Pomsky???

[Gina]

Let me rephrase my statement. I still think "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" documentary is complete rubbish. They did used deformed dogs as examples and any dog from an irresponsible "breeder". All to try to make a biased point to scare people away from owning purebred dogs and to stop breeding all together. Whether that irresponsible dog was from a BYB, puppy mill or someone who shows. If a BIS dog was on there with a genetic disorder being bred... his breeder is irresponsible. There are many breeders I would still consider irresponsible or not reputable even though they health test. I was just trying to keep it simple as that is a whole 'nother can of worms! Still, I believe that documentary was an awful depiction of breeders as a whole, which is what most people do, is try group all breeders together instead of realizing there are good ones out there that breed purebred dogs to their standard, health test, PASS health clearances, have ethics, research, etc etc.

If you want a mutt, be my guest. No one is stopping you. But it is nothing more than a mutt, not necessarily healthier than purebreds, typically structurally a wreck, and you are promoting BYBs and bad breeders to keep on with their little designer dog games and ruin it for all of us trying to do the right thing.

 

[EJHUNTL]

How is it that irresponsible breeders get to have dogs that go on to become Crufts champions - aren't they supposed to be the best of the best? Doesn't the organization have to take some responsibility? Some pretty big name breeders got identified in that film.

"The programme stated that people in the dog world who try to do the right thing find it tough going against "a system that often rewards doing the wrong thing." It pointed out that the Kennel Club had started funding research into Syringomyelia in Cavaliers but that breeders were not taking the issue seriously. It also pointed out that because of her proactive approach to the Syringomyelia issue, Cavalier owner Carol Fowler had been subject to vitriolic attacks in online mailing lists. Breeder Margaret Carter also took up the issue after her own dogs were diagnosed with the condition, and she is lobbying for change as part of the Breed Club's health committee.

A Cavalier that won a Best-in-Show was revealed by Carter to have the condition. (One and a half months after the programme aired, Carter was removed from the Cavalier Club Committee for this "breach of confidentiality".) Despite veterinarian advice not to breed from the dog, the dog went on to sire 26 litters, adding to the 8 litters sired before the diagnosis. Dr. Claire Rusbridge expressed her incredulity: "If you took a stick and you beat a dog to create this pain that you could get from Syringomyelia, you'd be prosecuted, but there's nothing to stop you from breeding a dog that can be painful."

Clearly there are a lot of good ethical breeders. I agree with you - I own a registered dog.

I've cited lots of research that shows mutts are generally as healthy and less prone to genetic problems than purebreds. Where is your proof that mutts on the whole are "typically structurally a wreck" - not just your intuition but the actual scientific research.

How do back yard breeders ruin anything for you? People who buy mutts aren't looking for a registered dog. I personally don't want a labradoodle, but clearly lots of folk do. And if the experts who wrote the letter sited here are credible, you might be better off with a labradoodle than a poodle.

http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.ca/2013/09/poodles-running-out-of-time.html

 

[JessicaR]

While I do agree for the most part that "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" was a scare tactic done by ARA's you can not deny that in certain breeds "reputable breeders" are breeding problem dogs because that is what is winning. There is no denying that GSD's are not the breed they once was, and yes even the big time breed winner of Westminster would not stand up to the original working purpose, and don't get me started with breeds like the bulldog I do not like breeds that have flattened faces!

Off topic but, I really recommend the book; Pukka's Promise: The Quest for a Longer Living Dog by Ted Kerasote

 

[Gina]

How is it that irresponsible breeders get to have dogs that go on to become Crufts champions - aren't they supposed to be the best of the best? Doesn't the organization have to take some responsibility? Some pretty big name breeders got identified in that film.

I live in the USA, not the UK, so I'm sure things are a bit different over there. But here, judges are not allowed to look at the catalog with the dog's information. There is also no way for the judge to know the dog's health clearances by just looking at them. All they can do is award a ribbon to the best dog (conformation and temperament wise) that specific day.

Like I said in my last post, even people who health test are not responsible. There are a handful of Sheltie breeders I wouldn't go near with a 10 foot stick with my breeding program.

I've cited lots of research that shows mutts are generally as healthy and less prone to genetic problems than purebreds. Where is your proof that mutts on the whole are "typically structurally a wreck" - not just your intuition but the actual scientific research.

I didn't see any scientific research to back those statements up, just opinions. And please show me where you have seen a lot of structurally sound mutts. I've seen enough to count on one hand, but most of them were oops litters from dogs that were structurally sound.

How do back yard breeders ruin anything for you? People who buy mutts aren't looking for a registered dog. I personally don't want a labradoodle, but clearly lots of folk do. And if the experts who wrote the letter sited here are credible, you might be better off with a labradoodle than a poodle.

I am a breeder. They are already implementing new breeding laws because of all the issues BYB and puppy mill dogs have caused to buyers. Sooner or later it will be impossible to do anything. Most people who buy mutts not from the shelter (or similar place) are ignorant. And I know a lot more healthier poodles than I do healthy lab poodle mixes, better temperaments too, who are actually hypoallergenic. If I had to choose between a "labradoodle" or nothing, I would choose nothing.

I have very strong beliefs and I won't let that go. I am very devoted to dogs, Shelties in particular, and will do everything in my power to do what is right and be better than these people who want to call themselves breeders who are just producing a glorified mutt with poor structure and no health clearances. What are they bettering by doing that? Maybe their wallets...

 

[EJHUNTL]

This is a post from one of the vets hired by Crufts to test the winners. Her comments are really encouraging and highly congratulatory to breeders who are striving hard to do the right thing. She is a supporter of pedigree dogs and I think she does an excellent job of explaining the situation.

http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.ca/2012/03/crufts-vet-alison-skipper-has-her-say.html

All in all I think the documentary did much good and made people think about what is good for dogs - that is not a bad thing.

This debate sort of reminds me of the rift between stay at home and working moms - really both want what is best for children and should support each other in their choices. Likewise I don't see a need for a rift between pedigree dogs and mongrels - there's room for both. Certainly mongrels draw from a bigger gene pool and extreme conformation is a not an issue in a mixed doggie, whereas it can be for some purebreds.

 

[EJHUNTL]

Gina - several of the articles I linked cited sources to specific large scale scientific studies ( I was about to recopy them here, but honestly if you just go read the links you'll see them for yourself). Not just opinion.

 

[Gina]

You don't need to be extreme to have sound structure.

I've been running around for a while so I only got to see the one link you posted without any scientific data. When I have more time I will go back and read, but I'm still skeptical. Especially after that link said you couldn't take HD out of bulldogs...

And don't get me wrong, I have no issues with mutts. I have one (granted she lives with my mom now). What I have an issue with is people purposely breeding them for no good reason and without getting health tested. There are plenty of mutts to be adopted from a shelter or rescue. No need to breed more. And the argument of "well they aren't right for me" then get a purebred from a responsible breeder. Not only will you have an idea of what the breed is like and what you can expect, the breeder will help choose the right puppy for you. I don't buy into "but a labradoodle is perfect for me!" No. There is a purebred that I'm sure will fit you just fine lol.

On my phone, sorry for spelling errors if any.

 

[sable]

While I do agree for the most part that "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" was a scare tactic done by ARA's you can not deny that in certain breeds "reputable breeders" are breeding problem dogs because that is what is winning. There is no denying that GSD's are not the breed they once was, and yes even the big time breed winner of Westminster would not stand up to the original working purpose, and don't get me started with breeds like the bulldog I do not like breeds that have flattened faces!

Off topic but, I really recommend the book; Pukka's Promise: The Quest for a Longer Living Dog by Ted Kerasote

I so agree, especially the GSD's hind legs, I want to toss my cookies, they walk like they are crippled. Weird.

Bulldogs??? Good post JessicaR

 

[Mignarda]

The thing about "responsible breeders" is that they'll give you a healthy dog only within the limits of the breed characteristics. That is to say that selection for health occurs only after selection for the handful of physical qualities typical of the breed has been made. That doesn't really afford a very large population to work with, and it doesn't take into account any aspects affecting health that lie outside the boundaries of the few health problems for which a particular breed is known. In a wild state, natural selection takes care of this by ensuring that only the healthiest specimens survive and breed, without regard to any qualities other than survival. I believe that the closest you come to this in domestic dogs is with mutts, to a lesser extent, crossbreeds, and to an even lesser extent, purebreds bred either with heterosis in mind, or with heterosis not in mind (in other words, haphazardly).

Humans have been breeding outside of natural selection for thousands of years, and we don't seem to have done too badly. A good rhetorical question might be whether positive eugenics would produce a better human being than we currently have.

 

[EJHUNTL]

I'm the queen of spelling errors ( 2 finger typist here with a dominant right hand) so no apologies necessary!

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. In person is a much better way to have this kind of conversation - especially for someone who is as scattered as I can be!

I'm so happy there are good breeders like you out there who want to improve the breed. That's wonderful and your "good reason" for breeding.

Maybe the labradoodle breeder loves her dogs and wants to make money some money too ( I'm not convinced that all registered breeders do it at a loss year after year. You can love the breed, be responsible and still want to make a profit, there's no shame in that). She could be just as careful as you are - you can't just assume she isn't.

As someone who likes dogs, lives very near a labradoodle breeder ( have never met, but drive by her place all the time) and has too much free time on their hands I've googled the breed. It took me all of 10 minutes to learn that they aren't necessarily hypoallergenic ( some of the breeders even point that out on their websites)- honestly anyone who is looking for a puppy and can't spend even that small amount of time researching the dog they're interested in has no sympathy from me. Buyer beware! All the regulation in the world is not going to save a fool. Now making a false claims - that's something entirely different, consumers deserve protection from that.

As for the new laws, I'd have to see what they are before I decide on their merit. I'm certainly in favour of anything that limits puppy mills -it should be illegal to keep dogs in those horrendous conditions. I can't see where a responsible breeder should have anything to fear from legislation. Your dogs are home raised, get good nutrition, see a vet, are on a reasonable breeding/retirement schedule - right?