?  It also doesn't look as if placing endorsements on pups have prevented breeding from them either, I can't ever remember seeing so many "designer" crossbreeds or unregistered litters advertised. I suppose endorsement issues should be on another thread, so I'll leave it there.

No one can stop someone breeding from their dog or bitch once they have bought the dog/bitch unless as the do in the USA the neuter the puppies before they are sold. Once you own a dog no endorsement or lack of pedigree papers can stop "Joe Public"breeding a litter as is borne out by the 100s of litters advertised proudly "NOT KC Reg"

> Domestic cattle are not a really good example to use if someone is looking to disuade intensive breeding is it?  

no! many breeds have terrible trouble birthing etc. awful example.

Ironically though, dairy cows may be the most intensively inbred species yet birth well.  I think the problem birthers are the big meat breeds.  I would love a herd of Jersey's.

> I am 'joe' public', I don't breed or show. I have been left very frustrated that this programme missed a perfect opportunity to highlight the problems of BYB/puppy farmers. It is good that health issues have been brought to the publics attention, but it has been done in such a way as to leave the completely wrong impression - so on behalf of joe public - I am disgusted

i am technically a joe public to- but have had pedigrees my whole life and have exhibitors in the family. oh, and apparently i did a junior handling with my boy Chadwick when i was about 4 (aw, sweet :)).

i would also like to show when i am older and have the right dog(s) and have given thought to breeding- depending on a myriad of conditions- when i am older. 

as such i'm an informed joe public and am appaled by the bias and misleading information given in the program.

and of course of being called a Nazi. my great uncle was blown up in front of my great grandfather (his big brother) at Normandy. My Grandfathers both fought, my adored grandmother was in the WAAF and of course i'm a big bleeding heart liberal :) so that offends me a fair bit.

> feel this program could have been used to far greater effect by showing what can happen to non health tested examples- as they did- but by following with a look at some great breeders and what they do from start to finish in breeding a litter- showing, health testing, the absolutely fraught process of a bitch in whelp, the birth, raising the puppies and homing. ie. what not to do and exactly what to do.
>

i've thought about this some more and think it would be great tv actually- you'd get the breeder profile, who they are, why this breed, how long they have been doing it etc. the particular breed and specific dog (a bit like those wee clips during the crufts programming), the drama of a show (with dramatic background music as the group is judged etc), then the hoping for good health results- very nail biting, picking a stud (with due studiousness) then a soppy bit when dog and bitch meet (for the warm fuzzies- obviously not usually the case but for the cameras :)) and of course the birth! which frankly needs no dramatising. then the heart break of the homing. sob.

you could have real build up of characters and relationships (because they are actually there) and show how much work and love goes into it.

just an idea :)

Imagine there was one of those programmes based on Child of Our Time, but Dog of Our Time :-)  And you could see the pup grow and follow it around the shows, likewise with a Police puppy and assistance dog.

Well, yes, I'm 'Joe Public' as well, but even I can understand that just because endorsements are placed on a puppy that doesn't stop someone breeding from it - it just stops that dog's puppies from being registered. That's why it's such a bad idea to buy a puppy that is advertised as not KC registered, because that almost certainly guarantees that no health tests have been done.

Health testing is expensive - a woman I know just paid nearly £500 for hip and elbow scoring and some DNA tests as well, for eyes I think. So those who want to make a quick buck don't bother. Jemima's programme gave the impression that all show breeders are irresponsible.

> My opinion is that the programme has done a great service to "Joe Public" by making him aware of some of the problems in certain lines

The programme only referenced show breeders - and didn't say, for example, that the Cavalier and Boxer were from pet breeders (although if they had been from prominent breeders I'm sure that would have been mentioned!)

The trouble is "bleeding heart liberals" are just as bad as the Nazis, they are both extremists and try to brainwash Joe Public to their way of thinking.
We end up with the Nanny State that we now have in the UK.
Dont do this, dont do that, dont say this, dont say that.
I say to these BHL's get a life but leave the rest of us get on with ours.

Loving your posts mike, totally agree we DO have a nanny state. You really can't do or say anything these days without fear of offending someone!

these problems were already known in the public domain- they can be found when researching which breed to buy which everyone should do before seeking to buy a puppy- for example our next dog will be a GSD but this is unlikely to be for at lease 3 years or so. i am researching from now as they are a new breed to me.

But that is the whole point, people don't do enough research before they get a puppy and they should.  JH programme has helped to illustrate what happens when you DON'T research your chosen breed & breeder.
I have 2 GSD's, the first one (who was 12 in Sept) literally fell into my lap from a series of very fortunate events.  He is an ex operational police dog(not donated but from police/working lines) & I have had him since he was nearly 3.  He is my "once in a lifetime" dog & to me epitimises how a GSD should be.
It was only when I started looking for another GSD about 4/5 years ago, that I began to realise what a rarity he was.  I was in absolute shock at what a mess the GSD, as a breed was in the litters that I viewed.   In fact if I didn't already know what they SHOULD be like, I would have walked away from the breed completely.

that is a good thing but i would hope that anyone who believes they can care for a dog would have the gumption to look into this anyway. every breeds breed club will happily tell you what health tests are needed AND give you a list fo breeders who do them! you an find all of them on google as well, its not hard to find out.

The Breed Club, was one of the  first places I contacted when I started to look for a puppy, & I'll be diplomatic and not say anything further.

by villifing honest, caring breeders.

I honestly don't see where the programme did that.
I think that it highlighted certain problems in certain lines & delivered it straight into JP lap.  Hopefully JP will remember some of the problems that can arise by buying a dog on impulse and do their research accordingly.

And that is my point Moonmaiden.
Shouldn't good, responsible breeders be doing something to ensure that the puppies they place into homes aren't bred with willynilly? 

>Shouldn't good, responsible breeders be doing something to ensure that the puppies they place into homes aren't bred with willynilly? 

They do all they can within the law. They place endorsements on the registration. Unless they neuter all the puppies before they home tham (which would mean keeping them for many months, because the neutering of baby puppies, although sometimes done overseas, can have serious repercussions) there is nothing more they can do.

The programme only referenced show breeders - and didn't say, for example, that the Cavalier and Boxer were from pet breeders (although if they had been from prominent breeders I'm sure that would have been mentioned!)

But that Cavalier stud dog was Show lines wasn't it? 
I seem to remember that the interview was carried out at a show & the owner was specifically asked if her dog had/carried Syringomyelia to which she replied "no".

It is Joe Public's responsibility to educate themselves about the breed they want.  Buyer beware!  Responsible breeders do their best by their pups.  The breeder has no legal right to their pup after it is sold - the contract has been fulfilled.  Even if a non-breeding contract is signed by the buyer, it will not make it to court, even though it should.  But I assure you it will not make it to court as the very act of exchanging the pup for money is a fulfilment of the contract.

Joe Public needs to get off his behind and accept some responsibility for a change!

>for example our next dog will be a GSD but this is unlikely to be for at lease 3 years or so. i am researching from now as they are a new breed to me.

immediately followed by

>I have 2 GSD's

so which of the above is true

Several of your comments are at odds with others you've made - it appears you're expressing opinions on behalf of multiple interests which is rather confusing.

Teri
AKA Joe Public - which FTR can be said of all of the CD membership  :)

Fallenangel was quoting from Astarte's post, I think Teri, but it's not showing as a quote.

M.

OK, thanks M :)

> It is, indeed, possible for any dog of any breed to suffer from epilepsy. But in some breeds it is very prevalent - the Belgian Teuveran, Finnish Spitz and Australian Shepherd spring to mind

The breed is known as Belgian Shepherd Dog Tervueren and yours is a rather outdated piece of info Jemima :)  I'd estimate that the last UK Tervueren I heard seizuring through idiopathic epilepsy would be if not yet in it's vintage years then fast approaching same.  Breeders have worked tirelessly at identifying and avoiding suspect lines within this variety and the fruits of their labour and dedicated research have paid off.

Additionally both UK breed clubs are actively involved in funding epislepsy research and enjoy the support of their members both in and out of the showing/breeding fraternity.

If, however, you are personally aware of any Tervueren currently suffering from this dreadful illness perhaps you would have the courtesy to furnish the details to our breeds clubs and the dog(s) breeder(s) so that all appropriate steps can be taken to ensure that relatives of same are not used in the furtherment of a breed which has made immense progress in health and temperament in the last decade and more :)

I appreciate that facts are prone to hindering sensationalism but as it seems you're desperately trying to claw back some semblance of credulity regarding your research (not helped by your reliance on wilkipedia of course ;) ) I thought it fair you were armed with another

> The trouble is "bleeding heart liberals" are just as bad as the Nazis, they are both extremists and try to brainwash Joe Public to their way of thinking.
> We end up with the Nanny State that we now have in the UK.
> Dont do this, dont do that, dont say this, dont say that.
> I say to these BHL's get a life but leave the rest of us get on with ours.

lol well i'm sorry my beliefs annoy you so much but i don't believe i'm an extremist in any way and i very much object to being catagorised as "just as bad as the Nazi's". i don't believe i have ever tried to 'brainwash' anyone, rather i believe in discussion and debate.

and i do assure you i have a life, rather than a reactionary attitude and an apparent drive to offend people.

> I think that it highlighted certain problems in certain lines & delivered it straight into JP lap.  Hopefully JP will remember some of the problems that can arise by buying a dog on impulse and do their research accordingly.

alas you seem to be in the minority as shown by the JP verbally abusing pedigree dog owners/breeders and being taken in by these nonsensical "really healthy as not kc!!" ad's

> Shouldn't good, responsible breeders be doing something to ensure that the puppies they place into homes aren't bred with willynilly?

but once the dog is sold you(as a breeder)have no say in what is done with it, you can vet people to the nth degree & still be hoodwinked. If I have another litter, then I will only let the puppies go to people who I know personally & trust implicitly that the home will be forever. They only way you can be sure the puppies you breed will not be bred from is to neuter them as they do in the USA before they leave home-trouble is with doing that is the physical effects such an early neutering have on the dogs growth.

I'll give just one example: I gave(not sold)a puppy to someone I considered a close friend. I trained him, showed him for them-he was a dog of a lifetime-then when he was 7 the owners Sister-in-law, put the fear of doG into the owner & his wife with tails of"Alsatians"turning & killing children when they reached 7. The dog was taken to the GSD rescue kennels & the lady there was told the breeder wasn't interested as he had been castrated & his only option was to be PTS, at no time did they contact me(he hadn't been castrated either). Whet the stupid plonkers forgot, was that the lady who ran the rescue knew who the dog was & knew who bred him(as she had used him at stud)& as soon as the owner had signed him over & left rang me & I went & collected him. Three years later when he went Res BIS at a local show, his photograph was in the local paper & lo & behold the ex owner turned up at our training club to get his dog back ! I had two dogs in the back of my van-the dog I bred(a bi colour)& a black & gold German dog who was huge & well oversized. He ranted & shouted & threatened me thinking I would just hand over the dog. I told him go ahead take him out of the van it's not locked. As he approached my van my German dog started barking & frightened him off, he when off shouting "I knew he would go nasty"-the idiot couldn't eve recognize his own dog(who BTW had saved his ex owner from being beaten up whilst he was a puppy)

I've always taken back any dog I have bred who was no longer wanted(there have only been two)

> lol well i'm sorry my beliefs annoy you so much but i don't believe i'm an extremist in any way and i very much object to being catagorised as "just as bad as the Nazi's". i don't believe i have ever tried to 'brainwash' anyone, rather i believe in discussion and debate.
>
> and i do assure you i have a life, rather than a reactionary attitude and an apparent drive to offend people.

I'm with you, I'm probably a BHL but don't try to "Brainwash"anyone & I object most strongly to be being lumped with the Nazis-they did not brainwash the public they coerced them with promises & eventually threats & murder/torture. I'm the wrong religion to be a Nazi

I do have a lifetime of experiences of one kind & another & 50 years of dog owning/training/learning(& I am still learniug BTW)

> I'd estimate that the last UK Tervueren I heard seizuring through idiopathic epilepsy would be if not yet in it's vintage years then fast approaching same.  Breeders have worked tirelessly at identifying and avoiding suspect lines within this variety and the fruits of their labour and dedicated research have paid off.
>

What a dull documentary that would make, Teri, don't bother pitching it to the BBC.

> The Breed Club, was one of the  first places I contacted when I started to look for a puppy, & I'll be diplomatic and not say anything further

The Breed Club ??? ??? ??? There are many GSD clubs in the UK not just one. > I was in absolute shock at what a mess the GSD, as a breed was in the litters that I viewed.   In fact if I didn't already know what they SHOULD be like, I would have walked away from the breed completely.

> It was only when I started looking for another GSD about 4/5 years ago, that I began to realise what a rarity he was.  I was in absolute shock at what a mess the GSD, as a breed was in the litters that I viewed.   In fact if I didn't already know what they SHOULD be like, I would have walked away from the breed completely.

I don't know where you were looking or what you consider to be the correct GSD(physically & mentally), I do know that some breeders do not health so they can claim that their dogs have no problems, even the ex Officer in charge of breeding the Met dogs-claimed he had bred out HD in his dogs-yet when they were hip scored, the dogs he was breeding were never scored as 0:0=0 & therefore he was making the same false claims.

I do know that the Police have turned to German/Belgian working(Schutzhund)bred GSDs as stud dogs, why ? because they have the temperament to be swithched on & off when needed & because of all the health testing they undergo(& this is not recent)they are fit both mentally & physically to do the job they are required to do. I'm surprised that any force would get rid of a fully trained & licensed operational dog at only three-the cost of breeding & training their dogs would mean the dog had to have serious problems before being released

> It was the other way round - Hitler borrowed his ideas from dog breeders

Did you get that"fact "from Wikipedia as well ???

I suggest you read the book-"From Darwin to Hitler"-by Richard Weikart It might correct your misinformation that Hitler based his eugenics on dog breeding !

> the Nazis-they did not brainwash the public they coerced them with promises & eventually threats & murder/torture.

lol well they did a bit, their propaganda machine was rather impressive (evil, but impressive) (had a very interesting course on it)

frankly i feel miked is being just as reactionary and needlessly unpleasent as jemima

> these problems were already known in the public domain- they can be found when researching which breed to buy which everyone should do before seeking to buy a puppy-

This is the problem - people DO NOT know that they need to research BREEDERS before getting a puppy. Many people wronly assume that any pure-bred dog is well bred, now thanks to that programmes people wrongly assume that any KC reg dog is unhealthy.

How are people meant to know they should research breeders? How are people who have never had dogs meant to know all about puppy farmers etc..? How are people who have never had a pure-bred meant to know that there are money-grabbing breeders who don't care about the dogs - they just want money? How are people meant to know that just because somebody breeds pure-bred dogs is doens't mean they are decent breeders?

I have my first pure-bred dog, I had the gumption to research the differences between dog breeds and what a Mastiff is like, weather I thought I could handle one etc... It was only by chance (and the fact I spent years researching Mastiffs befor getting one) that I found out that not all pure-bred dogs are well bred. After finding that info I could then research breeders (as opposed to simply researching breeds). If I had been after a easier to handle breed (and therefore spent less time decidin if the breed was right for us), I may well never have found out about the difference in breeders and ended up buying the first puppy I could find in the local ads..

JH missed a massive oportunity to educate the public about puppy farmers/BYB etc. which has simpley left the impression that all KC dogs are unhealthy & unethically bred. The quickest way to stop the breeders who are out for a quick buck is to educate the puppy buyers to stay away from them - JH could have done this by getting her point accross in context, but she didn't, she simply made a point of making out that pure-bred dogs are unhealthy (hence the title 'PEDIGREE dogs exposed', rather than 'puppy farmers/BYB/unscroupulous breeders exposed').

Everyone here agrees that you should research your breed choice before getting a puppy. Nobody has thought about looking at it from the point of view of people like my next door neighbour.

She has a cavalier crossed with a cocker from the Hearing Dogs for the Deaf breeding project. At the time the programme went out, she had just been widdowed, (husband had died of a stroke about three weeks before). She thought the programme would be interesting, and so watched it. She spent the next week going around in tears because she was so worried that her dog was going to die because it had as a parent a cavalier. When I tried to explain this was not likely to be the case Viv said, "Oh don't try to tell me about those breeders, what they do to those dogs is wicked! If anything happens to my dog I don't know what I'd do".

Even now if the dog so much as sneezes she is worrying he will die at any minute in the most harrowing way imagineable.

There has to be a certain onus on the pubic to separate the wheat from the chaff.  It's a pretty gullible person who believes all they see on sensualist documentaries and then, typical of human stupidity, start a moral panic. 

But it's true IMO, the average Joe Public just doesn't think to research before getting a dog.  I don't think it's intentional, they just don't think, don't even consider it. 

Completely different to most doggy people on this board who know how important it is to research their chosen breed but let's face it, some JP nowadays just don't know much about dogs period, despite having them. 

>It was only when I started looking for another GSD about 4/5 years ago, that I began to realise what a rarity he was.

It's hard getting good GSD in the UK right now; however, some breeders are bringing in lines from Belgium and others are gently blending show with working lines and some of the offspring that I've seen are absolutely stunning.  This is the future and I think it will build healthier, stronger and structurally sounder GSD.