Pomsky???

That "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" documentary was and is complete rubbish. They used deformed dogs as examples or any awfully bred purebred from a BYB or puppy mill they could find, just to try to make a biased point to scare people away from owning purebred dogs. Out of all the responsible breeders I know, all of their dogs and the dogs they have produced are healthy as a direct result from health testing and studying pedigrees. I know people who breed and show short faced dogs (Pugs, bully breeds, etc) and their dogs do not have breathing problems. I think the problem with most people is that they base their opinions on the dogs they see from a day to day basis, which are mostly made up of dogs that came from puppy mills, pet stores or BYBs. Those are the dogs with issues, not the ones from reputable and responsible breeders who show their dogs and perform breed specific health tests.

And sorry, but this quote from that article is ridiculous: "After all, you can take the hip dysplasia out of the Labrador, but you’ll never get it out of the Bulldog, unless you change the definition of the breed. (And I can think of at least 10 more examples of breeds off the top of my head.)"

Um... no. Totally FALSE. This vet doesn't even have any scientific proof to back that statement up. You should seriously reconsider the opinions you listen to. Whether it be a TV program feeding you crap, or a vet who most of the clients he sees are BYB and puppy mill dogs.

I might be able to agree with mixes being generally healthier than purebreds from BYBs and puppy mills, but I'm not sure I would agree with that statement if it was mixes being healthier than purebreds from reputable and responsible breeders who health test their dogs and breed towards a goal (written standard) and have researched the pedigrees and the dogs.
 
Gina said:
That "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" documentary was and is complete rubbish. They used deformed dogs as examples or any awfully bred purebred from a BYB or puppy mill they could find, just to try to make a biased point to scare people away from owning purebred dogs.
Click to expand...

One of the dogs they used as an example was a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel that had won Best in Show had sired numerous litters, even after the diagnosis of syringomyelia, which is where their brains are too small for their skulls. This wasn't some random dog they found with this deformity, it was a winning show dog that was being bred! I wouldn't call that rubbish, it would call that completely unethical.
 
Gina said:
That "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" documentary was and is complete rubbish.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ:

"Pedigree Dogs Exposed was a BBC One investigative documentary, produced by Jemima Harrison, which looked into health and welfare issues facing pedigree dogs in the United Kingdom. It was originally broadcast on 19 August 2008.
The Kennel Club (KC), the governing body of pedigree dogs in the UK that runs the prestigious dog conformation show Crufts, was criticized for allowing breed standards, judging standards and breeding practices to compromise the health of pedigree dogs.[1]
The programme generated much criticism of the Kennel Club. It also caused various sponsors and trade exhibitors to withdraw their participation from Crufts and other Kennel Club events. The BBC—which has broadcast Crufts for 42 years—withdrew its coverage of Crufts for 2009, and chose not to renew it for 2010.
The Kennel Club initially denied the filmmakers' assertion that many dogs suffer from diseases and stated that the vast majority of dog breeds are healthy. It also lodged a complaint with broadcasting regulator Ofcom, claiming unfair treatment and editing. Due to strong public opinion, it later rolled out new health plans and reviewed breed standards for every breed. Some breeders have condemned the Club for overreacting. Ofcom's final ruling upheld KC's complaints regarding the lack of a right of reply for some allegations made by the programme but dismissed complaints made in various other areas. The ruling also acknowledges that KC's geneticist Jeff Sampson's views were misrepresented but states that as a whole, the KC was not treated unfairly.
Three separate health reports were commissioned as a result of the programme. Reports by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare and Sir Patrick Bateson (funded by the KC and Dogs Trust) concluded that current breeding practices are detrimental to the welfare of pedigree dogs and made various recommendations that can be taken by the Kennel Club and breeders to improve pedigree dog health."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_Dogs_Exposed
 
Wait a minute here folks. Perhaps I am the only one here that is a bit lost and in need of some clarity, but it's true, clarity would help me here a lot. First, we have one poster who adds an assertion (with a citation - for good or bad) that says mutts are sounder than purebreds. Now, I know there are assertions (with citable resources) that claim all sorts of things and that doesn't necessarily make the assertions correct. Next, we have another poster say, "I won't take a vet's point of view on this, so this poster adds a citation to refute the 1st source. But, the second citation begins by saying that the source data is from (wait for it), vets. Now, we have another poster claiming that source #1 was refuted, but gives nothing other than their claim that the documentary was refuted.

For anyone who truly would like to learn from this discussion (note that I have my hand raised here), I could use some more information.

Why would anyone refuse to except a vet's point of view on this question but then cite a vet's survey information as documentation?

Does anyone have a citation that clearly refutes the "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" documentary?

Otherwise, this discussion just reminds me of the old Ken-L-Ration commercial were the little kid sings the tune "My dog's better than your dog".
 
EJHUNTL said:
I beg to differ:


Three separate health reports were commissioned as a result of the programme. Reports by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare and Sir Patrick Bateson (funded by the KC and Dogs Trust) concluded that current breeding practices are detrimental to the welfare of pedigree dogs and made various recommendations that can be taken by the Kennel Club and breeders to improve pedigree dog health."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_Dogs_Exposed
Click to expand...
and there in lies the problem. All 3 groups are run by AR fanatics who want nothing more than to eliminate breeding. Talk about being skewed. Crufts was a scandal that year, dogs eliminated for excessive panting (the show site was if I remember 75-80F degrees) Dogs whose eye was scratched wins with held..the list goes on and on..
Are there some dogs who the standard has skewed one way too extreme of course! Do some breed standards need to be worded/changed? Of Course. However lumping every breeder in together does nothing but hurt the world of breeding as a whole.
 
JLSOhio51 said:
Why would anyone refuse to except a vet's point of view on this question but then cite a vet's survey information as documentation?
Click to expand...

Do you mean why would anyone refuse to ACCEPT a vets point of view?

If thats the case I would refuse to ACCEPT a single vets point of view with out documentation and research on the matter. I need facts, documented hard cold facts backed up with years of research before I take their word. Some random person making that statement does not hold any validity with me. Especially not knowing their motives. Are there vets that are anti-breeder/purebred. ABSOLUTELY!
 
EJHUNTL:

You were obviously crafting you latest comment while I was processing my thoughts for my recent post. As I am working (online) while trying to keep up with this discussion, I only have time to quickly scan each comment before moving on. I will reread your last post and the attached citation when I have more time, but cutting to the chase: Is you citation quoting three (3) sources that are backing up your assertion that mutts may be indeed healthier than purebreds? I realize that it may be broad based and stereotypical, but did I pick up your point correctly?
 
Lightplum said:
Do you mean why would anyone refuse to ACCEPT a vets point of view?
Click to expand...


As I said, I am working and momentarily stealing time from my online conference, so I will take the lashes for improper word selection here.

But, my point is, if I am going to basically denigrate some individual's supposed professional point of view, I am not going to use some unspecified number of the same profession to refute the claim. I don't think this is a majority wins proposition. I guess I might use the numbers game if that's all I had to make my point, but I would think that my point might be better made if some other related professionals (research professionals, behaviorists, whomever) were included. Just think about the number of posters here that proclaim the dog related issues that vets supposedly are not the people to rely on re our pets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top