Hi everyone,

Ok so I need to write a discursive essay for my medicine course and have been told to write about something I am passionate about...and obviously that is indeed dogs! I am going to do a fair amount of research and discuss both sides to the debate.

In light of the recent tv programs featuring and debating the Kennel Club's part in heridetary issues with dogs etc and also the derogatory way a lot of "designer dogs" are viewed.... I would like to know your opinions on the matter. If possible could you state your background and experience with dogs in general...breeds you have kept....any other relevant information and obviously how you feel about the KC debate?

I would really love to hear both sides of the arguement and if you feel you cannot express your opinion here then please feel free to pm me. And of course if you would like to read the final essay drop me your email and I shall email it to you.

Thanks guys,

Kelly

I don't see the kennel club as an organisation having any part in the hereditary issues dogs have. 

The health issues occur naturally and breeders do or not do something about them, depending on their knowledge morals and the available means to have an influence on these matters.

The Kennel Club has in conjunction with various organisations developed or encouraged Breed clubs to develop protocols and testing schemes for problems.

The KC has been involved heavily with health testing etc- just look at the donations they have made to various breed health testing and to the AHT

Health isnt just related to the KC despite what the biased programme said-
breeders and judges (plus mother nature) are also responsible to an extent for any health issues that may occur

The Kennel Club may have started out with good intentions but they are a business/brand.  And as a business yes they should either review their practices and procedures or be well on their way.  Some of the policies serve a good purpose but they also contradict alot of what they preach!

In one way or another we all own designer breeds.... all of our pedigree dogs are crosses of other 'breeds'.  We own 'pedigree dogs' because the KC has deemed these breeds as 'pedigree' and a recognised breed.  According to academic research all of our KC Breeds came about by being crossed with otgher breeds.... so one KC person says OK the Afgan is now a pedigree with a breed standard?  So what?  OK this wont go down too well but you have the designer dog issue... the Labradoodle, Cocapoo etc... these are crosses but are not approved by the KC.  Therefore they are cross breeds/mongrels.... We  all own crossbreeds/mongrels if you think about it..... ours just have a seal of approval by the KC. 

Edited to say apologies for spelling but im too tired to check

I do have to admit my views tend towards agreeance with K9queen and am extremely curious what others think of this?

Another issue that I am interested in is the moral implications of breeding to KC standards...

when ridgebacks are culled because they lack ridges, same goes for dalmations having patches as opposed to spots or in many breeds solid white color is a fault or where bulldogs have to give birth by c-section because of KC standards altering their body shape and more specifically head size to the extent they physicall cannot give birth. No im not saying this is every single breeder but we all know it does happen. These dogs are still dogs...still living breathing beings and would make excellent pets for people that have no interest in showing.

Your comments are welcome :)

> so one KC person says OK the Afgan is now a pedigree with a breed standard? 

I think it is a little more involved than that. Afgans (to use your example) can reliably be produced by mating an Afgan with an Afgan, a Labradoodle is produced when a Labrador is mated with a Poodle, the resulting offspring from the mating of 2 Labradoodles will not produce results as reliabe as the mating of 2 pure-bred dogs.

Nobody would disagree with the fact that each breed is the product of cross-breeding somewhere along the lines in the early days and even in times of very limited gene pools other breeds may have been used, but the result of many, many generations of selective breeding has given us different breeds of dogs that can be produced with predictability ie, you mate 2 Mastiffs and you end up with an entire litter of puppy Mastiffs, not a mish-mash of different traits, and if those puppies are mated to Mastiffs they go on to produce a litter of Mastiffs etc...
If the KC recongnised every cross-breed because the breeder has given it a fancy name it defeats the whole point of pure-bred dogs - dogs bred with predictability.

> when ridgebacks are culled because they lack ridges, same goes for dalmations having patches as opposed to spots or in many breeds solid white color is a fault or where bulldogs have to give birth by c-section because of KC standards altering their body shape and more specifically head size to the extent they physicall cannot give birth. No im not saying this is every single breeder but we all know it does happen. These dogs are still dogs...still living breathing beings and would make excellent pets for people that have no interest in showing.
>

I don't agree with the culling of mis-marked/ridgless pups, or the exagerations in certain breeds that impair health, but I don't think the KC are to blame for it happening, it is more to do with the interpretaions by breeders/judges, I think if the KC are to blame for anything it is not being precise enough in some breed standars wich leave room for interpretation.

I don't breed or show, I have my very first pure-bred dog and am loving the fact that I could pick what dog would suit me, my family & our lifestyle based on breed-standards/predictability of a well-bred dog - I couldn't do that with a cross-breed and it is down to the KC I am able to.
There is definately room for improvement with the KC, but I don't believe they are the big bad monsters people are trying to make them out to be.

> because of KC standards altering their body shape and more specifically head size

I would say that statement is factually inaccurate. The shape has changed over the years, I would say because of preference on the part of breeders and judges - the Breed Standard is meant to describe the ideal and is I believe produced by collaboration between breed club and Kennel Club but as far as I am aware the breed club plays a more significant part in the wording of the breed standard. The Kennel Club has actually altered certain standards, with agreement of breed clubs, in order to try to reduce exaggeration of features that will be deleterious to a breed's health - can't remember exact wording but they publish these alterations in the Kennel Gazette - and they are specific changes made with health and welfare in mind.

I agree that it is not acceptable for dogs to require caesarians routinely to whelp - they should only be needed in emergencies - and a hundred years ago the selective breeding would not have produce that - because successful caesarians were not widely available, and if a bitch required a caesarian they were much more likely to die. Though I am straying off the Kennel Club a little. :-)

do we know how many generations it actually takes to produce this effect? i.e if a new breed were to be created and we could rely on the offspring being predictable.

And is it possible that genetic throwbacks could still occur even in a supposedly established breed? For example a pure bred malamute being born with blue eyes....they are from sibe origin after all. I have 2 huskies and malamute/husky cross hence the interest in mals.

hope that makes sense

no no its ok....KC is just part of the topic really and perhaps i am pigeon holeing them with all the issues with dogs nowadays.

Eugenics....selective breeding...in and line breeding is all technically part of the debate so please feel free to stray away :)

A "purebred" Malamute with blue eyes is not a purebred Malamute "throwback", it is a crossbreed and the breeder is trying to con you if he/she is telling you otherwise!
Malamutes are not from sibe origin at all, they were developed in Alaska by the Mahlemuit people as their sled dog of choice. Siberian Huskies (the Chukchi dog) didn't appear in Alaska in any numbers until the early 20th Century.

On the KC question, I've never been the greatest fan of the organisation, but I do believe that they are a "necessary evil" and the only halfway trustworthy dog registry we have (or are likely to have).
Mick

Breed Standards are not written by the Kennel Club.

They are written by the breed enthusiasts and although the breed club may be affiliated to the KC the standard they wish to see their breed judged to is up to the people who own the breed not the KC.

The only thing the KC insist on are the words relating to the male testis and the judges are instructed to judge with the animals health in mind.

As this is part of ongoing work for an essay replies to the OP should go direct as happened previously with a former poster who was researching for an academic paper. Most aspects of this have  already been well covered on the board and with the threads easily still available for research.

>same goes for dalmations having patches as opposed to spots

They aren't. There are enough patched dals around to prove that wrong. The culling of patched puppies is also against breed club and KC rules.

>do we know how many generations it actually takes to produce this effect?

I think it's about 7 or 8.

I would suggest visiting Dr Bruce Cattanach's site www.steynmere.com
His work on producing bob-tailed boxers,by crossing boxers with corgis which had a bob-tailed gene, may be of interest to you .

The KC does not recognise new breeds on a whim, they do have fairly stringent expectations of a new breed, which is why most of the so-called "designer" breeds would not qualify for recognition. Form the KC website:-

Recognition of new breeds
31-Aug-06

The Kennel Club General Committee will consider an application for recognition of a breed once there are specimens of it resident in the UK.  In general, an application should consist of:

Names & addresses of UK owners/importers
Total number of dogs of the breed in the UK
Copies of pedigrees of UK dogs - at least 3 generations
Recognition status in the country of origin
Details of Registration body in country of origin
Breed Registration statistics in country of origin and other countries
Show entry statistics in country of origin and at international level
Details of any inherited conditions prevalent in the breed
If the breed has been crossbred, when the registry closed
Brief history of the breed & photographs
Breed Standard from country of origin and date of first internationally recognised  standard
For Working Breeds - details of activities.
Recognition of a breed allows registration on the Imported Breeds Register, although the breed would not be eligible for exhibition until such time as an Interim Breed Standard is published. This is not considered at the same time as recognition, as it is the Kennel Club's policy to allow the breed to develop slowly before show participation is permitted.

Breed recognition is at the discretion of the Kennel Club General Committee. The policy on the recognition of new breeds is currently under review and therefore additional information may be requested and further criteria may be introduced.

> As this is part of ongoing work for an essay replies to the OP should go direct as happened previously with a former poster who was researching for an academic paper. Most aspects of this have  already been well covered on the board and with the threads easily still available for research

I agree - we've already covered the same ground as this thread on numerous recent threads which can easily be used by the OP for her essay. If anyone wants to help the OP further with her research, please contact her privately by PM

Thanks