You clearly have not listened to the video or understood my arguments. And you do not undertsand the definition of 'criminally insane'. There is no point in arguing with anyone who takes such an extreme position.
Having a 'breed standard'. Could you imagine the equivalent in humans? I cant understand how it would be any different from humans being inbred for the sake of conforming to an arbitrary design. It's a warped idea. Ultimately, pedigree dogs will be terminally ill from birth. I cant see how you could possibly justify breeding anything to a blueprint. It's criminally insane.
The problem is that gene pools are stable - as a result of what peopel like. They ;ike Bulldogs so breeders have stablised the pool. There are young breeders of Bulldogs who like what they see. If you took the trouble to read what I have said here and I have written (search for 'davidcavill' on Wordpress - there are many articles on the subject) you will see that this 'oldie' has been calling for sensible steps to improve the health and welfare of breeds for over 30 years
Retirees with severely overestimated presuppositions of themselves as breeders and too much time on there hands seem to be the key players in holding on to this disastrous maladjustment. Are they expecting gene pools to stabilise by what they do? Too old. Too obstinate.
Oh please..you can't ignore the deformaties of some dogbreeds made the last 100 years. Look the English Bulldog, Boston Terrier, Bullterrier,...They're is a lot of inbreeding with pedigreedogs. Sister with brother, grandpa with graddauther...that is not normal. That should stop.
Well I think Most kennel clubs like FCI, KC, AKC are leaving along many champion dogs spread their gene that is called Popular sire effect So some dogs that are purebred would mate with their cousins that shares about 50% gene from their champion father.
Many majors understand and prohibit just only champs spread their sperm to other mates was so short to adapt. For example FCI prohibited that in March 2010.
How old was the Pug. Many live to a ripe old age and we all stop breeding eventually. You are quite right, of course and there is no doubt that some pedigree dogs are subject to genetic conditions which shorten their lives. however, if you go to any veterinary surgery you will see that the proportion of pedigree dogs to more rules is about 50-50. Mutts get ill too! my point in the programme is it is not fair to tar all pedigree breeds with the same brush
You are as disgusting as the teeth in your mouth! Inbreeding is wrong! YOu must be waiting to breed with your granddaughters. You are pathetic! People like you should die!
You are quite right and I agree with you. However, you should note that the KC has, rightly, changed not just the Peke standard but many others as well for just the reasons you set out
What you say contradicts the KC's actions because Danny, the Pekingese, should not have received a ribbon that year. That dog had corrective surgery because its face is so smashed which affects his throat, and yet, he was shockingly called "perfect". He was even photographed lying on an icepack because the poor thing couldn't breathe. You know these animals are suffering, if the KC had any compassion, change the standards for the dogs' sake, they can't speak for themselves.
First off, LOVE the video. I'm a bit concerned though, I'm not sure where your jaw ends and your neck begins. Your turkey-gobler neck seems to have swallowed the bottom half of you face.
Even if the program was biased, it tells what the English Kennel Club is: a club held up for old aristocrats to show how their inbred pedigrees are up to an arbitrary and cosmetical code.
The English Bulldog is an excellent example of breeding gone wrong (it can't breed and has problems breathing for gods' sake).
By the way, breeding is not the problem, it's the problem that the Kennel Club refuses to accept the problem of inbreeding.
Oh, and it would be good if you source your answers.
its a joke!buy a purebred WORKING dog not a show dog!shows ruin dogs look at the german sheperd its a frog!there are very few good dog breeds left the malinois being one for example..they would be feral dogs!basically its nazi belifs!im not against kennel clubs but they need to go back to the roots!breed a dog for work and health you cant go wrong!
@imozza lies! There temperaments are more stable then your mastiff dogs you shove up everyones but! You think a GSD doesnt recognize a threat? Come on my property and do nothing,, my dog will watch you, but wait patiently, the second you pose a threat to my family, it will be crushing your bones like a vice! You call GSD people sheep?? Thats ignorant! We just simply are smart enough to realize what the best is!
@IMOZZA see, you dont have any good comebacks,, its the showline GSD's that have him problems, not the working kind! Why did you block me from commenting on your videos, because you know i could expose all your lies! Whats your comeback going to be,,, "OK SHEEP" ,lmao, thats all you got! You speak lies and no knowledge and i am calling you out on it!
Kiss the Animals Goodbye is a good video to watch. Breeders cause dog suffering and death, by making competition with homeless, dying dogs. The pet overpopulation crisis in the USA might be worse than in the UK, but perhaps the caring UK dog lovers could save US dogs. Loving dogs isn't just what you say, it's what you do.
The problem is that much of the information that you are entitled to is withheld. For instance, did you know that thousands of puppies bred in Central Europe are imported into the states each year by the big rescue centres for onward sale. People are told that they are rescue but they are charged in total several hundred dollars for them!
Millions of USA dogs/cats are surplus and are killed. $ Billions is wasted on this process. More pets suffer in situations where they receive inadequate care, abuse, or suffer and die uncounted. Even if you do not care about the pets, if you care about humans whose empathy makes them suffer from this crisis, this is a tragedy. At this time, a "good" breeder is like a “good” pedophile; there is not such thing. They both justify and contribute to suffering for their own gratification.
There are many good breeders throughout the world who care for their puppies look after them and track them throughout their lives. To compare them to paedophiles is both inaccurate and distasteful.
Well read and well stated, I take it you practiced before going 'on air' so to speak?
Personally I don't like show dogs, I'd take a mutt or a working dog any day of the week. I really don't care what they do to show dogs as far as breeding goes, as long as health comes first. When the health of the breed takes a back seat to how the dog looks, that's when I get angry.
As you say, it does not matter - the dog is a dog as far as it is concerned - it does not care what it looks like. Our responsibility is to ensure that whatevers its background is is healthy and comfortable.
If dogs exposed is guilty of sensationalising certain information, I feel you are doing the opposite and playing it down too much. Genetics is very complex and as you select for particular phenotypes it can often be to the detriment of others (I won't go into normal ditribution and genetic outliers). As a scientist myself I like to look at the evidence, but in this case it is so far not in your favour, a relatively recent review of literature in the Vet journal (Asher, L. et al (2010)) stated:
'According to the literature searched, each of the top 50 breeds was found to have at least one aspect of its conformation predisposing it to a disorder; and 84 disorders were either directly or indirectly associated with conformation. The Miniature poodle, Bulldog, Pug and Basset hound had most associations with conformation-related disorders. Further research on prevalence and severity is required to assess the impact of different disorders on the welfare of affected breeds.'
You claim that anyone going to dog shows can see for themselves that the purebred dogs are NOT falling apart. maybe not dramatically in most cases, but it is clearly true that the dogs represented in dog shows are nowhere near as capable of doing their breed's "purpose" as those not bred for show. Show bred dogs are miserable examples of working dogs. Show people look down their noses at working dog owners. This is all very true. Hitler would be proud.
You do not run as fast as Kelly Holmes - does that mean you are not a fit for purpose human being? Of course not. Working dogs are working dog - pets are pets. So long as they are fit for function and not in pain or distress what does it matter whether they can catch a hare or pick up a heavy bird and retrieve it? Go to Crufst and see all those dogs which are clearly happy, comfortable and not falling apart and give pleasure to their owners.
@IMOZZA dude, you need to get a life! Your so jealous that the German shepherd is the best breed, you scan the webpages to give your weak, lame comments wherever you can! All your doing is highlighting your ignorance!
I never said that existing dogs were not fit to exist. What I don't like is the careless and irresponsible manner of breeding which is at the heart of the dog show world. Once dogs are produced, love them. But PLEASE, stop being idiots about breeding them for selfish, superficial reasons that lends itself to producing ever worse examples. Bad breeding behavior is the problem, short term wins in the ring as the reason.
I have been breeding, showing, competing and rescuing dogs for 40 years. Most of what he says is rubbish. The standards, of far too many breeds, has changed radically over the years. Most of these changes are for purely cosmetic purposes(the flavor of the day) with no regard to the health or long tern problems such changes make. It is because yahoos who see only dollar signs or a blue ribbons. They have no clue as to the true genetics involved.
Pedigree Dogs Exposed is just a warning to humans that we are not smarter than natural selection.
Breeding dogs based on a written standard is just wrong.
We humans should write a standard on what perfect humans should look like and cull the mutts just like this man says.
He says"in the best interest of the dog", He should say " what is in the best interest of humans. Most humans couldn't keep up to a brisk walk longer than their living room.
I am afraid I do not follow your argument. Natural selection only comes into play when the species is under pressure - the best adapted being the most likely to survive. This means that those less well adapted die. If we care for our dogs they stand a better chance of survival that they would in the wild so why should we not have pets we like the look of so long as they are healthy?
I still hunt my dachshunds and I sled with my Malamutes but these are more for recreation purposes than neccessity. It makes one ponder why we are preserving our breeds when they no longer are needed to do the work they were originally created for. What are your thoughts on that?
Thanks for your positive comments. I think the answer lies in our DNA - why does one person want a sports car and another an SUV? I think pets are good for people and have an important role to play in our psychological health. Why should we not have a pet that we find attractive so long as they are healthy?
I am a dachshund breeder and exhibitor in the US. I am thrilled that you have taken the time to make this video. In my breeding program, I am currently breeding outcrosses but will be linebreeding a litter in 2-3 years. My dogs are tested for everything from temperment to knees. The real answer here is education. Educating the public, the breeders, the judges, and the media. I find your comments about the lectures you give to be most intriguing.
@dicorydox why don't you inbreed with your mother.. i am sure everything from temperament to your knees should be fine .. The real answer here is education. Educating the public, the breeders, the judges, and the media. by then you would be very famous.... i think you are result of inbreed /////
Please read my latest article on Wordpress which discusses the way forward using criteria which any veterinarian could advise and which any breeder could put into practice. It will be posted in the next few days. Getting them to do so is the problem - and remember hat the vast majority of pedigree puppies are produced by puppy farms (mills) where the levelof responsible breeding is minimal.
I am short sighted. So I wear glasses. The 2% came from an article about the breed and was about those which were disadvantaged/disabled by the condition. Many Pekes have respiratory problem but if their temperature and exercise are 'managed' they may be inconvenienced but do not 'suffer'. I do not defend this but we are where we are and we must move forward.. Positive breeding regimes can solve those problems - some would just ban all pedigree dogs (most of which are fine).
I would like to speak at length because you make so many good points and if you read all my writings and posts on Wordpress you will see that I agree with virtually all you say. The difference is of degree. I am nor defending thoughtless selective breeding and believe that selective breeding is the way forward I am trying to separate, 'affected' 'incidence' and 'expression' on the basis that all species live with genetic disability and that if it does not result in death it is 'managed'
I also believe there needs to be very strict guidelines about restricting breeding from animals with obvious disease/dysfunction (as with the Pekingese with the short airway syndrome, the Cavvies with syringomyelia, etc). It is the dogs and the owners who suffer in the end. I can say for certain I would have my work drastically reduced if breeders would breed 1st for health, and 2nd for appearance, but it is something I would welcome, if it meant that I'd see healthier and longer-lived dogs.
No dog with such an obvious abnormality (which will almost certainly cause it to have problems with arthritis etc as it ages) should be considered an excellent example of a breed, in my opinion. I believe breed standards need to be re-considered to take into account the health and wellbeing of all of the breeds (as has been begun with re-assessing the Bulldog breed standard).
The other concern I have is the breed standards which celebrate very clear problems with a breed - the excellent example in the programme being the sway backs of the German Shepherds. Any dog that walked into my clinic with that gait would be immediately assessed for hindlimb problems - that is NOT a normal gait and I don't think it is at all reasonable to say that it could be!
Most of the public that I have been on contact with seem to assume that breeders have these things in mind when breeding, and are unaware that purebred breeding is primarily geared towards breeding for a 'breed standard' - for looks, more than temperament and health. I do acknowledge that there are excellent breeders who bear all things in mind when they are mating dogs, but I believe ALL breeders need to do so - not just a certain percentage.
I believe it is completely unethical to breed from such dogs, and then sell their progeny onto unknowing people, who then have to deal with the consequences of acquiring (and loving!) a dog which they have purchased in good faith, naturally assuming that it has been well bred.
Some researchers believe the incidence of the actual disease in the breed may be as high as 50%. Clearly more research must be done but I don't believe that it can be written off as 'about 2%'. My greatest concern on viewing the programme was, however, the Cav KC which was apparently being used as a stud dog AFTER diagnosis of syringomyelia. It is my very firm belief that if a dog has been diagnosed with any condition which has a genetic component it should be completely banned from breeding.
David, as a veterinarian with 10 years' experience I appreciate your comments and am aware that there have been some moves by the Kennel Club to address these issues.I did want to ask where you obtained the information about he incidence of syringomyelia being about 2%. Recent studies suggest that only 35% of patients with the condition show symptoms, but these dogs will still pass the condition onto any progeny, who then could develop symptoms and suffer as the dog we saw in the documentary.
I cannot agree with all you say but it is great to discuss these matters with those have an open mind. My I suggest you read some of the articles I have posted on my web log at wordpress. Go to wordpress and type in my name
I also think your post fails to recognise that the evolution of dogs occurred through a large and diverse gene pool not an incredibly small select one.
I was hoping you might post on another forum as I would like to discuss the matter further. If i'm going to argue a point, I like to be educated about both sides. thanks
I love dogs. I love pedigree dogs as well. I don't want to see any of them die out which is a real possibility. It is a sad world already that we are leaveing our children, it doesn't need to be any worse. i think people in general need to learn that everything in this world is not there to serve them and their wants.
Finally, the tobacco companies also had specailists that couldn't link disease to smoking. Look how wrong they were. I'm glad the kennel club got the push it naaded and probably wanted, but it is the breeders themselves and thier attitudes that are to blame for this. As the director said, if they pushed to hard, breeders would leave them out of the loop. Question. As a jugde, tell me , how does and unheathly animal win best in show?
The stats the doc. also accounted for undianosed cases as well as those comfirmed. This happens alot in human medicine as well especailly in genetics.
I have encounted countless breeders who beleive they know better than the trained vets they take there animals to. Even the kennel club director said he didn't need a scientist to tell him how to raise a dog.You can't tell me what has been done to breeds like shepards, pugs and other such short mussle dogs isn't disgusting.
I would like to see the science behind your comments in this video. I am a third year genetics student and my wife a qualified vet nurse and neither of us can agree with your comments. Neither can we totally disagree. It is true that the documentry was biased and emotionally driven, but so is your point of view. Alos it is not as misleading as you would like people to believe.
I think we will have to agree to disagree. I have a lot of experience as a dog breeder (breeding exceptionally healthy, long lived dogs) and wrote the book All About Mating Whelping and Weaning. This does not make me 'right' but it gives me a sound foundation on which to comment. The documentary, while making some valid and important points was biased and made to make some specific points.
But it ignored the wider pictures which is that most pedigree dogs are fine. Even many of the universally condemned 'short faced breeds' lead long and happy lives. This is not to say the questions raised should be swept under the carpet. These problems must be dealt with and are being dealt with by the KC and by people like me
Barry, I really appreciate your positive and supportive comment. It is gratifying that there are some people who have a balanced view and can understand that many of us are doing our best. Can we succeed? Yes we can!
You comment shows how little you know. Don't tell the Bulldog people - most of them would horrified that anyone thought they were 'middle class'. I can assure you enthusiasm for dogs is classless and all breeds include people from every strata of society. What do you do outside work? Kill fish? Play some pointless game? Potter about in the garden among your hybrid roses? I would be interested to know. Finally, please try to keep the discussion civilised
Either way, don't you think it's wrong to breed certain animals for aesthetic pleasure, and culling the ones that don't have the desired features? Or inbreeding animals all together? I think my main focus on the whole film, was that breeders forget that these are animals. Living, breathing organisms, and it is selfish and inhumane to horde them for our own amusement.
I do not think it wrong - so long as the health and welfare of the animal is maintained. We are not just talking about dogs. Some breeds of pigeons have beaks shaped so that they cannot break open their eggs when the chicks are ready to hatch - a good example of selective breeding going too far. There are plenty of others. Again the focus of the film was distorted.
Yes, some breeders do behave as you suggest .But the vast majority are sensitive, kind and caring. The real problem throughout the film was that all pedigree dogs were awful and and all pedigree dog breeders were uncaring and cruel. This is just not true
Be that as it may, this whole hobby of yours does not negate the fact that breeding these animals are for two things: entertainment and money. Even if there were no birth defects or genetic disorders, we as humans get so caught up with the idea of playing God, that we forget that these are animals. I can say with confidence, that if there was no money involved, and no one cared for pedigree dogs and settled for the modern mutt, you wouldn't be doing what you're doing.
I see nothing wrong in either entertainment or money - so long as you do no harm. I do not approve of either if harm is done but otherwise how does anyone live? Besides, the modern mutt bites people, is sometimes abused and has its fair share of genetic defects. I think you are being naive. I really have little time for the 'holier than thou/do gooder' mentality. Such people are seldom as pure as they imply. I am sure I could pick holes in your lifestyle given some details.
I'm sure you could, I didn't claim to be perfect. I didn't claim that mutts were the holy saints of the animal kingdom, immune to disease and abuse either. But leave it to mankind to feel he has some sort of superiority over mother nature. Human opinion, interest of greed and amusement distorts the entire function of the planet.
Take a hydrogen atom for instance. It has 1 proton, one electron, and 0-2 neutrons. But the second a man glances at it's qualities, he thinks, "Hmm...I could blow shit up with this."
If there is a lesson in this, it is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. But where's the value in it if the sinner see's no point to seek out a future?
For most people its just a hobby. Some like to go and shoot birds, other want to spend all day fishing, other show Orchids. In the main it does not harm, most show dogs are people's pets too (ours certainly are). And in any case, so long as the dogs are well looked after, fit and healthy (and most are) what is wrong with a fashion statement?
Not sure "wrong" is the correct word, just I don't see the point. Take the GS, you can see in the working line and in the relative breeds like Malinois or Dutch S's that the back has no slope like the show ring dogs have, what is the point in selecting something that could be detrimental to the dog health and brings no advantages? Why a GS from a working line could not be a fashion statement for people who want a dog just for this? Does the oddity and uselessness have to go with that?
"And in any case, so long as the dogs are well looked after, fit and healthy (and most are) what is wrong with a fashion statement?"
ur treating the life of another animal as a fashion statement and hobby....that sounds cruel. no offence....but that's just my opinion....ur example of shooting birds as a hobby is also wrong too...
I like to think that what you say is correct and that most pedigree dogs are healthy still I don't see the point of the breeding as done for show ring. How would it be otherwise that no person using dogs for serious work (sledge pulling, schutzhund, mondioring etc) use dogs coming from show ring and some persons like bore hunters almost don't even consider pure breeds? Clearly the dog are not selected to be able to work at their best, just fashion statements with fur.
You do have a bizarre view of pedigree dogs. You clearly have done absolutely no research on the subject and you are just pedalling your prejudices. I would normally just delete such rubbish but I am leaving it on the post because it is an excellent example of how little thought some people give to a subject before they write. Or perhaps, are incapable of thinking and just uncritically pick up ideas from others who have no knowledge or understanding of what they are talking about
I feel sorry for this man and for every person who support this can of things, they have create deformed animals who suffer from their deformed bodies and healt problems, this people are monsters who visualize dogs as a business and NOT as the man's best friend. I feel so sorry for all these people who kills puppies because some stupid standars, supports endogamy and foolish things like that, and also feel disgusted, cuz they just greedy monsters.
I agree re the Ridgebacks - this is not an acceptable view . I know the lady - she has changed it and does not cull puppies now. The Peke that wnet BOS at Crufts was clearly an abberation - most will agree. However, you spoil your argument about pedigree dogs by revealing your prejudices. Show dogs are ordinary dogs underneath just as human models and film stars are. What are your hobbies? How would you feel if I belittled your interests and passion?
Who cares if they exaggerated a bit?. What got me on the documentary is a woman was killing her puppies becuase they were ridgless ridgebacks... now people say puppy mills are bad, but atleast those puppies get some sort of shot at life. A CLEARLY disabled dog, won crufts, and the breeder will be making lots of money selling disabled puppies. Also, dog showing is a stupid as hell tradition, DOGS ARE PETS NOT BARBIE DOLLS. These people need to get a life.
I was angry about the documentary because it was so biased when 95% of pedigree dogs do not 'suffer' in the way it described. This does not mean we should be happy about the 5% and the KC (with support from people like me) are doing their best to reduce it
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I would not agree because have no problem with breeding dogs for specific purposed and then subsequently continuing and refining them - so long as their health and welfare remains a priority over size, shape and characteristics. It is something that humans have been doing virtually since the first daubs on the walls of caves.
(...meat animals being bred to become so heavy that they can barely support themselves.) Cats and horses, too, are subject to breed-specific difficulties, and unlike the livestock mentioned, there are not even practical purposes for some of these - like the dogs, just for appearance.
I suppose I should simply ask, is your argument focused primarily on that specific documentary, or are you disagreeing with the general concept that breeding for appearance is an inappropriate practice?
(Oops, please, forgive slip-ups with grammar and such, I'm hammering this all out half-asleep.) You compare the exaggeration of dog breeds to the exaggeration of other domesticated animals - which is an accurate comparison, but doesn't really compromise a good argument, because other animals are also subject to being exaggerated to a point far beyong their own wellbeing. (For example, chickens laying eggs so frequently as to become deficient in calcium, or...)
...other than pleasure. I strongly disagree with this. Firstly, though you and I'm sure most dog breeders agree that breeds should not be adjusted to the point which they cannot live well or function well. However, an important question to ask is, why would somebody ever have bred a dog like that in the first place? It all begins with simple vanity. Though, of course, slippery slope arguments aren't sound on their own, I think that is food for thought. (continue, pardon for the flood)
First of all, I will say that I appreciate, at least, that you agree that when the breed reaches a point where its physical features shorten its lifespan, it's gone too far. And yes, it is true that Pedigree Dogs Exposed was very sensationalist, and took care to pick and choose what it said.
However, my position against breeding dogs under strict guidelines of physical appearance remains firm. You assert repeatedly that there is nothing wrong with breeding animals for no purpose (continued)
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The world is made up of sectors al of which have their petty politics - don't get involved in cats or real politics for that mater! What is you breed? What is the 'show world' doing that is do wrong?
I thought my point was obvious. In breeding dogs you are dealing with life. To subject life to a competitions is fundamentally wrong because when you put people into a competitive atmosphere, they will go way beyond what is sane to win. It also means that only the top percentile breeds, dangerously limiting the gene pool. This was presented in the documentary as well, and they really are not wrong. They also highlighted well the loss of sanity.
When the judge for German shepherds was telling the world that the show dogs were much better because they were closer to the breed standard than the working ones, and you see the dogs staggering around the ring on their deformed hind quarters, sanity is obviously absent...........
Dog shows are absolutely the wrong forum to decide who should breed and who not. It is a completely artificial environment that does not show the true nature of the dog. Some points in the documentary may have been exaggerated, but an intelligent audience can usually see through the distortion of the presentation of a single point of view. It is what I worried was going on, they just confirmed it for me.
I am not against breeding dogs, but more in the sense of preserving a particular variation that has more naturally evolved in a particular place in the world. It helps people choose a dog that better fits their life style re size, activity levels and character so that they can choose a companion whos needs they can meet. And many breeds have fantastic characteristics that would be so sad to loose.
We have many ideas in common - but we differ on the best approaches to deal with the specific problems. My experience of the show ring is that by and large most breeders who show are sensible and responsible (there are a proportions like your GSD person who clearly is prejudiced) and it is the 'back pocket pet ' breeders who see the opportunity of making a few pounds by mating their bitch who not know what they are doing and so make serious mistakes.
Come to Bath Ch show on Sunday or Monday where I am judging and Introduce yourself. I am always pleased to talk to people who bring intelligent and thoughtful ideas to the debate. I met several of the above correspondents at Crufts and we had some useful conversations
Sorry but do not live in the UK so cannot take you up on your kind offer. I too know many breeders who adore their dogs and work hard to do the very best they can for the future of their dogs. I have a wonderful, healthy dog because of that. Having done the show thing 3x, I can see how easily the scales can tip. All it takes is one or two idiots who happen to have a lot of influence and the health of a breed is ruined. I blame the competitive nature of show rings for that......
I think each breed should have a committee who looks at all the dogs at least once a year. The committee should consist of breed experts, a veterinarian, a behavioural specialist, and some judges from other breeds to inject a bit of objectivity. They should spend real time with the dog, play with them in a relaxed atmosphere, give them a thorough examination, make recommendations for their breeding highlighting strengths and weaknesses so that as many dogs as possible contribute to the breed....
Is this not a dog show? A dog show was engineered to be this venue you speak of. To judge breeding stock.
For example, I have Labradors (see videos) however, last weekend we were judged by a foreign breeder of Irish Setters. Now Irish Setters and Labradors have two very different standards, both in physical conformation and also in temperaments. A judge needs to know what is correct for each breed.
My dog is adored by several breeders who pushed me into showing him but he does badly in the ring. He just does not like it so he hangs his head and looks miserable. I do not want to do that to him, nor train him to within an inch of his life so that he can perform in the ring so his genes are out of the picture, which is a great pitty.
I agree - some dogs do not enjoy it but many just like to show off. One thing I have learned is that you cannot force them. If breeders like him why should he not be used? We use stud dogs and bitches on the basis of their potential - not their show wins
Ah, but there lies the problem. Personal preference is not always rewarded, and the breeders who chose their breeding stock based on a dog's successes are often rewarded in winning, which then looks impressive to potential puppy buyers, and a trend is started, regardless of how far off that trend is from the written standard.
In Labradors, the current trend is simply more. More bone, more coat, more head, more tail. Which directly as a result is more cruciate tears, more hip/elbow dysplasia.
He gets 3rd place sufficient s so may not be bred. He growls at tooth showing time. The difference between the set up and my suggestion is quite significant. At a dog show one single judge who is or was a breeder of some other breed sees many dogs of different breeds in a day in a formalised presentation. My suggestion has a panel of experts and professionals looking at a single breed in a relaxed atmosphere.
Dog shows award points to weed out the best, my scenario would make a qualified assessment of a dog to establish how it should be bred. Of course if it will damage the breed's health or character then it should be considered unfit for breeding.
Sorry, I have plenty of evidence that what I have written above is right. The best example is in Chows which I have judged for almost 30 years. They are much improved (in the UK - this is not true of the US, the Continent or Russia - I have judged them in Russia!). What you say about some judges is, course, correct, but please do not fall into the trap of tarring all of us with the same brush.
Of course not all judges are this way, but too many are. And the competetive aspect of dog shows ensures that this will be present. and will adverely affect breeds. My dog is of a breed that distrusts strangers, they are a guard dog. He hates the show environment because he cannot get an overview of the environment because there are too many dogs, and judges come up to him without ceremony and grab his mouth to see his teeth.He growls.
Ran out of characters, to continue: He will never do well in shows because he is so typical of his breed. His breed is turning into a bunch of overly friendly lap dogs because they have to be atypical to do well in the ring. If each individual dog wwere assessed properly by expert people, inlcuding vets and behaviouralists, we would get a much better, and broader gene pool to breed dogs from.
Ran out of characters again, so to finish: Too many owners of excellent dogs just cannot stand the petty politics of an environment like the dog showing circuit and withdraw their dogs, or their dogs never participate.
I have not seen any evidence so far. I have tried showing my dog and have met many pugs and Bostons who have a hard time breathing. The whole idea that conformation is a competition is very damaging. The environment is quite perverse judges are ill informed about any other aspect of the breed than its physical breed standard, are prejudiced towards friends, breeders cheat and hide physical problems that should not be encouraged in the breeds, they sabotage other peoples dogs, I can go on.....
But if you select AGAINST deleterious characteristics and FOR health and welfare you improve the stock - it works both ways but you have to know what you are doing
I believe this cruelty happens because showing is a competition a dog must forever have more of a desirable quality until the extreme is achieved and the dog is deformed. Are they breeding pugs noses longer so that they can breathe, or the bull dogs head smaller so that it can whelp naturally. Don't think anyone is doing that right now.
You make it sound as though natural selection is random when, of course, it is not (in most species anyway). I resent 'arrogant, toffy-nosed' for I can assue you I am neither. Incidentally, 'Aussie mixed breed Cattle Dogs' is actually a contradiction in terms. I am afraid like so many, you pick up on a single point and do not think through the points I have made in the video or in the comments.
the simple case is that within a species if one starts inbreeding a subset population recessive problems are more likely to be exhibited due to simple probability. this applies to all breeds. moreover, as with a select group of breeds, if the traits that breeders select are mechanically deleterious, such as huge folds of flesh and skin over miniature palates, or distended torsos so large that they prevent natural sexual intercourse then it is clear that something is wrong.
David, as no one can see inside a dog no breeder can know that they are (for sure) selecting against deleterious genes. Hence the upswing of late onset polygenetic threshold conditions like heart troubles and possibly CM/SM in pedigrees. By the time you know it is too late!
True of course but avoiding such difficulties is what good and clever selective breeding is all about. And it can be done. There are lots of pedigree breeds which do not have the problems we find in a few breeds so someone must be doing it right. It is all too easy to tar everyone with the same brush.
Sorry, David, but all breeds have conditions more prevalent specifically to that breed so none are doing it completely right. For me, the sacrifice of the "few breeds" and the individual pets that suffer within because others vainly demand a strict phenotype is too much. I see nothing positive in continuing with this scientific inbreeding experiment and watching dogs suffer because of it. Open the stud books. Loosen up the standards and go back to land race breeds.
'all breeds'? I would appreciate your reference for that statement. There are many breeds with a genetic incidence of disease no greater than that in the human populations. You make it sound as if all dogs are suffering. This is simply not the case even in some breed seriously affected. And a great deal of work is being done to make improvements and we have seen those improvements making a difference. For a balanced view go to my submission to the APGAW on my web log at Wordpress
As an ex Australian stockman who used Brumbies for all our stock work I can assure all you arrogant toffy-nosed highbrow breeders natural selection is the only way to go. For sheer stamina and ongoing excellent health the brumby, (wild horse) leaves all your so called thoroughbreds for dead. Same applies to the Aussie mixed breed cattle dogs.
I think you need to read the comments so far. I ahve never said everything is fine - there is much to be done and Pugs come into that category. My point is that Jemima distorted the facts which gave a totally misleading impression of pedigree dogs as a whole and of the Kennel Club too. Her figures are predicated on an important but very narrowly focused survey on ten breeds and she has implied that it applies to all pedigree dogs. It does not - most pedigree dogs are fine
Yes, but it only has some value if it is based on understanding and knowledge. - it is worthless otherwise. I think my opinions have value my record show that I have interest, knowledge and understanding. Those that make comments should have the courage to and courtesy to provide their credentials
Just because i am an anonymous doesn't mean your arguments are properly warranted. An appeal to authority is not a substitute for citing evidence. As to my opinion, everyone has a right to their opinion and everyone's opinion is biased. However your status as a breeder and a judge in the very institutions that are criticized makes your defense of it seem the most biased. I notice that you do not respond to any of the facts regarding recessive diseases and pug dog's physiological problems.
unfortunately relating a bunch of anecdotal evidence, and not citing sources to the statistics you present does not seem very persuasive. the arguments about recessive diseases, and the problems in pug nosed dogs still stand. you are incredibly unpersuasive.
You know who I am - my credentials are available for all to see - who on earth are you? Frankly I do not see you have any right to an opinion (which is clearly biased) in any case) on the basis of an unattributable and anonymous persona.
I know many breeders who breed for temperament as well as the welfare of the dog and only have litters once every so many years and bring their puppies up in a homely atmosphere and care for their every whim.
These dogs are their world and they would never breed from a dog that had not passed it's health tests and had not had a positive vetting before hand. These are the sort of people that this documentary are denying are around, which is upsetting.
I think the opinions and points that you have raised in this video are excellent and balanced well. However, some of the points brought up in the documentary were also true. However, they were slightly over exagerated and extremely one sided which in my opinion, is not the correct way to show journalism or media. I am a film student and I am always taught to approach projects and documentaries in a balanced way, no matter how I feel.
It is something of a simplification but you cannot have 'zero tolerance' with a genetic condition/defect/disease because the causes they are embedded in the DNA of the species. You can reduce but not eliminate. Selective breeding does bring such conditions'to the surface' - at which point you can control the breeding programme to reduce the incidence and that is what breeders and the Kennel Club are doing (and have been for many years)
you talk about facts on the CKCS, O.K 2%, that's all fine and dandy, low %, nice, sounds good, when you look at satistics, but these breeders who knowingly, still chose to breed from that 2%.... the Kennel Club, needs to make it harder, for these breeders?, in fact there shouldn't be any % in the first place with proper research. and breeding programs. your video 07:09 - 08:53 I whole hardheartedly agree. it needs tougher,with a zero tolerance, for these breeders.
All owner- show breeders care about, is getting that first and last challenge. If they put the same motivation and energy in to breeding correctly, then as they would about making their dog in to a Champion, the world for dogs would be a better place.
It just seems to me like breeders are taking the attitude of "because I know how to breed dogs, I know in great detail the effects of genetic diseases caused by severe inbreeding, and can prove scientists with years of research and medical pHDs wrong." They are using incorrect and biased information as fact, which is clearly shown in the case of the bulldog.
I'd have to disagree with "they try and breed problems out of their lines". The main example is the Rhodesian Ridgeback. I know the ridge is in the breed name, but it is a genetic fault. It has clearly been shown that ridgebacks with no ridge live longer than those who do have a ridge, mainly because they don't suffer the problems of the ridge, as was show in PDE.
Bravo.A very calm and very informative video retort to PDE.More of the same,please,sir.I am residing in Tokyo and only just read about this kerfuffle in Friday's Japan Times.
Breeders and vets who kill their rhodesian ridgeback puppies because they aren't born with a 'ridge' should be put in jail.
I love dogs, and I don't need to go to Crufts to say that. I've always owned and cared for them and because I care.. I'm for screening out diseases like syringomyelia. It seems that some show dogs have the disease, and still they breed from them - it is wrong, and immoral.
This man is speaking the truth, listen to him. breeders of pedigree dogs dont try to breed problems into their dogs, they try and breed problems out of their lines.
Inbreeding leads to increased mutation, genetic disorders and possible extinction - there is no debate about it. Steve Jones is a highly regarded UCL Prof. and his view that breeding practices are leading to worsening health &increased disease in all breeds is scientifically sound.
There needs to be a shift in concern for the long term welfare of bred dogs away from their appearance, and the BBC documentation is exactly that shifting the paradigm. It is effective, and I applaud them.
"Pedigree dogs have more DNA tests done on them before breeding than any mongrel or cross breed has"
Wolves have even less genetic tests, what is your point?
So they test for specific genetic diseases, good. Genetic tests still do not counteract the reduction in genetic diversity produced by interbreeding.
And despite these numerous genetic tests mongrels are still at least as healthy. The mongrels advantage is that their population is not reaching a genetic bottleneck.
Why didn't you mention that the Boxer & the Cavalier were not bred by people who show or work their dogs ? "there were TWO pet-bred dogs in the film and they were used representatively, to show how hideous SM and epilepsy is""We have been criticised for not including the good things in the first film, but we did that for a reason - it would not have had the impact it's had"
I take your points but it is of no matter. It is possible to breed sound, healthy dogs by selective breeding - most pedigree dogs are sound and healthy - and, of course, they are, by and large, pets: that is their work and their role. What has been happening over the last 10/20 years is that the incidence of genetic disease has been reduced and is being reduced still further. We will never get rid of it entirely but there is no reason we should not get it down to human levels soon
No they are not - their lineage is unimportant. You can a fabulous pedigree dog from two dogs who are not interrelated for five or six generations. That is why breeders often import from other countries. The good ones are being bred for specific breed characteristics and health and soundness. In most circumstances (not all) these two objectives are not incompatible
You clearly have not listened to the video or understood my arguments. And you do not undertsand the definition of 'criminally insane'. There is no point in arguing with anyone who takes such an extreme position.
davidcavill 1 month ago
Having a 'breed standard'. Could you imagine the equivalent in humans? I cant understand how it would be any different from humans being inbred for the sake of conforming to an arbitrary design. It's a warped idea. Ultimately, pedigree dogs will be terminally ill from birth. I cant see how you could possibly justify breeding anything to a blueprint. It's criminally insane.
TeifiValley123 1 month ago
Comment removed
MetalBru01 7 months ago
Maybe but rapidly becoming less likely
After 1/1/12 it will have to be checked by a vet to ensure is is sound before being allowed to go in for Best in Show - so 'No'
Davidsingsjazz 7 months ago
Will this dog have a severe health problem: yes.
Will it win best in show: yes.
Then let the consummation begin...
jamesjoanna 7 months ago
The problem is that gene pools are stable - as a result of what peopel like. They ;ike Bulldogs so breeders have stablised the pool. There are young breeders of Bulldogs who like what they see. If you took the trouble to read what I have said here and I have written (search for 'davidcavill' on Wordpress - there are many articles on the subject) you will see that this 'oldie' has been calling for sensible steps to improve the health and welfare of breeds for over 30 years
Davidsingsjazz 7 months ago
Retirees with severely overestimated presuppositions of themselves as breeders and too much time on there hands seem to be the key players in holding on to this disastrous maladjustment. Are they expecting gene pools to stabilise by what they do? Too old. Too obstinate.
jamesjoanna 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You clearly have not read or listended to what I have said.
Davidsingsjazz 9 months ago
Oh please..you can't ignore the deformaties of some dogbreeds made the last 100 years. Look the English Bulldog, Boston Terrier, Bullterrier,...They're is a lot of inbreeding with pedigreedogs. Sister with brother, grandpa with graddauther...that is not normal. That should stop.
khatanahlya 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
………../´¯/)
………,/¯../
………/…/
…./´¯/.’…/´¯¯·¸
../’/…./…./…./¨¨/¯\
(’(….´….´…..¯;/’…’)
.\……………..’…../
.’\'…\……….._.·´
…\…………..(
….\………….\
angryninja1000 1 year ago
Well I think Most kennel clubs like FCI, KC, AKC are leaving along many champion dogs spread their gene that is called Popular sire effect So some dogs that are purebred would mate with their cousins that shares about 50% gene from their champion father.
Many majors understand and prohibit just only champs spread their sperm to other mates was so short to adapt. For example FCI prohibited that in March 2010.
So These clubs may be one of the two known.
yadongski 1 year ago
How old was the Pug. Many live to a ripe old age and we all stop breeding eventually. You are quite right, of course and there is no doubt that some pedigree dogs are subject to genetic conditions which shorten their lives. however, if you go to any veterinary surgery you will see that the proportion of pedigree dogs to more rules is about 50-50. Mutts get ill too! my point in the programme is it is not fair to tar all pedigree breeds with the same brush
Davidsingsjazz 1 year ago 2
how is it that you explain a pug
my friend has a pug
and last week it died because it stopped breathing
and yes when I go to the vet the are the same amount of mutts going to the vet as pedigrees
but the amount of pedigrees going to the vet because of genetic problems is infinitely higher than that of mutts
Lipzah 1 year ago
you are an pathetic pos .. why don't you breed wt your daughter or your grand daughter ..
superwhiz88 1 year ago
Comment removed
superwhiz88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are as disgusting as the teeth in your mouth! Inbreeding is wrong! YOu must be waiting to breed with your granddaughters. You are pathetic! People like you should die!
NEBESHIKU 1 year ago
You are quite right and I agree with you. However, you should note that the KC has, rightly, changed not just the Peke standard but many others as well for just the reasons you set out
davidcavill 1 year ago
What you say contradicts the KC's actions because Danny, the Pekingese, should not have received a ribbon that year. That dog had corrective surgery because its face is so smashed which affects his throat, and yet, he was shockingly called "perfect". He was even photographed lying on an icepack because the poor thing couldn't breathe. You know these animals are suffering, if the KC had any compassion, change the standards for the dogs' sake, they can't speak for themselves.
VonFisch1 1 year ago
First off, LOVE the video. I'm a bit concerned though, I'm not sure where your jaw ends and your neck begins. Your turkey-gobler neck seems to have swallowed the bottom half of you face.
judlively 1 year ago
@judlively "your face"
judlively 1 year ago
I can't help being old but the Chaines say that age confers wisdom so it is not all bad
Davidsingsjazz 1 year ago
Even if the program was biased, it tells what the English Kennel Club is: a club held up for old aristocrats to show how their inbred pedigrees are up to an arbitrary and cosmetical code.
The English Bulldog is an excellent example of breeding gone wrong (it can't breed and has problems breathing for gods' sake).
By the way, breeding is not the problem, it's the problem that the Kennel Club refuses to accept the problem of inbreeding.
Oh, and it would be good if you source your answers.
AdamWhistle 1 year ago
its a joke!buy a purebred WORKING dog not a show dog!shows ruin dogs look at the german sheperd its a frog!there are very few good dog breeds left the malinois being one for example..they would be feral dogs!basically its nazi belifs!im not against kennel clubs but they need to go back to the roots!breed a dog for work and health you cant go wrong!
vaughan4082 1 year ago
@imozza lies! There temperaments are more stable then your mastiff dogs you shove up everyones but! You think a GSD doesnt recognize a threat? Come on my property and do nothing,, my dog will watch you, but wait patiently, the second you pose a threat to my family, it will be crushing your bones like a vice! You call GSD people sheep?? Thats ignorant! We just simply are smart enough to realize what the best is!
1sowild 1 year ago
Comment removed
IMOZZA 1 year ago
@1sowild i would also laugh at your weak gsd as it hobbles towards me with its host of health problems : )
IMOZZA 1 year ago
@IMOZZA see, you dont have any good comebacks,, its the showline GSD's that have him problems, not the working kind! Why did you block me from commenting on your videos, because you know i could expose all your lies! Whats your comeback going to be,,, "OK SHEEP" ,lmao, thats all you got! You speak lies and no knowledge and i am calling you out on it!
1sowild 1 year ago
Kiss the Animals Goodbye is a good video to watch. Breeders cause dog suffering and death, by making competition with homeless, dying dogs. The pet overpopulation crisis in the USA might be worse than in the UK, but perhaps the caring UK dog lovers could save US dogs. Loving dogs isn't just what you say, it's what you do.
9912011 1 year ago
The problem is that much of the information that you are entitled to is withheld. For instance, did you know that thousands of puppies bred in Central Europe are imported into the states each year by the big rescue centres for onward sale. People are told that they are rescue but they are charged in total several hundred dollars for them!
Davidsingsjazz 1 year ago
Millions of USA dogs/cats are surplus and are killed. $ Billions is wasted on this process. More pets suffer in situations where they receive inadequate care, abuse, or suffer and die uncounted. Even if you do not care about the pets, if you care about humans whose empathy makes them suffer from this crisis, this is a tragedy. At this time, a "good" breeder is like a “good” pedophile; there is not such thing. They both justify and contribute to suffering for their own gratification.
9912011 1 year ago
There are many good breeders throughout the world who care for their puppies look after them and track them throughout their lives. To compare them to paedophiles is both inaccurate and distasteful.
Davidsingsjazz 1 year ago
Comment removed
9912011 1 year ago
Well read and well stated, I take it you practiced before going 'on air' so to speak?
Personally I don't like show dogs, I'd take a mutt or a working dog any day of the week. I really don't care what they do to show dogs as far as breeding goes, as long as health comes first. When the health of the breed takes a back seat to how the dog looks, that's when I get angry.
FallingandRunning 1 year ago
@FallingandRunning
As you say, it does not matter - the dog is a dog as far as it is concerned - it does not care what it looks like. Our responsibility is to ensure that whatevers its background is is healthy and comfortable.
Davidsingsjazz 1 year ago
If dogs exposed is guilty of sensationalising certain information, I feel you are doing the opposite and playing it down too much. Genetics is very complex and as you select for particular phenotypes it can often be to the detriment of others (I won't go into normal ditribution and genetic outliers). As a scientist myself I like to look at the evidence, but in this case it is so far not in your favour, a relatively recent review of literature in the Vet journal (Asher, L. et al (2010)) stated:
captainjonn 1 year ago
'According to the literature searched, each of the top 50 breeds was found to have at least one aspect of its conformation predisposing it to a disorder; and 84 disorders were either directly or indirectly associated with conformation. The Miniature poodle, Bulldog, Pug and Basset hound had most associations with conformation-related disorders. Further research on prevalence and severity is required to assess the impact of different disorders on the welfare of affected breeds.'
captainjonn 1 year ago
You claim that anyone going to dog shows can see for themselves that the purebred dogs are NOT falling apart. maybe not dramatically in most cases, but it is clearly true that the dogs represented in dog shows are nowhere near as capable of doing their breed's "purpose" as those not bred for show. Show bred dogs are miserable examples of working dogs. Show people look down their noses at working dog owners. This is all very true. Hitler would be proud.
tontar 1 year ago 4
You do not run as fast as Kelly Holmes - does that mean you are not a fit for purpose human being? Of course not. Working dogs are working dog - pets are pets. So long as they are fit for function and not in pain or distress what does it matter whether they can catch a hare or pick up a heavy bird and retrieve it? Go to Crufst and see all those dogs which are clearly happy, comfortable and not falling apart and give pleasure to their owners.
davidcavill 1 year ago
@davidcavill please explain the GSD situation then!!!!?
IMOZZA 1 year ago
@IMOZZA Just go to my wordpress web log (search for DavidCavill) and and look up the article 'Are German Style GSDs really Germanic'
Davidsingsjazz 1 year ago
@Davidsingsjazz i will do mate anything to do with their weak back ends? Probably
IMOZZA 1 year ago
@IMOZZA dude, you need to get a life! Your so jealous that the German shepherd is the best breed, you scan the webpages to give your weak, lame comments wherever you can! All your doing is highlighting your ignorance!
1sowild 1 year ago
@davidcavill
if pets are pets, how come pedigree breeders have so much against mixed breed dogs and look down on them??? that hypocritical
koala8 1 year ago
I never said that existing dogs were not fit to exist. What I don't like is the careless and irresponsible manner of breeding which is at the heart of the dog show world. Once dogs are produced, love them. But PLEASE, stop being idiots about breeding them for selfish, superficial reasons that lends itself to producing ever worse examples. Bad breeding behavior is the problem, short term wins in the ring as the reason.
tontar 1 year ago
I have been breeding, showing, competing and rescuing dogs for 40 years. Most of what he says is rubbish. The standards, of far too many breeds, has changed radically over the years. Most of these changes are for purely cosmetic purposes(the flavor of the day) with no regard to the health or long tern problems such changes make. It is because yahoos who see only dollar signs or a blue ribbons. They have no clue as to the true genetics involved.
wolfette2k4 2 years ago 19
Bullshit
zorandubajic 2 years ago
Pedigree Dogs Exposed is just a warning to humans that we are not smarter than natural selection.
Breeding dogs based on a written standard is just wrong.
We humans should write a standard on what perfect humans should look like and cull the mutts just like this man says.
He says"in the best interest of the dog", He should say " what is in the best interest of humans. Most humans couldn't keep up to a brisk walk longer than their living room.
dtvm7469 2 years ago
I am afraid I do not follow your argument. Natural selection only comes into play when the species is under pressure - the best adapted being the most likely to survive. This means that those less well adapted die. If we care for our dogs they stand a better chance of survival that they would in the wild so why should we not have pets we like the look of so long as they are healthy?
davidcavill 2 years ago
I still hunt my dachshunds and I sled with my Malamutes but these are more for recreation purposes than neccessity. It makes one ponder why we are preserving our breeds when they no longer are needed to do the work they were originally created for. What are your thoughts on that?
dicorydox 2 years ago
Thanks for your positive comments. I think the answer lies in our DNA - why does one person want a sports car and another an SUV? I think pets are good for people and have an important role to play in our psychological health. Why should we not have a pet that we find attractive so long as they are healthy?
davidcavill 2 years ago
Comment removed
dicorydox 2 years ago
I am a dachshund breeder and exhibitor in the US. I am thrilled that you have taken the time to make this video. In my breeding program, I am currently breeding outcrosses but will be linebreeding a litter in 2-3 years. My dogs are tested for everything from temperment to knees. The real answer here is education. Educating the public, the breeders, the judges, and the media. I find your comments about the lectures you give to be most intriguing.
dicorydox 2 years ago
Thank you for your comments. Your approach seems very sensible.
davidcavill 2 years ago
linebreeding.. you disgust me
goldenacers 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@dicorydox why don't you inbreed with your mother.. i am sure everything from temperament to your knees should be fine .. The real answer here is education. Educating the public, the breeders, the judges, and the media. by then you would be very famous.... i think you are result of inbreed /////
superwhiz88 1 year ago
The Word press article has now been posted
davidcavill 2 years ago
Please read my latest article on Wordpress which discusses the way forward using criteria which any veterinarian could advise and which any breeder could put into practice. It will be posted in the next few days. Getting them to do so is the problem - and remember hat the vast majority of pedigree puppies are produced by puppy farms (mills) where the levelof responsible breeding is minimal.
Thnaks for your comments
davidcavill 2 years ago
I am short sighted. So I wear glasses. The 2% came from an article about the breed and was about those which were disadvantaged/disabled by the condition. Many Pekes have respiratory problem but if their temperature and exercise are 'managed' they may be inconvenienced but do not 'suffer'. I do not defend this but we are where we are and we must move forward.. Positive breeding regimes can solve those problems - some would just ban all pedigree dogs (most of which are fine).
davidcavill 2 years ago
I would like to speak at length because you make so many good points and if you read all my writings and posts on Wordpress you will see that I agree with virtually all you say. The difference is of degree. I am nor defending thoughtless selective breeding and believe that selective breeding is the way forward I am trying to separate, 'affected' 'incidence' and 'expression' on the basis that all species live with genetic disability and that if it does not result in death it is 'managed'
davidcavill 2 years ago
sorry about the multiple posts - had a lot to say!
cherrypeachespie 2 years ago
I also believe there needs to be very strict guidelines about restricting breeding from animals with obvious disease/dysfunction (as with the Pekingese with the short airway syndrome, the Cavvies with syringomyelia, etc). It is the dogs and the owners who suffer in the end. I can say for certain I would have my work drastically reduced if breeders would breed 1st for health, and 2nd for appearance, but it is something I would welcome, if it meant that I'd see healthier and longer-lived dogs.
cherrypeachespie 2 years ago
No dog with such an obvious abnormality (which will almost certainly cause it to have problems with arthritis etc as it ages) should be considered an excellent example of a breed, in my opinion. I believe breed standards need to be re-considered to take into account the health and wellbeing of all of the breeds (as has been begun with re-assessing the Bulldog breed standard).
cherrypeachespie 2 years ago
The other concern I have is the breed standards which celebrate very clear problems with a breed - the excellent example in the programme being the sway backs of the German Shepherds. Any dog that walked into my clinic with that gait would be immediately assessed for hindlimb problems - that is NOT a normal gait and I don't think it is at all reasonable to say that it could be!
cherrypeachespie 2 years ago
Most of the public that I have been on contact with seem to assume that breeders have these things in mind when breeding, and are unaware that purebred breeding is primarily geared towards breeding for a 'breed standard' - for looks, more than temperament and health. I do acknowledge that there are excellent breeders who bear all things in mind when they are mating dogs, but I believe ALL breeders need to do so - not just a certain percentage.
cherrypeachespie 2 years ago
I believe it is completely unethical to breed from such dogs, and then sell their progeny onto unknowing people, who then have to deal with the consequences of acquiring (and loving!) a dog which they have purchased in good faith, naturally assuming that it has been well bred.
cherrypeachespie 2 years ago
Some researchers believe the incidence of the actual disease in the breed may be as high as 50%. Clearly more research must be done but I don't believe that it can be written off as 'about 2%'. My greatest concern on viewing the programme was, however, the Cav KC which was apparently being used as a stud dog AFTER diagnosis of syringomyelia. It is my very firm belief that if a dog has been diagnosed with any condition which has a genetic component it should be completely banned from breeding.
cherrypeachespie 2 years ago
David, as a veterinarian with 10 years' experience I appreciate your comments and am aware that there have been some moves by the Kennel Club to address these issues.I did want to ask where you obtained the information about he incidence of syringomyelia being about 2%. Recent studies suggest that only 35% of patients with the condition show symptoms, but these dogs will still pass the condition onto any progeny, who then could develop symptoms and suffer as the dog we saw in the documentary.
cherrypeachespie 2 years ago
I cannot agree with all you say but it is great to discuss these matters with those have an open mind. My I suggest you read some of the articles I have posted on my web log at wordpress. Go to wordpress and type in my name
davidcavill 2 years ago
I also think your post fails to recognise that the evolution of dogs occurred through a large and diverse gene pool not an incredibly small select one.
I was hoping you might post on another forum as I would like to discuss the matter further. If i'm going to argue a point, I like to be educated about both sides. thanks
pseddon03 2 years ago
I love dogs. I love pedigree dogs as well. I don't want to see any of them die out which is a real possibility. It is a sad world already that we are leaveing our children, it doesn't need to be any worse. i think people in general need to learn that everything in this world is not there to serve them and their wants.
pseddon03 2 years ago
Finally, the tobacco companies also had specailists that couldn't link disease to smoking. Look how wrong they were. I'm glad the kennel club got the push it naaded and probably wanted, but it is the breeders themselves and thier attitudes that are to blame for this. As the director said, if they pushed to hard, breeders would leave them out of the loop. Question. As a jugde, tell me , how does and unheathly animal win best in show?
pseddon03 2 years ago
The stats the doc. also accounted for undianosed cases as well as those comfirmed. This happens alot in human medicine as well especailly in genetics.
I have encounted countless breeders who beleive they know better than the trained vets they take there animals to. Even the kennel club director said he didn't need a scientist to tell him how to raise a dog.You can't tell me what has been done to breeds like shepards, pugs and other such short mussle dogs isn't disgusting.
pseddon03 2 years ago
I would like to see the science behind your comments in this video. I am a third year genetics student and my wife a qualified vet nurse and neither of us can agree with your comments. Neither can we totally disagree. It is true that the documentry was biased and emotionally driven, but so is your point of view. Alos it is not as misleading as you would like people to believe.
pseddon03 2 years ago
I think we will have to agree to disagree. I have a lot of experience as a dog breeder (breeding exceptionally healthy, long lived dogs) and wrote the book All About Mating Whelping and Weaning. This does not make me 'right' but it gives me a sound foundation on which to comment. The documentary, while making some valid and important points was biased and made to make some specific points.
davidcavill 2 years ago
But it ignored the wider pictures which is that most pedigree dogs are fine. Even many of the universally condemned 'short faced breeds' lead long and happy lives. This is not to say the questions raised should be swept under the carpet. These problems must be dealt with and are being dealt with by the KC and by people like me
davidcavill 2 years ago
Barry, I really appreciate your positive and supportive comment. It is gratifying that there are some people who have a balanced view and can understand that many of us are doing our best. Can we succeed? Yes we can!
davidcavill 2 years ago
Thank you for giving your perspective. I am glad that you do acknowledge problems exist and I hope you are successful in improving the situation.
barry9003 2 years ago
Finally, , perhaps you should start by reading the first three comments on this thread.
davidcavill 2 years ago
You comment shows how little you know. Don't tell the Bulldog people - most of them would horrified that anyone thought they were 'middle class'. I can assure you enthusiasm for dogs is classless and all breeds include people from every strata of society. What do you do outside work? Kill fish? Play some pointless game? Potter about in the garden among your hybrid roses? I would be interested to know. Finally, please try to keep the discussion civilised
davidcavill 2 years ago
dog breeders have ruined bulldogs and many other breeds. middle class scumbags get another hobby
frenchielcfc 2 years ago 4
Either way, don't you think it's wrong to breed certain animals for aesthetic pleasure, and culling the ones that don't have the desired features? Or inbreeding animals all together? I think my main focus on the whole film, was that breeders forget that these are animals. Living, breathing organisms, and it is selfish and inhumane to horde them for our own amusement.
polkaspotsss 2 years ago
well said they kill white boxers and white alcations and kill healthy ridgebacks. just scumbags
frenchielcfc 2 years ago 2
I do not think it wrong - so long as the health and welfare of the animal is maintained. We are not just talking about dogs. Some breeds of pigeons have beaks shaped so that they cannot break open their eggs when the chicks are ready to hatch - a good example of selective breeding going too far. There are plenty of others. Again the focus of the film was distorted.
davidcavill 2 years ago
Yes, some breeders do behave as you suggest .But the vast majority are sensitive, kind and caring. The real problem throughout the film was that all pedigree dogs were awful and and all pedigree dog breeders were uncaring and cruel. This is just not true
davidcavill 2 years ago
Be that as it may, this whole hobby of yours does not negate the fact that breeding these animals are for two things: entertainment and money. Even if there were no birth defects or genetic disorders, we as humans get so caught up with the idea of playing God, that we forget that these are animals. I can say with confidence, that if there was no money involved, and no one cared for pedigree dogs and settled for the modern mutt, you wouldn't be doing what you're doing.
polkaspotsss 2 years ago
I see nothing wrong in either entertainment or money - so long as you do no harm. I do not approve of either if harm is done but otherwise how does anyone live? Besides, the modern mutt bites people, is sometimes abused and has its fair share of genetic defects. I think you are being naive. I really have little time for the 'holier than thou/do gooder' mentality. Such people are seldom as pure as they imply. I am sure I could pick holes in your lifestyle given some details.
davidcavill 2 years ago
I'm sure you could, I didn't claim to be perfect. I didn't claim that mutts were the holy saints of the animal kingdom, immune to disease and abuse either. But leave it to mankind to feel he has some sort of superiority over mother nature. Human opinion, interest of greed and amusement distorts the entire function of the planet.
polkaspotsss 2 years ago
Take a hydrogen atom for instance. It has 1 proton, one electron, and 0-2 neutrons. But the second a man glances at it's qualities, he thinks, "Hmm...I could blow shit up with this."
If there is a lesson in this, it is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. But where's the value in it if the sinner see's no point to seek out a future?
polkaspotsss 2 years ago
For most people its just a hobby. Some like to go and shoot birds, other want to spend all day fishing, other show Orchids. In the main it does not harm, most show dogs are people's pets too (ours certainly are). And in any case, so long as the dogs are well looked after, fit and healthy (and most are) what is wrong with a fashion statement?
davidcavill 2 years ago
Not sure "wrong" is the correct word, just I don't see the point. Take the GS, you can see in the working line and in the relative breeds like Malinois or Dutch S's that the back has no slope like the show ring dogs have, what is the point in selecting something that could be detrimental to the dog health and brings no advantages? Why a GS from a working line could not be a fashion statement for people who want a dog just for this? Does the oddity and uselessness have to go with that?
tapsarautanen 2 years ago
@davidcavill
"And in any case, so long as the dogs are well looked after, fit and healthy (and most are) what is wrong with a fashion statement?"
ur treating the life of another animal as a fashion statement and hobby....that sounds cruel. no offence....but that's just my opinion....ur example of shooting birds as a hobby is also wrong too...
koala8 1 year ago
I like to think that what you say is correct and that most pedigree dogs are healthy still I don't see the point of the breeding as done for show ring. How would it be otherwise that no person using dogs for serious work (sledge pulling, schutzhund, mondioring etc) use dogs coming from show ring and some persons like bore hunters almost don't even consider pure breeds? Clearly the dog are not selected to be able to work at their best, just fashion statements with fur.
tapsarautanen 2 years ago 2
You do have a bizarre view of pedigree dogs. You clearly have done absolutely no research on the subject and you are just pedalling your prejudices. I would normally just delete such rubbish but I am leaving it on the post because it is an excellent example of how little thought some people give to a subject before they write. Or perhaps, are incapable of thinking and just uncritically pick up ideas from others who have no knowledge or understanding of what they are talking about
davidcavill 2 years ago
I feel sorry for this man and for every person who support this can of things, they have create deformed animals who suffer from their deformed bodies and healt problems, this people are monsters who visualize dogs as a business and NOT as the man's best friend. I feel so sorry for all these people who kills puppies because some stupid standars, supports endogamy and foolish things like that, and also feel disgusted, cuz they just greedy monsters.
Lenoretcldg 2 years ago
I agree re the Ridgebacks - this is not an acceptable view . I know the lady - she has changed it and does not cull puppies now. The Peke that wnet BOS at Crufts was clearly an abberation - most will agree. However, you spoil your argument about pedigree dogs by revealing your prejudices. Show dogs are ordinary dogs underneath just as human models and film stars are. What are your hobbies? How would you feel if I belittled your interests and passion?
davidcavill 2 years ago
Who cares if they exaggerated a bit?. What got me on the documentary is a woman was killing her puppies becuase they were ridgless ridgebacks... now people say puppy mills are bad, but atleast those puppies get some sort of shot at life. A CLEARLY disabled dog, won crufts, and the breeder will be making lots of money selling disabled puppies. Also, dog showing is a stupid as hell tradition, DOGS ARE PETS NOT BARBIE DOLLS. These people need to get a life.
mikeyg345 2 years ago 17
There are 369 comments on this thread and many are me explaining my position. What am I supposed to be covering up?
davidcavill 2 years ago
you keep on trying to cover it up
bestable 2 years ago 2
I was angry about the documentary because it was so biased when 95% of pedigree dogs do not 'suffer' in the way it described. This does not mean we should be happy about the 5% and the KC (with support from people like me) are doing their best to reduce it
davidcavill 2 years ago
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I would not agree because have no problem with breeding dogs for specific purposed and then subsequently continuing and refining them - so long as their health and welfare remains a priority over size, shape and characteristics. It is something that humans have been doing virtually since the first daubs on the walls of caves.
davidcavill 2 years ago
(As a final note before I'm off to bed, I really would advise against praising yourself in the video description.)
phillydogger 2 years ago
(...meat animals being bred to become so heavy that they can barely support themselves.) Cats and horses, too, are subject to breed-specific difficulties, and unlike the livestock mentioned, there are not even practical purposes for some of these - like the dogs, just for appearance.
I suppose I should simply ask, is your argument focused primarily on that specific documentary, or are you disagreeing with the general concept that breeding for appearance is an inappropriate practice?
phillydogger 2 years ago
(Oops, please, forgive slip-ups with grammar and such, I'm hammering this all out half-asleep.) You compare the exaggeration of dog breeds to the exaggeration of other domesticated animals - which is an accurate comparison, but doesn't really compromise a good argument, because other animals are also subject to being exaggerated to a point far beyong their own wellbeing. (For example, chickens laying eggs so frequently as to become deficient in calcium, or...)
phillydogger 2 years ago
...other than pleasure. I strongly disagree with this. Firstly, though you and I'm sure most dog breeders agree that breeds should not be adjusted to the point which they cannot live well or function well. However, an important question to ask is, why would somebody ever have bred a dog like that in the first place? It all begins with simple vanity. Though, of course, slippery slope arguments aren't sound on their own, I think that is food for thought. (continue, pardon for the flood)
phillydogger 2 years ago
First of all, I will say that I appreciate, at least, that you agree that when the breed reaches a point where its physical features shorten its lifespan, it's gone too far. And yes, it is true that Pedigree Dogs Exposed was very sensationalist, and took care to pick and choose what it said.
However, my position against breeding dogs under strict guidelines of physical appearance remains firm. You assert repeatedly that there is nothing wrong with breeding animals for no purpose (continued)
phillydogger 2 years ago
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The world is made up of sectors al of which have their petty politics - don't get involved in cats or real politics for that mater! What is you breed? What is the 'show world' doing that is do wrong?
davidcavill 2 years ago
I thought my point was obvious. In breeding dogs you are dealing with life. To subject life to a competitions is fundamentally wrong because when you put people into a competitive atmosphere, they will go way beyond what is sane to win. It also means that only the top percentile breeds, dangerously limiting the gene pool. This was presented in the documentary as well, and they really are not wrong. They also highlighted well the loss of sanity.
merle1122 2 years ago
When the judge for German shepherds was telling the world that the show dogs were much better because they were closer to the breed standard than the working ones, and you see the dogs staggering around the ring on their deformed hind quarters, sanity is obviously absent...........
merle1122 2 years ago 2
Dog shows are absolutely the wrong forum to decide who should breed and who not. It is a completely artificial environment that does not show the true nature of the dog. Some points in the documentary may have been exaggerated, but an intelligent audience can usually see through the distortion of the presentation of a single point of view. It is what I worried was going on, they just confirmed it for me.
merle1122 2 years ago
I am not against breeding dogs, but more in the sense of preserving a particular variation that has more naturally evolved in a particular place in the world. It helps people choose a dog that better fits their life style re size, activity levels and character so that they can choose a companion whos needs they can meet. And many breeds have fantastic characteristics that would be so sad to loose.
merle1122 2 years ago
We have many ideas in common - but we differ on the best approaches to deal with the specific problems. My experience of the show ring is that by and large most breeders who show are sensible and responsible (there are a proportions like your GSD person who clearly is prejudiced) and it is the 'back pocket pet ' breeders who see the opportunity of making a few pounds by mating their bitch who not know what they are doing and so make serious mistakes.
davidcavill 2 years ago
Come to Bath Ch show on Sunday or Monday where I am judging and Introduce yourself. I am always pleased to talk to people who bring intelligent and thoughtful ideas to the debate. I met several of the above correspondents at Crufts and we had some useful conversations
davidcavill 2 years ago
Comment removed
merle1122 2 years ago
Sorry but do not live in the UK so cannot take you up on your kind offer. I too know many breeders who adore their dogs and work hard to do the very best they can for the future of their dogs. I have a wonderful, healthy dog because of that. Having done the show thing 3x, I can see how easily the scales can tip. All it takes is one or two idiots who happen to have a lot of influence and the health of a breed is ruined. I blame the competitive nature of show rings for that......
merle1122 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sammy the peke was a strong case in point in the documentary. How can a dog that is so obviously disabled win Crufts?
merle1122 2 years ago
I think each breed should have a committee who looks at all the dogs at least once a year. The committee should consist of breed experts, a veterinarian, a behavioural specialist, and some judges from other breeds to inject a bit of objectivity. They should spend real time with the dog, play with them in a relaxed atmosphere, give them a thorough examination, make recommendations for their breeding highlighting strengths and weaknesses so that as many dogs as possible contribute to the breed....
merle1122 2 years ago
Is this not a dog show? A dog show was engineered to be this venue you speak of. To judge breeding stock.
For example, I have Labradors (see videos) however, last weekend we were judged by a foreign breeder of Irish Setters. Now Irish Setters and Labradors have two very different standards, both in physical conformation and also in temperaments. A judge needs to know what is correct for each breed.
Lastcalllabs 2 years ago
My dog is adored by several breeders who pushed me into showing him but he does badly in the ring. He just does not like it so he hangs his head and looks miserable. I do not want to do that to him, nor train him to within an inch of his life so that he can perform in the ring so his genes are out of the picture, which is a great pitty.
merle1122 2 years ago
I agree - some dogs do not enjoy it but many just like to show off. One thing I have learned is that you cannot force them. If breeders like him why should he not be used? We use stud dogs and bitches on the basis of their potential - not their show wins
davidcavill 2 years ago
Ah, but there lies the problem. Personal preference is not always rewarded, and the breeders who chose their breeding stock based on a dog's successes are often rewarded in winning, which then looks impressive to potential puppy buyers, and a trend is started, regardless of how far off that trend is from the written standard.
In Labradors, the current trend is simply more. More bone, more coat, more head, more tail. Which directly as a result is more cruciate tears, more hip/elbow dysplasia.
Lastcalllabs 2 years ago
He gets 3rd place sufficient s so may not be bred. He growls at tooth showing time. The difference between the set up and my suggestion is quite significant. At a dog show one single judge who is or was a breeder of some other breed sees many dogs of different breeds in a day in a formalised presentation. My suggestion has a panel of experts and professionals looking at a single breed in a relaxed atmosphere.
merle1122 2 years ago
Dog shows award points to weed out the best, my scenario would make a qualified assessment of a dog to establish how it should be bred. Of course if it will damage the breed's health or character then it should be considered unfit for breeding.
merle1122 2 years ago
Sorry, I have plenty of evidence that what I have written above is right. The best example is in Chows which I have judged for almost 30 years. They are much improved (in the UK - this is not true of the US, the Continent or Russia - I have judged them in Russia!). What you say about some judges is, course, correct, but please do not fall into the trap of tarring all of us with the same brush.
davidcavill 2 years ago
Of course not all judges are this way, but too many are. And the competetive aspect of dog shows ensures that this will be present. and will adverely affect breeds. My dog is of a breed that distrusts strangers, they are a guard dog. He hates the show environment because he cannot get an overview of the environment because there are too many dogs, and judges come up to him without ceremony and grab his mouth to see his teeth.He growls.
merle1122 2 years ago
Ran out of characters, to continue: He will never do well in shows because he is so typical of his breed. His breed is turning into a bunch of overly friendly lap dogs because they have to be atypical to do well in the ring. If each individual dog wwere assessed properly by expert people, inlcuding vets and behaviouralists, we would get a much better, and broader gene pool to breed dogs from.
merle1122 2 years ago
Ran out of characters again, so to finish: Too many owners of excellent dogs just cannot stand the petty politics of an environment like the dog showing circuit and withdraw their dogs, or their dogs never participate.
merle1122 2 years ago
Oh yes they are.
davidcavill 2 years ago
I have not seen any evidence so far. I have tried showing my dog and have met many pugs and Bostons who have a hard time breathing. The whole idea that conformation is a competition is very damaging. The environment is quite perverse judges are ill informed about any other aspect of the breed than its physical breed standard, are prejudiced towards friends, breeders cheat and hide physical problems that should not be encouraged in the breeds, they sabotage other peoples dogs, I can go on.....
merle1122 2 years ago
But if you select AGAINST deleterious characteristics and FOR health and welfare you improve the stock - it works both ways but you have to know what you are doing
davidcavill 2 years ago
I believe this cruelty happens because showing is a competition a dog must forever have more of a desirable quality until the extreme is achieved and the dog is deformed. Are they breeding pugs noses longer so that they can breathe, or the bull dogs head smaller so that it can whelp naturally. Don't think anyone is doing that right now.
merle1122 2 years ago
You make it sound as though natural selection is random when, of course, it is not (in most species anyway). I resent 'arrogant, toffy-nosed' for I can assue you I am neither. Incidentally, 'Aussie mixed breed Cattle Dogs' is actually a contradiction in terms. I am afraid like so many, you pick up on a single point and do not think through the points I have made in the video or in the comments.
chloeandmelly 2 years ago
the simple case is that within a species if one starts inbreeding a subset population recessive problems are more likely to be exhibited due to simple probability. this applies to all breeds. moreover, as with a select group of breeds, if the traits that breeders select are mechanically deleterious, such as huge folds of flesh and skin over miniature palates, or distended torsos so large that they prevent natural sexual intercourse then it is clear that something is wrong.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
David, as no one can see inside a dog no breeder can know that they are (for sure) selecting against deleterious genes. Hence the upswing of late onset polygenetic threshold conditions like heart troubles and possibly CM/SM in pedigrees. By the time you know it is too late!
shirley6677 2 years ago
True of course but avoiding such difficulties is what good and clever selective breeding is all about. And it can be done. There are lots of pedigree breeds which do not have the problems we find in a few breeds so someone must be doing it right. It is all too easy to tar everyone with the same brush.
davidcavill 2 years ago
Sorry, David, but all breeds have conditions more prevalent specifically to that breed so none are doing it completely right. For me, the sacrifice of the "few breeds" and the individual pets that suffer within because others vainly demand a strict phenotype is too much. I see nothing positive in continuing with this scientific inbreeding experiment and watching dogs suffer because of it. Open the stud books. Loosen up the standards and go back to land race breeds.
shirley6677 2 years ago
'all breeds'? I would appreciate your reference for that statement. There are many breeds with a genetic incidence of disease no greater than that in the human populations. You make it sound as if all dogs are suffering. This is simply not the case even in some breed seriously affected. And a great deal of work is being done to make improvements and we have seen those improvements making a difference. For a balanced view go to my submission to the APGAW on my web log at Wordpress
davidcavill 2 years ago
As an ex Australian stockman who used Brumbies for all our stock work I can assure all you arrogant toffy-nosed highbrow breeders natural selection is the only way to go. For sheer stamina and ongoing excellent health the brumby, (wild horse) leaves all your so called thoroughbreds for dead. Same applies to the Aussie mixed breed cattle dogs.
Cheers...
stockman71 2 years ago
I think you need to read the comments so far. I ahve never said everything is fine - there is much to be done and Pugs come into that category. My point is that Jemima distorted the facts which gave a totally misleading impression of pedigree dogs as a whole and of the Kennel Club too. Her figures are predicated on an important but very narrowly focused survey on ten breeds and she has implied that it applies to all pedigree dogs. It does not - most pedigree dogs are fine
chloeandmelly 2 years ago
Yes, but it only has some value if it is based on understanding and knowledge. - it is worthless otherwise. I think my opinions have value my record show that I have interest, knowledge and understanding. Those that make comments should have the courage to and courtesy to provide their credentials
davidcavill 2 years ago
Just because i am an anonymous doesn't mean your arguments are properly warranted. An appeal to authority is not a substitute for citing evidence. As to my opinion, everyone has a right to their opinion and everyone's opinion is biased. However your status as a breeder and a judge in the very institutions that are criticized makes your defense of it seem the most biased. I notice that you do not respond to any of the facts regarding recessive diseases and pug dog's physiological problems.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
unfortunately relating a bunch of anecdotal evidence, and not citing sources to the statistics you present does not seem very persuasive. the arguments about recessive diseases, and the problems in pug nosed dogs still stand. you are incredibly unpersuasive.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
You know who I am - my credentials are available for all to see - who on earth are you? Frankly I do not see you have any right to an opinion (which is clearly biased) in any case) on the basis of an unattributable and anonymous persona.
davidcavill 2 years ago
I know many breeders who breed for temperament as well as the welfare of the dog and only have litters once every so many years and bring their puppies up in a homely atmosphere and care for their every whim.
These dogs are their world and they would never breed from a dog that had not passed it's health tests and had not had a positive vetting before hand. These are the sort of people that this documentary are denying are around, which is upsetting.
Vixdamix 2 years ago
Also..
I show Large Munsterlanders and I can honestly say that they are the same dog as those that were first introduced into the country.
Vixdamix 2 years ago
I think the opinions and points that you have raised in this video are excellent and balanced well. However, some of the points brought up in the documentary were also true. However, they were slightly over exagerated and extremely one sided which in my opinion, is not the correct way to show journalism or media. I am a film student and I am always taught to approach projects and documentaries in a balanced way, no matter how I feel.
Vixdamix 2 years ago
Olaf - thank you. You are absolutely right
davidcavill 2 years ago
my minature duschund lived a long and healthy life. I see no problem with a well bred pedigree dog, the main thing is they all have happy lives :)
OlafTheVillageIdiot 2 years ago
It is something of a simplification but you cannot have 'zero tolerance' with a genetic condition/defect/disease because the causes they are embedded in the DNA of the species. You can reduce but not eliminate. Selective breeding does bring such conditions'to the surface' - at which point you can control the breeding programme to reduce the incidence and that is what breeders and the Kennel Club are doing (and have been for many years)
davidcavill 2 years ago
you talk about facts on the CKCS, O.K 2%, that's all fine and dandy, low %, nice, sounds good, when you look at satistics, but these breeders who knowingly, still chose to breed from that 2%.... the Kennel Club, needs to make it harder, for these breeders?, in fact there shouldn't be any % in the first place with proper research. and breeding programs. your video 07:09 - 08:53 I whole hardheartedly agree. it needs tougher,with a zero tolerance, for these breeders.
vonedel 2 years ago
I think you cannot prove your statement. Please let me have evidence on which your opinion is based.
davidcavill 2 years ago
All owner- show breeders care about, is getting that first and last challenge. If they put the same motivation and energy in to breeding correctly, then as they would about making their dog in to a Champion, the world for dogs would be a better place.
vonedel 2 years ago
It just seems to me like breeders are taking the attitude of "because I know how to breed dogs, I know in great detail the effects of genetic diseases caused by severe inbreeding, and can prove scientists with years of research and medical pHDs wrong." They are using incorrect and biased information as fact, which is clearly shown in the case of the bulldog.
ccnnffpp00660077 2 years ago
I'd have to disagree with "they try and breed problems out of their lines". The main example is the Rhodesian Ridgeback. I know the ridge is in the breed name, but it is a genetic fault. It has clearly been shown that ridgebacks with no ridge live longer than those who do have a ridge, mainly because they don't suffer the problems of the ridge, as was show in PDE.
ccnnffpp00660077 2 years ago
Bravo.A very calm and very informative video retort to PDE.More of the same,please,sir.I am residing in Tokyo and only just read about this kerfuffle in Friday's Japan Times.
supercrazyandy 2 years ago
Breeders and vets who kill their rhodesian ridgeback puppies because they aren't born with a 'ridge' should be put in jail.
I love dogs, and I don't need to go to Crufts to say that. I've always owned and cared for them and because I care.. I'm for screening out diseases like syringomyelia. It seems that some show dogs have the disease, and still they breed from them - it is wrong, and immoral.
maureen0ann0murphy 2 years ago
Thnak you Tabi
davidcavill 2 years ago
This man is speaking the truth, listen to him. breeders of pedigree dogs dont try to breed problems into their dogs, they try and breed problems out of their lines.
tabi697 2 years ago
Yesterday the Crufts medical team dealt with three people who had epilectic fits at the NEC during Crufts.
The Crufts Veterinary team reported none!
There were more people than dogs at the show it is true but from the some the media reporting you would not have expected this
Food for thought
davidcavill 2 years ago
Oh dear - more generalisations. Come to Crufts and see thousands of excellent,, happy healthy dogs for yourself.
Then spend some time considering the millions of humans which are handicapped, disease ridden, wretchedly poor and even subject to genocide.
Where are your priorities?
davidcavill 2 years ago
Inbreeding leads to increased mutation, genetic disorders and possible extinction - there is no debate about it. Steve Jones is a highly regarded UCL Prof. and his view that breeding practices are leading to worsening health &increased disease in all breeds is scientifically sound.
There needs to be a shift in concern for the long term welfare of bred dogs away from their appearance, and the BBC documentation is exactly that shifting the paradigm. It is effective, and I applaud them.
maureen0ann0murphy 2 years ago
Good reply David, pity some of the people who have responded have obviously little or no knowledge of the breeding of Pedigree dogs
Rjj02052005 3 years ago
"Good reply David, pity some of the people who have responded have obviously little or no knowledge of the breeding of Pedigree dogs"
Pedigree dogs are not exempt from genetics.
DeNovoApollyon 2 years ago
?????????
Pedigree dogs have more DNA tests done on them before breeding than any mongrel or cross breed has
Rjj02052005 2 years ago
"Pedigree dogs have more DNA tests done on them before breeding than any mongrel or cross breed has"
Wolves have even less genetic tests, what is your point?
So they test for specific genetic diseases, good. Genetic tests still do not counteract the reduction in genetic diversity produced by interbreeding.
And despite these numerous genetic tests mongrels are still at least as healthy. The mongrels advantage is that their population is not reaching a genetic bottleneck.
DeNovoApollyon 2 years ago
Of course they are - whoever said they were. Not me certainly
davidcavill 2 years ago
Why didn't you mention that the Boxer & the Cavalier were not bred by people who show or work their dogs ? "there were TWO pet-bred dogs in the film and they were used representatively, to show how hideous SM and epilepsy is""We have been criticised for not including the good things in the first film, but we did that for a reason - it would not have had the impact it's had"
Rjj02052005 3 years ago
but you guys mess with mother nature...
twistedpeenut 3 years ago
I take your points but it is of no matter. It is possible to breed sound, healthy dogs by selective breeding - most pedigree dogs are sound and healthy - and, of course, they are, by and large, pets: that is their work and their role. What has been happening over the last 10/20 years is that the incidence of genetic disease has been reduced and is being reduced still further. We will never get rid of it entirely but there is no reason we should not get it down to human levels soon
davidcavill 3 years ago
"It is possible to breed sound, healthy dogs by selective breeding"
Selective breeding, yes, however pedigree dogs are not being selectively bred for a trait or traits.
Pedigree dogs are valued highly for their linneage, that is the flaw in the system.
DeNovoApollyon 2 years ago
No they are not - their lineage is unimportant. You can a fabulous pedigree dog from two dogs who are not interrelated for five or six generations. That is why breeders often import from other countries. The good ones are being bred for specific breed characteristics and health and soundness. In most circumstances (not all) these two objectives are not incompatible
davidcavill 2 years ago