May I ask a question about dog showing (Crufts etc) endangered breeds and irresponsible breeding- pedigree dogs specifically?

[Slapntickleothewenches]

Hopefully non inflammatory :)
I have just read the thread about English bulldogs and was quite amazed at the depth of feeling surrounding it.
I have pedigree dogs, albeit working lines that would no more qualify for breed showing at Crufts than fly to the moon and it's been a while since I bought a "proper" pedigree puppy. So......

1. The breed judges follow the KC breed standard. Is it simply personal interpretation that has allowed GSDs to get so low, bulldogs and pugs to be unable to breathe etc? These traits are not specifically in the breed type so is it naive to think that the dogs you see at the top of the game ie- Best in Show, are good examples of breed type? Obvious there's a lot of shit breeding on the way to that pinnacle but taking that out of the equation.
2. Endangered breeds such as the bulldog. Is it ethical to allow the breed to become extinct? The general concensus on the thread was that purchasing an EB puppy was an unethical decision. If that is so then do we just accept that the breed dies out, or worse continues in the hands of unscrupulous breeders?

I'm genuinely interested in a rational discussion, not a lecture on the morals of buying pedigree puppies or suggestions for rescue dogs as I may lose my final shred of sanity if we had another dog
:)

I've met one just like the clipped version - but it was on a wet, muddy day and it was in an all-in-one waterproof romper suit

in the breed we have, an assured breeder, is not what I would call breeding ethically.......doing the mandatory health tests, but has produced dogs with fatal epilepsy, but still breeding from that line. It is now starting to be investigated, but people think they must be the best because they are an assured breeder., it doesn't seem to mean anything, you need to take that out of the equation, do your research, get to know the breed and breeders.

Nothing to do with this thread but that poodle was a deserved winner and was gorgeous despite the silly haircut . The American cocker spaniel on the other hand was a ridiculous looking dog not helped by the way they are shown with their heads yanked up so high ,it's just so unnatural .

Re. the poodle bouffant, it's just that other dogs like the Spanish or Portuguese Water dogs show with just a short clip, so why can't the poodle have the same understated clip.

On Crufts, they said the reason for the shaved back legs and bobbly bits was to give buoyancy in the water etc but far too exaggerated now.

I've wanted a GSD since I was a kiddy in the 1970's.

Later this year I'll finally be in a position to own one - wtf have they done to them in the interim?

Health problems now rife in the breed and they don't even LOOK like GSD's any more!

They used to be beautiful, working animals - now so many are just not fit for purpose. I'm so disappointed - going abroad to get a fairly traditional breed like this seems wrong on so many levels.

Changes I'd like to see:-

1/ Health should be a basic pre-requisite for entry to the show ring. e.g no dog with a high hip score should be permitted entry at a pedigree show. The same should be done for ALL genetic diseases.

2/ Pups from litters of untested parents should be banned from KC Reg.

3/ Once a breed hits over 50% prevalence with a major health condition it should be removed from the KC breed list, and declared extinct as a pedigree breed. This would provide a further incentive for breeders to bred healthy animals.

4/ New breeds should only be allowed to be added to the pedigree breed list if it can proven that they are not known to carry any serious genetic flaws.

I imagine the last two points would bring first utter outrage and then a couple of decades of true breed enthusiasts working their butts off quietly to bring back "extinct" breeds in a healthy format to the pedigree KC breed list.

I think it's Germany where dogs are registered in two "tiers", those that hold a working title and those that don't. This has allowed strong lines of traditional working breeds and shows the breeders with little regard for a breeds heritage.

If you consider our working cockers, racing greyhounds and to a certain extent working labs too, there are little if any genetic health issues. Undoubtedly there are some unscrupulous breeders about but in the main they breed for physical soundness and working ability, no point in breeding an animal that cannot do the job you bred it for. I'm not sure how this could be implemented but perhaps even a medical assessment of both parents before breeding to determine whether the puppies can be formally registered?

I'm afraid I think the assured breeders thing is just another way for the KC to make money, as I've also heard it's not fit for purpose and isn't being inspected and enforced. Unfortunately people are constantly being led to believe it's the only safe way to find a healthy, well bred pup and they are often paying more for these pups, because the breeder has assured status. Obviously that isn't the case for all assured breeders, but with no rigorous control and inspection scheme in place it's open to abuse by less scrupulous breeders.

The KC is a cash rich organisation that sells it's purpose as:

"We are the UK’s largest organisation dedicated to protecting and promoting the health and welfare of all dogs." www.thekennelclub.org.uk/

In my opinion they don't do much or at least not enough to ensure the health and welfare of pedigree breeds.

I do believe there are some schemes cropping up here and there to try and resolve health issues in certain breeds, but as I understand it, the impetus has come from the breed organisations, rather than the KC.

One of the biggest things they could do to improve the health and welfare of 'all dogs' is to stop registering any litters from breeders who cannot provide current and relevant evidence of health checks for every single dog they breed from and their litters. This would eliminate KC registered, pedigree pups being sold by backyard breeders, puppy farms and anyone else more into breeding for the money, than love and dedication to their breed. It would probably have a side effect of making KC registered dogs more expensive, but that could be a good thing, judging by the numbers of poorly bred registered dogs that are ending up in rescue every year.

Enforcement of rigid health and genetic testing would go a long way to helping eliminate a lot of the health problems, but on it's own wouldn't go far enough. It would need to also enforce that any dog that does not meet the required health standards on tests could not have their progeny registered or be shown on the KC circuit. They should also refuse to allow progeny of dogs with known dominant genetic issues to be registered and not allow registration of pups bred from a bitch and dog combination that would produce strong likelihood of producing pups with inherited problems. The guy on the TV said the DNA testing company is already doing risk assessments for HD, I presume similar risk can be calculated for other genetic conditions?

I read upthread about one scheme stating dogs having to have health checks before going in the ring, but I think it should go further and state that all dogs have to have passed the relevant health checks for their breed in order to be shown and exhibited as a prime example of type.

As for the EB. I have seen some stuff about a handful of breeders that have been working hard in the background for tens of years now to breed a type that can give birth naturally and has a much longer muzzle. The dogs they produce are fitter, healthier and look very much like the old drawings of how EBs used to look in years gone by - although I believe some lines still have issues such as entropion that need addressing. The problem has been, in order to rectify the extreme conformation issues they have had to outcross to other breeds and this had meant other people in the EB breed will not accept them as true EBs. So, you then have a choice about whether or not to allow a breed to die out in preference to creating a 'modern version' of the breed that is identified in some way though a slightly different name or something (as with Olde Englishe Bulldogges). The final choice is to do nothing and allow the dogs to continue suffering at the very least while breeders very slowly select for conformation that will, eventually, a very long time into the future lead to healthier dogs.

Whatever the answer is, it's going to take a lot of money and commitment from the KC and there simply is no quick fix. It's taken a hundred years or so to get our poor dogs into this mess and it's going to take at least that long, if not longer - even with strict measures in place - to undo it.

One of my favourite places for a discussion on many of these issues is the Pedigree Dogs Exposed blog. The author made the documentary a few years back which really kicked this issue into the limelight. Since then, she's been reporting on how the KC, show judges and the Breed Societies have been addressing issues of extreme confirmation and health issues. It's a fascinating read as there are considerable differences between the approaches taken by different breeds, and of course the genetics is also making amazing progress, allowing more detailed testing. What's also interesting is that in some cases the KC is not the villain of the piece, but is having to work with Breed Societies and judges that are to put it mildly reluctant to change.

You're right Scuttle, it isn't always the KC that's in the wrong. There can be really militant factions of some breeds that refuse to accept they should be choosing health/welfare of their dogs above all else. I do think that the KC could address that by not making it so easy for those individuals to register their progeny.