Re: A new definition of responsible breeding? It probably is going to cause a lot of debate on here but I like that article. I watched a program once about how dog breeds had evolved over time eg. How bulldogs got more wrinkly and flatter noses, same with pugs etc. they featured a Dalmatian breeder on there who was a good responsible, experienced breeder. Dalmatians suffer from a gene that predisposes them to kidney and renal problems. This breeder out crossed her lines with a pointer, then bred that offspring back with Dalmatians and so forth and managed to totally eradicate this gene. The Kennel Club refused to recognise her dogs because thy said they were crossbreeds. Amazing. She has done outstanding work eliminating a genetic condition in her line of Dalmatians and the KC refused to recognise this. Just goes to show there's no motivation for other breeders to do the same if they want to produce KC reg dogs. Cos lets face it KC reg dogs sell for more than ones that aren't registered. My mum has a pure bred yorkie but she isn't KC registered so she paid about half the price for her.
Re: A new definition of responsible breeding? This is a really complicated and emotive subject :-\ I'm happy with either purebred or crossbreed dogs I don't have strong feeling either way. I do think that dogs should be healthy and fit for purpose first and foremost whether that be a gundog or a family pet. Whilst the pure mathematics of closed registries tells you that all dogs will be inter-related you are mostly dealing with known health issues and you've established the desirable character traits such as working ability and temperament. So I can see the argument for dealing with the understood as opposed to the unknown. With crossbreeds I think you need careful breeders to ensure you don't develop the worst of the both sides and parents, regardless of breed, should be as healthy as possible. One of the challenges with this though is that although you open up the possible mates by cross breeding you don't really know what putting those two dogs together will produce and there is some risk of unexpected issues arising through an unexpected gene combination. You can't just put two dogs together and expect hybrid vigour to sort out any problems! Neither path is a panacea for the health issues of dogs today and I would think that a combination of each done with due care is the most appropriate.
Re: A new definition of responsible breeding? An interesting and provocative subject; 2 general observations on the article, spring to mind. The first concerns the comments made by the author about the lady who bred Neapolitan Mastiffs and recognised by the AKC which I thought were both unfair and libellous. Secondly, Americans view life differently from the Brits; consider their laws on owning weapons and the fact that the average Yank wants a photograph showing him standing next to a large animal which he has just shot, irrespective of how endangered that species maybe. Clearly, there are problems with the breeding of dogs in this country made worse by unscrupulous breeders who make squillions from the practice. I am not one of those who blame the Kennel Club (KC), which I accept is not perfect but at least it is currently the only organisation that effects some control without which chaos would reign. Sensible legislation and for the KC to police the Accredited Breeder Scheme is what is needed. I also think that we need to review the various recognised breeds to see whether there is still a place for them in 21st century. For example, before owning Labradors I had 2 Basset Hounds; a 14th century French breed (bas= low), the specification of which required that the nose should be close to the ground to enhance the dog's tracking skills and its legs should be short so that it would stay with the hunter on foot. The breed crossed a Bloodhound, Dachshund and Beagle to produce today's Basset, but it was of little use to the hunting world, although in my time there was one pack of Bassets that have since been disbanded. The real problem was that Bassets suffered severe arthritic problems from their deformed elbows and I do not think that they had a very happy life. I realise that this is an emotive subject and the solution is not just to remove certain dogs from the gene pool but I do think that we should consider whether it is wise to continue breeding dogs that have severe arthritic and respiratory problems. Perhaps we should also consider reintroducing a licence to fund a course undertaken by all potential dog owners - now there's a contentious subject! Roger
Re: A new definition of responsible breeding? I watched a programme about 4 years ago which was about the Kennel Club being fully aware of some just terrible breeding practices with some breeds. The worst one being the Pug, and some kind of Pikenese, these poor dogs had been breed so horribly to flatten their faces they need their heads supported in order for them to be able to breath and this was shown at Crufts in the ring, the owner supporting his dogs head. Also the Ridgeback had some terrible breeding too with some breeders destroying puppies if they were not exactly to their specification. There were lots of breeds, Bassetts and some I can't remember. The Kennel Club is fully aware of these practices. Made me feel sick and angry and all for the love of money Unscrupulous breeders whether it's a 'pedigree' or a 'cross breed' society will never be rid of them :'( Not too impressed with the Kennel Club
Re: A new definition of responsible breeding? I agree in so much as I see no need for name calling. Describing someone as ‘scum’ simply diminishes your own credibility. So often in these kinds of debates, things descend to name calling. On many forums too. Either that, or every time a controversial subject is introduced, the thread gets locked and we are all told to go away and talk about kittens. However, no matter how unfair it may seen to the breeder, I doubt that the thread is libelous, because the claims may well be true. Breeding a dog with deformities incompatible with a comfortable existence is abhorrent to many people. And for me, the excessive skin folds of the poor Neo and the other health problems that go with this breed probably do fall into that category I disagree with this stereotype. I know plenty of Americans that hunt/shoot, and most are heavily in favour of or involved with, conservation. In fact I think I just disagree with national stereotypes in general. I think the KC are responding to critisisms of the scheme, and have greatly increased their monitoring of members of the scheme, all new members now will have to be visited for example. However, I would love to see aspects of the scheme applied to all dog breeders. This is what upsets so many people. And the neo example does for many of us, fall into this category. There’s a thought. That would make dogs more protected than children wouldn’t it?! What particularly interested me about this article in particular was the way it questioned what we see as 'responsible' breeders, and asked if we should be revising those generally well accepted standards. I'm still not sure whether I think line-breeding, for example, is always a bad thing. It's a tricky subject
Re: A new definition of responsible breeding? That would be the Pedigree Dogs Exposed programme Helen - the controversy it has generated still rages on.
Re: A new definition of responsible breeding? (There are still a couple of Basset packs - the Leadon Vale and the Albany and West Lodge)
Re: A new definition of responsible breeding? [quote author=editor link=topic=4601.msg56370#msg56370 date=1393082400] That would be the Pedigree Dogs Exposed programme Helen - the controversy it has generated still rages on. [/quote] That was it I couldn't remember, thanks for jogging my memory. It was very upsetting, but how will this ever be resolved for these poor dogs? :'( Sorry I have digressed from the original thread. I have to say I was outraged that the KC know about these practises, as I understood they were supposed to protect breeds ??? Whatever and whoever is at fault at the end of the day it's heartbreaking for these poor dogs :'(
Re: A new definition of responsible breeding? Well, no, I don't think you have. I think that the point of the article was that responsible breeding should include a responsibility to breed dogs that are healthy and pain free. And that some of our current breed standards mean that this proposed definition would exclude some pedigree breeders that probably consider themselves extremely responsible.
