Didanyone watchthe program on bbc 1 on kennel club and dog breeding......?

Question

if you watched this could you give me some of your opinions on inbreeding dogs, e.g mother son, brother sister breeding, breeding dogs for looks that are ill and genetically, mentally and physically messed up, also if you have a dog with genetic disorders please leave your comments, agreeing or disagreeing with the program or kennel clubs ethics and practices for example rhodesian ridge backs...if they are born without the ridges they should be culled even if they are healthy pups, even tho the ridge is a form of spinabiffida?? thank you x

Answer 1

There are proper breeders (those who test), and improper breeders (byb's and puppymills).  To make a generalization is completely ignorant (it's the equivalent of you saying "All <insert race/ethnicity> do/are/act <insert rediculous stereotype here>") and shows a lack of intelligence.  (This has been asked many times.

Answer 2

I think the show itself was a bunch of propaganda. They found a few bad breeders that made it seem like all breeders are like that.

Certain breeding practices like line-breeding do have their uses. Remember, dogs are not humans. They don't look at each other and think "oh, that's my aunt!", they see another dog and think "oh, that's another dog!".

My dog is from a show-breeder. She doesn't have any genetic disorders. Her parents (and grandparents) were screened prior to breeding to ensure that they were clear.

A *good* breeder breeds not only for physical appearance, but also health, temperament, and working ability (where appropriate for the breed).

Breeders who cull by killing are very very very rare now days. It used to be that culling was the only way to remove bad traits, now we have the technology and medical advancement to spay/neuter. The vast majority of breeders spay/neuter dogs that don't meet the standard and place them as pets. (My dog is one such dog, she doesn't meet the standard, so was sold as a pet with a spay contract.)

ADD:

The breeders cannot be blamed?! That's bullhonkey. The breeders are the ones selecting dogs to reproduce, the breeders are the ones responsible for placing the dogs in appropriate homes. Breeders have a huge responsibility, and yes, they should be blamed if they aren't doing things properly. And they should be praised when they do things properly. The KC cannot police every move that every breeder makes, and it's not their place to do so.

.

Answer 3

I'm really torn on this I like the different breeds but I dislike the illnesses associated with inbreeding. We've got to remember that the TV company want make a good TV show and therefore there may be some sensationalism in the reporting.

I'm not 100% convinced that this was truly balanced. But please don't slate me as I'm not condoning the breeder who continue to breed from dogs that have been diagnosed with genetic problems. Those people are propagating the problem.

I've just written an article which discusses the effects of our efforts to breed dogs against the wolf's natural breeding. If anyone is interested let me know.

Answer 4

I agree that the program seemed to have taken a few breeders in a couple of breeds and generalized the problems into the whole of purebred dogdom.

I don't believe there was much balance.

There are some unethical breeders in the show world, just as there are unethical people in all types of competition. It does not mean that *all* breeders who show dogs have a lack of ethics.

And the problems in CKCS, Pugs, etc. do *not* automatically imply that *all* purebred dogs are ill, in pain, or genetic messes.

I DO blame these few breeders, rather than the KC. Breeders make the choice to ignore afflictions, they do make the choice to inbreed, they do make the choice to cull over something as trivial as color.

Breeders also make the choice to perform health testing and spay/neuter afflicted dogs. They make the choice to research pedigrees before attempting an inbreeding, and they make the choice to deal with the consequences of that inbreeding, even if it means putting down unhealthy puppies.

I have to address the Ridgeback thing:

While I don't know how easy or hard it would be to sell a "ridgeless" Ridgeback to a pet home, I can tell you that ridges are NOT a form of spina bifida. What IS a form of spina bifida is Dermoid Sinus, a congenital defect that sometimes appears in Ridgeback puppies. Dermoid Sinus occurs independent of the ridge -- not every puppy born with DS will be ridged, and not every puppy born with a ridge will have DS. It is usually a small opening in the neck that will abscess if left untreated. It can be "sewn shut" and removed, although many Ridgeback puppies with DS were previously culled.

If the ridge on a Ridgeback was a form of spina bifida, the breed would never have survived in the African bush for hundreds of years.

Answer 5

I certainly did watch it, and I hop all dog lovers did. It has brought into the open the sheer greed and vanity of the breeders and the Kennel Club. The government must come down hard on this. I have contacted my MP to raise it in the House of Commons. I have contacted some of the breeders and the Kennel Club. I was totally disgusted and upset.

I have a GSD who is not one of the low hindquarter type. Apparently he is a German German Shepherd. I say shame on the breeders who create these poor unhealthy animals in the name of vanity.  

Answer 6

I agree 100 percent with abbyful. The program highlights the worst of the worst. We show our dogs have have had a few litters - I can honestly say that our dogs are treated better than we treat ourselves, and we would rather kill ourselves before killing a puppy just because it didn't match the standard.

I haven't watched the program, but from what I can tell, it's a load of c**p. They've shown the worst possible 'reputable' breeders and breeding practices to turn 'regular' people against them. PETA and the HSUS are probably having parties.

Answer 7

Hi there.  Yes I watched the program.  

The program provided a very limited and often bias view of pedigree dog breeders.  The people and the breeders that the program focused on are the extreme minority.  There is no question that some people breed purely for selfish purposes to line their pockets.  The lady with the Cavalier stud dog was a prime example of that.  She did not care that her dog was passing on an awful genetic disease to it's offspring - and that was AFTER the dogs diagnosis.  Why?  because she probably early £300-500 per stud fee.  SHE doesn't have to deal with the consequences.  A true, honest, reputable breeder would never DREAM of breeding from a dog with a debilitating genetic disease.  That dog would be neutered and removed from the breeding program immediately.

There is a big difference between inbreeding and linebreeding.  INbreeding is breeding close relatives (mother to son, brother to sister, etc.) and is frowned upon by reputable breeders.  Line breeding is the careful breeding of distant ancestors and, if done correctly (breeding dogs WITHOUT genetic diseases) it can be a very effective way of improving breeding lines.  

I can't emphasize enough that the extremes in the dog breeding world are the minority.  The people who are truly contributing to problems with pedigree dogs are puppy mills and backyard breeders - not reputable breeders.