# Pedigree dogs exposed three years on?



## AyJay658

Hey did anyone catch this show on BBC the other day? I was wondering what all you lovely breeders thought of the laws passed by the kennel club? I.e they made it illegal to interbreed mothers and sons/brothers and sisters etc etc. And the law that its illegal to cull a healthy puppy for cosmetic reasons like a Rhodesian ridgeback without its ridge etc etc. My problem with a lot of these sorts of things is that it implies death is the worst thing an animal can get. Whereas if you think about it, a reject rhodesian ridgeback is just going to be put in a rescue centre and add to the millions of dogs already without homes. What does everyone think to these points?


----------



## Alex

Hi, i watched the program. I think it's probably a good thing that very closely related matings have been banned in order to lower the overall COI (coefficient of inbreeding) of breeds, although it does seem that breeders can apply for special permission in certain cases that are deemed 'scientific'. Personally I REALLY can't see how the KC can stop breeders culling as litter registration has no time limit - a litter can be registered when they are 12 months old (although this does cost a lot more)! As for the Ridgeback question, I would think that it would be easier for breeders/exhibitors to recognise non-ridged dogs and exhibit them in seperate classes, perhaps as 'Rhodesian Hound' or something?
I suppose, at the end of the day, that there are unscrupulous breeders in every animal fancy, and no matter what the rules are, they'll find a way around it. If someone keeps 20 bitches and breeds three of them every time they come into season, there's no way of checking (apart from DNA profiling) that the bitch on the pedigree is the actual dam. People are willing to spend massive amounts of money on pedigree pups - especially if they fit into a handbag and 'accessorize' a lifestyle or image - so there will always be borderline criminals ready and happy to supply them in whatever way they can.


----------



## Kingnoel

Wow, that seems incredibly short sighted. Most dog breeds would not be in existence without inbreeding. As we know with mice it's nearly essential.
I just the hope AKC over here doesn't follow suit, it'd ruin my plans for my Papillon lines. My girl is going back to her grandpa and I can't wait!
I bet most British dog breeders are up in arms, I would be.


----------



## WillowDragon

The reason it was done was to appease the public, pure and simple.

As most of you will well know, the general public are ignorant to the benefits of inbreeding, and will immediately think its disgusting, and blame the problems pedigree dogs have, purely on the fact they are inbred.

This is not true, pedigree breeds that have serious health issues stem from irresponsible ( and in my mind disgusting) people that didn't give a darn about the health of the animals and only bred for looks, I know alot of people who breed dogs, and do it well and responsibly, but in the past it cannot be denied that health wasn't taken into account. And THAT is where the issues come from.


----------



## Kallan

I am glad it has come about.

Next step would be to prohibit breeding of short faced dogs on welfare grounds. Preferably starting with bulldogs. We do not fight bulls any more, and they have serious health issues. I think we have become too normalised to seeing these stunted, malformed animals and are far too accepting of them.

Careful breeding is acceptable and the only way forward, but the problem is that so many people are set in their ways and have a top show dog and will use him or her to breed from because they are a good fit for breed characteristics and hence will win shows. Who cares if it's kidneys don't work, or it can't breathe properly, or that it's going to have a terrible heart problem before the age of 5?

While we're at it, we could also ban the backyard breeders who think crossing crossing their dog with their neighbours' dog to make money is a wonderful idea, who have no idea about health or whelping and who show up at the vet three days after the dam started straining, wondering if there may be something wrong.


----------



## Rhasputin

WillowDragon said:


> The reason it was done was to appease the public, pure and simple.
> 
> As most of you will well know, the general public are ignorant to the benefits of inbreeding, and will immediately think its disgusting, and blame the problems pedigree dogs have, purely on the fact they are inbred.
> 
> This is not true, pedigree breeds that have serious health issues stem from irresponsible ( and in my mind disgusting) people that didn't give a darn about the health of the animals and only bred for looks, I know alot of people who breed dogs, and do it well and responsibly, but in the past it cannot be denied that health wasn't taken into account. And THAT is where the issues come from.


I agree with this. I saw a special about pedigree dogs and how unhealthy they were etc, maybe it was the same one this thread is talking about. I saw people in the video who KNEW that their dogs had severe health problems, but continued to stud them out and breed them because they were show winning animals. That made me really uncomfortable. One woman had the champion dog of it's breed, which had a severe, crippling and horrible disorder, and it was mentioned that it had fathered over 40 litters. . .

It's not the inbreeding that does it. It's stupid people who breed (whether it's inbreeding or not) their sick animal just because it wins awards based on it's looks.


----------



## Alex

Regarding the health issues of some breeds, despite the fact that the KC has instigated health screening and supports lots of research financially, it is very difficult to get people to change practices. If, for example, I'm breeding Cavaliers and I know that all my pups by the age of 7 have heart problems, but they win shows up to and even after that age, do I stop breeding altogether? Recently there have been two genes located that are suggested to pre-dispose Cavaliers to a specific heart problem - if it is found that this gene is in ALL Cavaliers, what should breeders do? In this scenario, would it be unethical to breed any Cavaliers at all? Possibly. It's a very difficult problem I think, even for breeders who have their dogs health screened and actually care about health rather than wealth.


----------



## Kallan

Alex said:


> Regarding the health issues of some breeds, despite the fact that the KC has instigated health screening and supports lots of research financially, it is very difficult to get people to change practices. If, for example, I'm breeding Cavaliers and I know that all my pups by the age of 7 have heart problems, but they win shows up to and even after that age, do I stop breeding altogether? Recently there have been two genes located that are suggested to pre-dispose Cavaliers to a specific heart problem - if it is found that this gene is in ALL Cavaliers, what should breeders do? In this scenario, would it be unethical to breed any Cavaliers at all? Possibly. It's a very difficult problem I think, even for breeders who have their dogs health screened and actually care about health rather than wealth.


It is also very difficult to get rid of genes. Very easy to introduce them, but a lot harder to eradicate. Lot at the hip scoring scheme in GSDs and labradors - even well bred and scored animals still get issues.

Trying to chance practices is the difficult bit - if a bad gene is in all Cavaliers, then outcrossing would be the way forward to reduce either carriers of the gene, or its effects. But this would create a dog that, while perhaps healthier, would not conform to breed standards. Hence the problem.


----------



## Alex

> Trying to chance practices is the difficult bit - if a bad gene is in all Cavaliers, then outcrossing would be the way forward to reduce either carriers of the gene, or its effects. But this would create a dog that, while perhaps healthier, would not conform to breed standards. Hence the problem.


I understand that, and yes that's the base of the problem I suppose in all exhibition breeding of any animal - the standard. I wonder, though, is another problem 'Big Pharma'? For example, a Cavalier can be kept ticking along for years on expensive medication and expensive vet visits... It's a very complicated problem, even if many breeds have only either been developed in the last 200 years, have been changed in the last less than 100, or have had health problems recognised in the last few decades. I wonder how many of these problems (not related to morphology per say) went unrecognised for decades?


----------



## Kallan

I don't think big pharma are any part of the problem at all. If there were no health issues, there would be no need for the drugs! And anyone who buys a breed knowing it's going to need lots of medication are, to my mind, deluding themselves.

I think if medicine and surgery wasn't where it was now, I think (or at least I would hope) that a lot of people would be put off keeping the breeds that are the worst health-wise. If you paid £750 for a purebred pug, but knew there was a large risk of it dying or having to be put down at an early age due to either an incredibly painful neuro condition, or obstructive airway disease - would you buy it?

Pet insurance may have a large part to play - we have Shar Pei owners who think it is normal for a dog to need it's eyelids operated on so it can see. Perhaps if insurance companies stopped paying out for known breed issues, and people stopped keeping certain breeds, we would start to see a change.

Some issues are new and associated with new genes popping up - like the boxer kidney issues, these have only been around the last 20 years or so. However as many of the health issues are related to poor conformation (syringomyelia, brachycephalic syndrome, hip dysplasia, skin fold dermatitis) these will have been present since the poor anatomy of the breed was fixed. Although in some breeds, the poor anatomy is fairly recent - the continual shortening of a bulldog's or persian cat's face, for instance.


----------



## WillowDragon

Bulldogs make me angry, they are ridiculas, but it's not the poor dogs fault!

Not all of them will be dreadfully unhealthy I imagine, but enough of them are which just shouldn't happen. I know the KC changed the standards slightly, for the heads not to be so big, so females can actually give birth to thier own pups naturally. :roll:

The pedigree dogs thing always sets off riots in my head, there are some breeds I really love, and I can understand breeding for conformation! Lol
But no one can deny that a large percentage of pedigree dogs are unhealthy to a degree that is life affecting for them.

W xx


----------



## Shadowrunner

Well I know several breeds can't give birth naturally, isn't shitzu one of them?
Has anyone seen the Tv show "after people" ?
All the people vanish, little dogs get eaten by big dogs, big dogs turn back into wolves after a few generations.

The ones that bother me most personally are the large breeds. Thier problems aren't 
as obvious o sometimes they are overlooked.
Then again I'm biased. My ligaments are loose so my hip joints are unstable.
So I understand what that means for a dog. Bulldogs though, and pugs die on hot days so I'd have to agree with you.

But what to do?


----------



## SarahY

I don't have a television, but programmes like this make me very, very angry. "Let's show a biased view and make the ignorant public believe pedigree animals are bad" :evil:

Mutts can have just as many health problems as pedigree dogs.


----------



## Rhasputin

SarahY said:


> I don't have a television, but programmes like this make me very, very angry. "Let's show a biased view and make the ignorant public believe pedigree animals are bad" :evil:
> 
> Mutts can have just as many health problems as pedigree dogs.


This is also true!


----------



## PPVallhunds

AyJay658 said:


> Hey did anyone catch this show on BBC the other day? I was wondering what all you lovely breeders thought of the laws passed by the kennel club? I.e they made it illegal to interbreed mothers and sons/brothers and sisters etc etc. And the law that its illegal to cull a healthy puppy for cosmetic reasons like a Rhodesian ridgeback without its ridge etc etc. My problem with a lot of these sorts of things is that it implies death is the worst thing an animal can get. Whereas if you think about it, a reject rhodesian ridgeback is just going to be put in a rescue centre and add to the millions of dogs already without homes. What does everyone think to these points?


Yeah i saw it, it was more balanced than the first one at least, but could have been alot better if it told the general public how to find a good breeder and how improtant health testing is. You would be suprised how many people ive seen who have no idea about helath testing and think its just a general check up with the vets, also all the people who buy ther pups form a pet shop, or some bloke in a layby. If people dont get a pup form health tested parents form a good breeder they cant realy be supried if there pup later gets one of those health problems. Some breeders wont admit there is a problem in there breed/line. As for the ridgless rigebacks, iv saw many for sale befor the KC brought in that rule, breeders just seem to sell them at a lower price as pets only, but as someone said the KC wont actualy know if someone culls a pup unless the vet, breeder or someone who knows them informs the KC. I felt so sorry for that boxer breeder who lost her girl to the kidney problem she was trying so hard not to cry. 
Also the new KC rules are not actualy law, just rules for people who want to KC register there pups.


----------



## SarahY

I just don't understand how people think mutts are better... but then I suppose everyone on here including myself is more clued up about inbreeding, buying from respectable breeders, breeding for health and temperament, than the general public are.

With a pedigree there are few surprises. You know what a pedigree dog is going to turn into (or at least you have a bloody good idea). If you want a fairly small dog that is people friendly and great with kids, you go to a good staff breeder. You want a high-energy dog that'll do flyball, you go to a collie breeder. You want a big dog that'll be able to walk for hours with you and even carry provisions on long treks with you, you go to a rottie breeder. You want a willful, disobediant demon that can find food in the most unlikely of places, you get a beagle :lol:

No-one can predict what a mutt will be or how the adult version of the cute puppy will fit into your lifestyle.

So-called designer breeds are so much worse. Just take a look at the grotesque facial deformities you can get cross breeding pugs and beagles, which is a popular cross. Even a 'good' one is all wrong - you get a playful energetic animal which doesn't have the respiratory structure to do the things it's beagle nature wants it to. How can people think mutts are better? *shakes head*


----------



## kellyt

Did this program touch on anything with regards to temperament of what is being bred? That in my mind is another big issue when it comes to dog breeding far worse in many cases than inbreeding.


----------



## Kallan

Generally I would say mutts are fitter for purpose (thinking here of a Heinz 57 that is dog shaped, where it is very difficult to identify parent or grandparent breeds).

Crossing a pug to a bulldog will not be any better than either breed individually. Ditto a GSD x lab is still going to have hip problems. A boxer x GSD is a walking tumour factory and dachshund/shuh tzu is a slipped disc waiting to happen. And these 'designer breeds' are doing my head in - people part with huge amounts of money for what are crossbred dogs, bred by those who have absolutely no interest in health, just a money-generating name (puggle, jackapat, bichon noir, etc!). Said owners then get huffy when you point out that their dogs are not pedigree or purebred, but crossbreeds. And then the public perception that anything with '-oodle' in it is hypoallergenic...

I don't disagree with pedigree breeding, just disagree with breeding dogs into silly shapes that compromise their welfare. If you look at feral dog populations, they always tend back to the general coyote/jackal/wolf shape - well proportioned heads/legs/bodies.


----------



## PPVallhunds

SarahY said:


> So-called designer breeds are so much worse. Just take a look at the grotesque facial deformities you can get cross breeding pugs and beagles, which is a popular cross. Even a 'good' one is all wrong - you get a playful energetic animal which doesn't have the respiratory structure to do the things it's beagle nature wants it to. How can people think mutts are better? *shakes head*


Or the hunderds of poodle cross pups being sold as non-moulting who grow up to have the labs coat and shed tones.

Some breeders of labradoodles (lab/poodles) are now hip scoring, there breed mean score is 14, labs are 15 and standard poodles are 14 minpoodle are 13, the Utonagan (mal/husky/GSD) breed mean hipscore is 20, mals are 13, husky is 7, gsd is 19. Northern Inuit (mal/husky/gsd) breed mean is 16 and Tamaskan Dog (mal/husky/gsd/sledhusky/inuits) is lower at 11.

So the popular crossbreds who are being hipscored are not realy any lower and some are higher than the breeds who make them, with the excption of tamaskans being 8 lower then GSDs..


----------



## PPVallhunds

kellyt said:


> Did this program touch on anything with regards to temperament of what is being bred? That in my mind is another big issue when it comes to dog breeding far worse in many cases than inbreeding.


It basickly said that pedigree breeders and dog shows dont take temperment into account just looks. I guess they didnt notice that all breed standards have general charaterictis and temperment are the first two things mentioned.


----------



## Alex

I think that program was very biased to be honest. Not once did it interview someone who screens each dog they breed from in order to minimise the _chance_ of the litter being affected. 
Nonetheless, it was interesting and raised questions that need to be thought about and acted on. If programs like this actually change things, then that's all for the good. 
But surely it raises the question what purebred animal is next? I'd say rabbits, they'll focus on the lops for their ears and the netherland dwarves for their malocclusion. After that, who knows? Maybe pigeons, the African Owl often has to have its eggs 'fostered' as it's beak is too short to feed the chicks properly.
In my opinion some focus ought to be on the animals we use for our food - chicken breeds designed to make the chick grow like Jack's beanstalk are in all our supermarkets, they're sad birds to look at. And turkeys that grow so big that the cock would literally crush the hen so they have to be artificially inseminated? Now I love the taste of both chicken and turkey, and I buy organic chicken (but then it never states what breed the chicken is/was); however, I _know_ that the turkey for sale in the shops is likely hatched from an egg by a turkey hen that never even met the sire of the egg that became the chick that became the turkey that became my dinner. So, surely that's not ideal at all!
Rant over!!


----------



## WillowDragon

The misconception of 'hybrid vigour' to people who don't know any better is what started off the crossing of pedigree dogs to each other in the first place!!
People ignorantly think this will immediately make them healthy dogs when all it does generally is double the amount of problems the poor dogs have.

The KC should have worked to enlighten the general public on the purpose of responsible line breeding, not bloody banned it.


----------



## candycorn

This is truly scary. The countries need less government intervention not more. We are so surrounded by laws that soon the animal rights groups will get their way and there will be no more pets. Its disgusting. I fear America's animal rights groups will push for this now that the UK has done it. Truly scary.


----------



## Shadowrunner

Yep. The exotics thing is where it gets me especailly dearly.
No one cares when they outlaw foxes or wolves because no one really thinks of them as pets.
But then they use those laws to more easily encroach on normal pets, like parrots.

I'm biased. I've only had one dog myself and he's a wolfdog. Rydag has always been more sound than any dog I know.
My aunt had pugs and My grandmother had a bull terrier. The poor thing couldn't keep from running in cricles.
I think about the problems with purebreds more often because it has more documentation I think. That might be why other people jump straight to that too. Impulse buyers end up with crap deals most of the time anyway, if you did your research before buying , you could easily figure out some of the schemes.

Like when I decided to buy a wolf, I read up on it for two years. 
When it came time to choose a breeder, I could tell who was selling husky/gsd mixes and
who had actual F1,F2 and F3 dogs.


----------



## MoonfallTheFox

I personally think that there is good potential for some mixed breeds to have excellent health (my dog does!), and she also has a great temperament. However, she could just as easily been the opposite.

I think that when people breed any animal, health should be of primary concern. Designer breeds are silly. Breeds with major issues are sad. If out-crossing will help have better health in a breed, by all means, do it.

Also, my dog is a Labrador X heeler cross, as far as we can tell. That's what she looks like. She's calm, quiet, and a great house dog who is protective of her people. She doesn't get crazy if she isn't walked, but loves to go on long walks when we want to. She is a great dog. The people who adopted her (and then abused and neglected her) didn't know what that cute 6 month old puppy would grow into and it was luck (or the goodness of her heart) that made her the dog she is. Training too, of course. She was traumatized when we got her, and although she is well adjusted now she is still nervous about some things.


----------



## Serena

MoonfallTheFox said:


> If out-crossing will help have better health in a breed, by all means, do it.


I agree with you, but somehow many of the breeders seem to have a problem with that.
in the program they mentioned a breeder of dalmatians, who imported a dog from the USA to reintroduce a missing gene in the metabolism of Dalmatians, tha leads to the formation of bladder stones. They told that many breeders didn't want the "mutt" to be a registered damlatians (or at least Iremember it that way, only watched the program once), since it had another breed way back in it's pedigree, but looked like any other damlatian... that's silly if you ask me. Why not do sensible outcrosses, that don't compromise the look of the dog, but can be really benefitial for the overall health of the breed? it's just plain stupid not to do that because of the "fear" of mutts.

for the rest: I'm with Kallan on this issue. I have nothing against pedigree breeding, and inbreeding if done properly, but I have a huge issue with breeds with obvius health problems being bred. I really dislike brachycephalic dogs, that have literally no nose and the owner thinks it is normal for hem to snore ore faint when they can't get enough oxygen. :evil:


----------



## Shadowrunner

I bet you can't tell the resulting puppies from the "mutt" and the "pure" dally apart, except of course that it would lack the 
heath issue as a result of getting the gene back. Assuming both dogs were bred to a similar standard.
I remember hearing something about them being prone to deafness too but I might be wrong.

I know in cats you can't breed a scottish fold to another floppy eared scotty because the same gene that flops the ears can make babies with weak hearts. That and all folds originate from one barn cat that had the random mutation. A fold to a non fold has litter of babies with some ears standing and some ears flopping. I wonder why cats have issues when thier ears flop but dogs seem fine. Like basset hounds.


----------



## AyJay658

Wow this post has picked up! Popular issues I guess.

I may as well post my views! I have no problem with inbreeding if its done properly. And I have no problem with pedigree dogs that have no morphology problems and no high occurring health problems. I do however, have an enormous problem with brachycephalic breeds of dogs and cats, and breeds with high instances of extremely painful health problems. The opinions of people towards these problems makes me sick. How they can just think that it is normal for the breed and so nothing to worry about is shocking. And when people say a pugs snoring is endearing its just heartbreaking to think of their ignorance to the dogs suffering. Most of these dogs wont get any operations to correct what the breeding mucked up and that is sad. I don't think breeding pugs and other brachycephalic breeds to the current breed standards is acceptable. What would be acceptable would no longer be considered a pug but if that's what is required that is what should happen.


----------



## Rhasputin

it upsets me that my mom wants to breed her beagle, when she obviously has personality and health problems. She thinks she's 'very smart' and wants to breed more very smart beagles. What she doesn't seem to see if that her beagle snaps at cats, has problems being picked up, and has snorting problems (I don't know what from) where she gets exited and can't breathe. So you can't just breed her thinking you'll get smart beagles, because she'll also be breeding beagles with health problems. . . Some people just don't understand that. They see -one- good thing past all the bad things and push for it to be bred.


----------



## AyJay658

I am sorry. Its difficult when its a family member or someone close to you! The costs far outweigh the benefit of smarter dogs though. And as I am sure you know, noone needs to contribute to the stray dog population by adding more puppies! Are beagles generally good or bad temperament? I personally would love a dalmatian when I have my own place.


----------



## Rhasputin

She has a wonderful temperament as long as she isn't around the cats, and you don't pick her up. But the fact that she has those quirks, and then the snorting problem (there's a word for it, i just can't think of it at the moment) should be reason enough not to do it.

And she's mentioned the money it would bring her more than one time, which is very frustrating. She knows other people with '$500' beagles that she could breed Sally (our beagle) to. And I've tried to explain that, first those might be $500 mutts for all she know, and $500 does not automatically = healthy and show winning, and even IF they were top quality beagles (I am under the impression they're not) crossing them t our mutt beagle (she came from a yard sale for $50. . . ) will not produce high quality dogs that are worth $500 or anywhere close to it.


----------



## Shadowrunner

Plus, those 500$ animals might not actually be that much.
With parrots.. Even if the asking price is 400 the bird will most likely be sold for 175-250.
Just because the demand isn't that great and you need to sell it before it's too old.
The only people who have 500$ mutts are the ones who don't know how to haggle.
What does that imply?


----------



## Serena

If you want to do the job properly you also have to take into account the time and money you spend on this.
It costs to have a bitch inseminated, you have to take her to the check ups, you have to be prepared for complications during pregnancy and birth, and when the babies are there, you have to have them checked up, dewormed, vaccinated... 
It is certainly not a walk in the park, even if everything goes well.


----------



## PPVallhunds

AyJay658 said:


> I don't think breeding pugs and other brachycephalic breeds to the current breed standards is acceptable. What would be acceptable would no longer be considered a pug but if that's what is required that is what should happen.


I think it depends on what the standard wants. the UK one was changed in an atempt to make the noses better.
UK standard for head in pugs
"Head relatively large and in proportion to body, round, not apple-headed, with no indentation of skull. Muzzle relatively short, blunt, square, not upfaced. Nose black, fairly large with well open nostrils. Wrinkles on forehead clearly defined without exaggeration. Eyes or nose never adversely affected or obscured by over nose wrinkle. Pinched nostrils and heavy over nose wrinkle is unacceptable and should be heavily penalised."

so its after a dog with a short muzzle but not too short, without exeragated wrinkels and large open nostrels. But at the end of the day it depends on how the standard is interperated, my idea of short will be diffrent to others. What they need to do is give an actual length range so everyone will know who short is acceptable. A pug breeder i know of on another forum does a pug agility class, apperantly they have started doing displays and comeating in it and apperantly none of the pugs who attand snort or have trouble breathing.


----------



## AyJay658

Well they say that. But that's the problem. They keep giving the dogs with the shortest noses the first place so changing it hasn't seemed to have done much. The judges still want the same as before.


----------



## SarahC

WillowDragon said:


> Bulldogs make me angry, they are ridiculas, but it's not the poor dogs fault!
> 
> I know the KC changed the standards slightly, for the heads not to be so big, so females can actually give birth to thier own pups naturally. :roll:
> 
> W xx


you think the plight of all the healthy ,free whelping breeds is any better?The staffordshire bull terrier,my favorite breed is the most euthanised breed in the U.K,it's cousin ,the american pitbull terrier shares the same fate in the U.S.A.Also the most abused of breeds.Why?Because bull breeds are popular and those that can be easily bred due to their health and fitness often end up with the worst ,shortest life possible.Just another side to the coin that people conveniently forget.Incidently,bulldogs don't have birthing difficulties because the pups have big heads,it's because the bitches have a narrow pelvis,the pups get stuck at the shoulders.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... lNCxy-mG1g


----------



## SarahC

AyJay658 said:


> Well they say that. But that's the problem. They keep giving the dogs with the shortest noses the first place so changing it hasn't seemed to have done much. The judges still want the same as before.


in 26 years of keeping flat faced dogs I've never had one that had their quality of life spoilt or needed medical treatment for complications resulting from this feature.Spine problems from being manx or having a cork skrew tail are far more of an issue but of course those that have no genuine breed knowledge focus on the obvious.A long straight tail would be much more significant in improving the lot of bulldogs and similar breeds.


----------



## Serena

the problem with brachycephalic dogs with really short faces is, that the soft tissue is just too much. It's not reduces the same amount the bone structure is.
They often have very narrow nostrils, the conchae nasales are too big and the soft palate is too long and too thick.
This contributes to a high resistance when breathing, which can lead to several other problems e.g. megaoesophagus, tracheal collapse, just to name two.
the soft palate can even obstruct the airways completely and they just collapse. 
It is a serious problem, that has to be taken into consideration when breeding those breeds. It would be better to have slightly longer noses but less problems that need surgical intervention.


----------



## candycorn

To all those against brachycephalic dogs and whatnot...

Don't own one. Speak with your wallet. 
But don't put your values on my life and my dogs. 
I personally don't own any currently, and I don't breed. But it just drives me crazy how people feel there has to be a law to stop everything "they" are against personally. Keep your values. Enjoy your values...but keep them out of my life. 
Right now in the US there is a huge battle over the right to own exotic pets. It's a battle fighting in many states. It drives me batty that people use fear and ignorance of pets I keep to scare the populous into passing more laws to prevent ownership or breeding. Not a single person in the US has been killed by a boa constictor...but they are working very hard to ban their ownership and breeding. Many places have already banned the ownership of dogs such as pittbulls, staffies, rotties, and dobies. Dogs that can be perfectly wonderful pets that just happen to cause fear in some folks. 
So why should MY rights be controlled by the issues of others. 
Stay in your own household and keep out of mine thank you very much.

If we didn't breed dogs with unique qualities then we would still have wolves. Yes I beleive that many breeds have been damaged by breeders. GSDs are great examples. They have huge problems both physically and tempermentally....so I choose NOT to own one. I don't belive in banning their breeding....I believe that I don't wish to own one.

There are too many laws. Truly there are. American's rebelled against their government because of overtaxation and overly contolling laws, and they had FAR less taxes and laws than we have now. It's time to step up as a people (peacefully) and say no to over legislation. It's time to say enough...let us live our lives as we see fit beyond the basic morals we can all agree on. (murder = bad for example)
*gets off soapbox*

Nothing personal to anyone in this thread...it's just a topic that raises my hackles.


----------



## AyJay658

SarahC said:


> in 26 years of keeping flat faced dogs I've never had one that had their quality of life spoilt or needed medical treatment for complications resulting from this feature.Spine problems from being manx or having a cork skrew tail are far more of an issue but of course those that have no genuine breed knowledge focus on the obvious.A long straight tail would be much more significant in improving the lot of bulldogs and similar breeds.


Well I am studying BSc Hons Animal Behaviour and Welfare at university so I would not say I have no genuine breed knowledge. I have studied the conditions of plenty of pedigree dogs and I am aware there are many other ailments that dogs such as the pug (for the tail) and the GSD (for the hindquarters) have. I was focusing on the brachacyphalic dogs and talking about their problems breathing because that is what we were discussing at the time. Maybe you have been very lucky with the dogs you have owned but someone else said, it is due to not enough length in the snout but still the same amount of tissue. There is no denying this sort of dog has trouble with breathing, as well as other issues related to their individual breeds, and on welfare grounds it is cruel to promote it.

Candycorn I am sorry if it offends you but sometimes the law has to intervene and I am all for it when it is making a positive change to welfare. I do believe many breeds need to be outcrossed to other breeds to fix these problems or just make it illegal to breed such deformed animals.


----------



## Shadowrunner

I know where candycorn is coming from.
I have a wolfdog who is considered exotic, even though genetically he isn't very different from a 
domestic dog and behaves better than most. His life is constantly in peril because of the lawmakers who keep flip flopping on the matter.
I have a huge interest in fennec foxes which only weigh 3lbs at most when grown
and those are outlawed as well. Even goldfish and mice are considered exotic pets under the law here. 
They've been trying to sneak in a bill that will force someone to pay on a 1,000,000$ insurance plan for owning "exotics"
like the goldfish. It's really...scary for me as rydag's care taker and someone who wants birds.
It angers candy because she loves and keeps snakes, who are as tame as you can get.
When someone suggests a breed bad or limitation, I see the potential politicians will see to eat away at whats acceptable
until no one anywhere will be able to have even a cat or a dog. It sounds crazy but believe me I've seen it happen.
There's been a lot of micromanaging of people's lives from the government lately so your seeing the seepage.

I don't know about dogs because I've never had but the one..
But with birds, any defect disqualified your finch. Any bird who was dull or bleary eyed.
If the bird isn't in top condition, health wise you never win. Not even second place.
The standard for the species and variety is judged after health. Maybe that would help discourage 
breeders if it isn't already done like that now.


----------



## candycorn

> Candycorn I am sorry if it offends you but sometimes the law has to intervene and I am all for it when it is making a positive change to welfare. I do believe many breeds need to be out crossed to other breeds to fix these problems or just make it illegal to breed such deformed animals.


Here is the thing though. Who sets the limits? Because frankly MOST politicians can't tell a poodle from a golden-doodle. So at first we can almost all agree that breeding say...GSDs as we are now with their many problems is bad. So we ban it. Then someone pushes to ban bulldogs...cause they can't always breath well. Well then we can ban chihuahuas and itailan greyhounds...cause they shiver constantly because they must be cold. Well then we ban huskeys and chow chows...cause they are panting and are hot in the summer. It's inhumane to breed something that can't survive outside right? So now we have to ban dalmatians, cause well they are deaf and have skin problems sometimes. Oops...guess all the giant dogs need to be banned cause the poor things only live 5 to 9 years. Goodbye Great Danes and Irish Wolfhounds. Well dang...when you think about it...basset hounds and dachshunds have back problems...and some boxers have an under bite...and gosh guess what. There are no more dogs. 
Yep...the government banned them all. Because darn...they were "deformed".

We don't have an animal welfare degree here in America per-say...but it sounds like they feed you an awful lot of animal rights propaganda.

And the problem is...it's not just dogs. Pretty soon we are banning the breeding of any "deformed" animal. Draft horses with their weak feet, goldfish (who come in a huge variety of "freakishness"), even cattle and pigs....and gosh...MICE! Mice that are "deformed" by being too large, too big eared, too long furred...too something. Sure our mice are healthy now...but who is to say what defines a deformity.

Who controls the flood once you open the gates? The government doesn't exactly have a good track record of stopping when they get going. They also rarely give rights back that they take away.

Oh and to Shadow - Dog shows do disqualify unhealthy animals. A dull eye would have you removed from the show.


----------



## Frizzle

The way I've been interpreting this, would be to liken the extreme selection of the problem dogs to something like selecting for the waltzing syndrome in mice, or if breeding for giant ears caused liver failure (imaginary example). I've really enjoyed reading about the pugs and other health problems in dogs, and while I wouldn't say that breeding them is "wrong," the points made about breeding for a better respiratory system does sound good. My take away is not that banning the breeding of any one dog breed is bad, but that we should all be more selective in which individuals from the breed we breed/buy offspring from.

AJ: I found reading about the problems of the short snouted breeds interesting, I did not know that, and am appreciative of you sharing your knowledge with everyone.


----------



## SarahC

Serena said:


> . It would be better to have slightly longer noses but less problems that need surgical intervention.


this is common sense and alterations to breed standards to improve health where possible is good and if my dogs had a nose an inch or 2 longer and a tail to wag I'd be happy.For people to be jumping on the bandwagon,hysterical,vocal people is not good.My four bulldogs have had a long walk over the fields this morning,2 are middle aged at 7 years old,2 are 3 years old.They have not come back gasping for breath.In the time that I have walked them literally thousands of dogs across the UK and USA will have been destroyed,healthy dogs whose only crime is to be born and the thing that makes people sick is flat faced breeds?Perhaps a thread with an outcry against this might be called for,spare a thought for those dogs today all you campaigners.


----------



## SarahC

AyJay658 said:


> SarahC said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There is no denying this sort of dog has trouble with breathing, as well as other issues related to their individual breeds, and on welfare grounds it is cruel to promote it.
> .
Click to expand...

once again focusing on the flat face when the spine is more of an issue :?:No one is denying anything but in the scheme of mans abuse of dogs a flat face is pretty low on my list of outrages.


----------



## SarahC

candycorn said:


> So why should MY rights be controlled by the issues of others.
> Stay in your own household and keep out of mine thank you very much.


If you lived in this country you would not be allowed to own a pitbull.It's very rare for any breed to kill but common in many to bite or maim.However all these breeds are not banned.You know why that is.All the dogs on the banned list are commonly owned by people involved in organised crime and to ban them gives the police the excuse they need to raid houses where they would otherwise have no right just because there is a pitbull type on the premises.It may be a pup or a family pet but out will come the dog pole,it will be wrenched from it's family and sent to death row kennels where they can languish for years while owners battle often to no avail to get them back.I can't offer one of these unfortunates a home,they must die,the law says :evil: Not much of an outcry about this,no,the dogs have been demonised and lack the cute pet appeal.


----------



## Serena

candycorn said:


> If we didn't breed dogs with unique qualities then we would still have wolves. Yes I beleive that many breeds have been damaged by breeders. GSDs are great examples. They have huge problems both physically and tempermentally....so I choose NOT to own one. I don't belive in banning their breeding....I believe that I don't wish to own one.


I don't have the feeling anyone here wants to ban certain breeds. Certainly i don't want to. And I'm not for state-intervention.
It's just the extremes that worry me. I'm all in favor of educating people about possible health problems, healthchecking the dogs if it is possible, and using your common sense to say "well, maybe we should't breed for the really short noses/large skin folds/extremely long back, but moderate it a bit if it helps wellbeing of the animal". 
Banning breeds, or non-dangerous animals in general, is BS. Just breed healthy dogs that do not have severe problems because of their anatomy or because of genetic faults that can be eliminated. that's all I personally wish for.


----------



## Shadowrunner

I did mention I haven't been to dog shows, I just meant something like...
I don't know what I meant really, I was just guessing. But I didn't really think a sickly animal would win, 
but maybe one of a popular owner that had minor issues. Misplaced or broken feathers will disqualify a finch from showing.

I'm more alnog the mind set of education is power.
I know myself and my limits, so I know what breeds would match me and which ones don't.
It's not even just about the breed of dog people think is cutest and that's where you get an issue.
That and the people who think you can throw two animals together just because they love a certain trait.
If the general public knew as much about caring for thier animals, and the nasty details, they wouldn't be so willing to blindly follow whatever media 
frenzy happens next. I can only speak from personal experiance.

Rydag inspires fear in a lot of people for just resembling a wolf.
But the small percent that isn't frightend by him are instantly in love.
"I have a hound and you have a wolf, lets make puppies because I love woofs."
They don't understand what that would mean in reality.

When exactly did all these problems start cropping up in dogs?
It was my understanding that dog breeds exploded during the victorian era, so were the problems present
at the start?


----------



## AyJay658

Shadowrunner said:


> I don't know what I meant really, I was just guessing. But I didn't really think a sickly animal would win,


Any obvious health problems would get the animal disqualified, but what about the health problems that are considered normal for the breed? That is where the problem lies in my opinion. People have become normalized to seeing these dogs like this and so say it isn't a problem. I recently went to a conference and one of the researchers said that they handed out questionnaires to owners of brachacyphalic dogs and asked if their dog had any respiratory problems. A huge majority of the owners replied no...apart from being a pug/bulldog/other short nosed breed. And when the dogs were assessed, all the dogs whose owners had said that, had huge trouble breathing. Yes I am once again focusing on short nosed dogs. And yes I realize there are many other problems that many breeds can have. But this is just an example.

My point is that we should not be encouraging the breeding of such extremes of these breeds. If the longer nosed pugs breathe better, why aren't they selected for? If left to their own resources the shorter nosed, curlier tailed pugs that so often win shows would die out and evolution would take hold to restore the dogs to a fit state to survive. That is what bothers me. We are purposely selecting dogs which will suffer throughout their lives. And there is something wrong about that.


----------



## PPVallhunds

AyJay658 said:


> My point is that we should not be encouraging the breeding of such extremes of these breeds. If the longer nosed pugs breathe better, why aren't they selected for? If left to their own resources the shorter nosed, curlier tailed pugs that so often win shows would die out and evolution would take hold to restore the dogs to a fit state to survive. That is what bothers me. We are purposely selecting dogs which will suffer throughout their lives. And there is something wrong about that.


And thats what the KC is trying to change. They amended the breed standard to encourage people away form exegarations but they cant force people to breed a certain way. Its been said that only 1/3 of dogs are KC reg and out of that 5% are ever shown. Show dogs make up a small minority, many people who breed extream dogs are not breeders who show, look at all the adds for micro tea cup puppies, extreamly small dogs bred to get extreamly small pups none of these breeders are the caring ones they are people breeding there pets for money phocusing on what is in fashon and cute with no consideration to health. Now im not saying that there arnt show breeder who do breed exagerated dogs as there are but you cant tar the whole breed/breeders with the same brush.

The KC have made a list of high profile breeds who are at risk of exegrations and these breeds at champshows must be seen the the shows vet and declared to not suffering form an obvious health problem (eg breathing trouble, entropian ect) before the winning dogs can be declared best of bred. The KC has also apperantly been monitering judges and have been telling them not to pick exagerated dogs. These problems took tens of years to breed into the breeds and it will take years to fix. The person who made the program was going to have a section on GSD in this one but the person who was filmed for it said they were told they had to cut it out as it was running too long, they were going to say how they have started improving. I watched the westminister show onliine for the GSD and there was only 2 dogs that i could see that were walking on ther hocks and neither got placed, then i watched last years one and there were much more walking in there hocks.

The idea is that change will slowerly happen over each generation as less exagerated dogs win and people who want to show start going for that type, but again it depends no how the standard is interperated, some judges prefur the less exagerated dogs and some prefur the exagerated dogs, the same as some judges prefur one colour over another. This also wont effect the people breeding for money, only the puppy buying public will change that buy making sure they only buy there pups form breeder who dogs go for the exagerated dogs.

Have you seen this vedio but the KC about what there doing to help make change?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrWjVFKu ... r_embedded


----------



## PPVallhunds

Shadowrunner said:


> When exactly did all these problems start cropping up in dogs?
> It was my understanding that dog breeds exploded during the victorian era, so were the problems present
> at the start?


Depends on the breed realy, heres some old bulldogs and crufts BOB 2011 
1889









1893









1907









1910









1915









2011









One if old GSD, seems like they started sloping around the late 60s early 70s
http://www.aboutgermanshepherddog.com/g ... -evolution


----------



## SarahC

I think what makes me most angry in all this is that those that harp on about hybrid vigour are giving the backyard breeders license to breed all sorts of crosses just to make money but if anything is said they can now take the moral high ground and the public are duped.These people are killing the dogs on death row.Someone who wanted a pug would probably never have a cross from a pound but many of the people who settle for one of these expensive crosses might.Personally I would never bring another dog of any breed into this world with so many being killed and I most definately wouldn't buy a deliberately produced cross breed,we don't need any more breeds.


----------



## PPVallhunds

just watching the crufts judging, the shar pei looks realy good, it has wrinkels but is no where near as wrinkerly as many ive seen.
Ive hurd that some breed winners were stripped of there best of breed title but the show vet. so if its true looks like thinks are going to change. There was no peikanese or or bulldog came out in the group judging so i usume they didnt pass the vet check.

The Lhasa won the ulity group. My friend said that exact bitch was going to win the breed and the group and that lots of people in the breed said the same after seeing who the judges were. But she is apperantly a realy good lhasa but I wanted the shar pei to win.


----------



## Alex

I'm watching Crufts on TV at the minute; they're discussing the fact that all breed winners will now undergo an independent veterinary check. This is an interesting and welcome development; hopefully it will change things, although slowly. Progress is progress, no matter how slow it is, I suppose!


----------



## Frizzle

Ug, speaking of mix/designer mutts, just browsing Hoobly, there are morkie, shorkie, yorkyrussel, pomchi, chorchi, puggles, and doberdanes? I guess I wasn't aware of how prevalent this mixing was until this thread brought it up. Haven't heard of the doberdanes before.

Really cool about the vet checks!


----------



## PPVallhunds

Yep the bulldog and the pekinese faild there vet health check and were not allowed to go to the group. all champshows form now on will be the same for the 15 high profile breeds, winners must pass a health check with the vet. Its only the 15 high profile breed that have it done, would be good if it was doen for all breeds.

http://www.crufts.org.uk/news/high-prof ... hed-crufts
http://www.crufts.org.uk/news/bulldog-a ... vet-checks


----------



## Kallan

Really good news, not that the people who put all the work into the dogs are losing out. but that finally something is being done in reality rather than on paper.

Would really hate to have to be that vet though!


----------



## SarahC

Kallan said:


> Would really hate to have to be that vet though!


ha,ha.


----------



## PPVallhunds

Kallan said:


> Would really hate to have to be that vet though!


god no! i rember something a while ago where a handler was reported fot threatining a judge when they didnt give there dog the BOB. so for a dog to get the BOB and then the vets takes it away i bet the handlers/owners were less then impressed.


----------



## MoonfallTheFox

@ Conversation about exotics... if they make me insure my "exotics" I will be building an underground hideaway to keep them, so the government can't find them. I can't insure my mice, bird, etc- aside from being ridiculous, the cost of that would be insane!


----------



## Shadowrunner

I have actually started looking into immigration moonfall. 
I'm not even going to try to find a way around it if I can move somewhere else.
All of my family is from Ireland, all of Chris' is from Russia. We have some options.

How hard would it be to do some actual down to basics outcrossing?
With mice I know half wilds are really tempoermental and jumpy.
Rydag is more wolf than dog though and he behaves just fine.
Most do if they have capable owners that train them well. 
Most people are breeding them for demand as "exotics"
but what if a few people actually bred wolf into existing breeds in a attempt to
bring in more genes for the pool? It wouldn't keep them to standard at first, but it might be helpful
in cases of breeds that are extremely inbred. I'm not sure if it would carry the same risk as crossing two dog breeds.
The wolves in the wild have to survive, that would typically lead to solid genes only right? D:


----------



## Frizzle

Pretty sure that in the wild, there isn't as much inbreeding (the unplanned kind) that would express the unhealthy genes. Don't some animals have some ways of telling who they are related to? Not like, "OMG, you're my sister!" but the pheramons influence them to pick unrelated mates when the can. There was a little thing about how humans do this naturally, and that people who you dont' like the smell of have some of the similar genes as you. Aka, someone who smells good to you will help you make babies with a different/stronger/immune system/no recessive. Google, "Being attracted to someone's smell," i didn't know which one to click.


----------



## PPVallhunds

here in the uk you need a dangerous wild animals lienced to have a wolf or wolfdog f1 or f2. These can be hard to get and expensize and you would need a pupopse built enclouser, and yearly inspections to keep it (so i would asume no talking it out for walks as they are classes as dangerous) Acording to deffra there are roughtly 7 people in the uk with a lience for wolves and wolfdogs. So it wouldnt realy be pratical to cross wolf into dogs and as said by fizzle who knows what unhealty genes are hidden in wolves, where as with dog breeds there are many genetic tests to find diffrent conditions so it would still be more advisable to outcross to diffrent dog breeds rather then wolves, then you also have the temperment to consider, a wolfdog isnt going to suite most owners, people who own wolves and wolfdogs are allways saying its not an animal to be owned lightly.

In April KC started a plan to allow unregistered purebred dogs into the breed register, not sure how many will apply or be acepted based on they hassel the dalmation breeder had with her dal from the dal/pointer project.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3672/23/5/3


----------



## SarahC

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3 ... FL5Ju-CQhg


----------



## Shadowrunner

That video looks like a lot of excuses from the breeder. Even if the show caused the animal to show those signs, maybe she should have pulled her instead of pushing it. Then she could have come back the next year. *shrug*

PPvhallhunds-
I have a wolfdog, they need more tolerance and training. They are not a beginners dog, but I see no reason why
a experienced breeder would have trouble. Wilds don't express harmful genes, but couldn't you select against them like with mice?
Versus starting with all purebreds who could be potentially concentrated, even with tests wouldn't it be hard to find dogs with the least amount of problem genes? I'm just wondering at it, I'm not saying your wrong or anything.^ ^


----------



## Kallan

The Clumber spaniel has ectropion that is visible in almost all its photos - it's a congenital defect, most definitely not caused by the show!


----------



## candycorn

Kallan said:


> The Clumber spaniel has ectropion that is visible in almost all its photos - it's a congenital defect, most definitely not caused by the show!


 Does the standard of the breed allow ectropion in the UK? If it doesn't meet the standard then the judge does need to be held accountable for allowing the dog to win best of breed with a fault like that. 
Should we stop breeding dogs that have conditions like that. Yes. I am one of the lucky few with a Basset Hound who does NOT have the condition. And I do think that the dogs that do, should not be bred. But I still don't think there needs to be laws about it.


----------



## Shadowrunner

Hmmn. I wasn't aware. None of my dogs have ever had that issue. She was trying to blame the show conditions, which I though was strange.

That's a good question candycorn, I was wondering that too.


----------



## PPVallhunds

Shadowrunner said:


> That video looks like a lot of excuses from the breeder. Even if the show caused the animal to show those signs, maybe she should have pulled her instead of pushing it. Then she could have come back the next year. *shrug*
> 
> PPvhallhunds-
> I have a wolfdog, they need more tolerance and training. They are not a beginners dog, but I see no reason why
> a experienced breeder would have trouble. Wilds don't express harmful genes, but couldn't you select against them like with mice?
> Versus starting with all purebreds who could be potentially concentrated, even with tests wouldn't it be hard to find dogs with the least amount of problem genes? I'm just wondering at it, I'm not saying your wrong or anything.^ ^


I get what your getting at, and im not saying your wrong or anything either.  
But dont forget that the pups the breeder doesnt want to keep they will want to rehome, which could be harder to find an owner who could give a wolfdog what they need and Also not everyone would be able to afford or get the lience to keep the wolf or f1/f2 wolf dogs, some councils apperantly make it as hard and expensive as possible to get a DWA lience. i dont think selective breeding like with mice would go down well with the general public, with mice when someting bad pops up you just cull the effected and carrying mice, if dog breeders started doing that there would be a public outcry (like there was about the ridgbacks, and unacepted colours being culled) The only way to do it with out the need for culling would be using genetic testing which would get very expensive as you would have test the wolf/wolfdogs for praticaly everything otherwise you could end up breeding something in and that is if any problems are caused by the same genes as in dogs (PRA for example is caused by diffrent genes in diffrent breeds) At least with purebreds you know what tests to use as you know there common health problems where as with wolves it would be unknown.
Just my opyion


----------



## Shadowrunner

No that's true.
I have a bizarrely unbiased way of looking at it.
So I didn't even think about the public reaction, I mean you want healthy animals but you won't let us make em?
Meh. I guess people just relate to dogs more because they are so popular.
Your right about the surplus animals too. I had imagined a kennel where you'd keep most of the pups to begin with, but considering
how many generations you'd need, you would need to place some in homes.

It's not a easy problem to fix is it?


----------



## Wight Isle Stud

This Thread is exactly what gives inbreeding it worst possible reputation. I am gonna get shot at for this but, I really must say that any form of mating together two animals which will produce a known defect in those animals which will detract from their quality of life, like unable to breath properly- hip score etc,all those things Kallan said is just not being a responsible breeder. Simply the progeny suffers. Inbreeding practiced responsibly produces animals that are the epitome of health, and on the aGriculatural side, productivity. I do fear that the problem in dogs will take a long time to fix- at least a century probably, and the KC solution to the problem seems a little bit big brother as opposed to subjective, but its a start. Yes I am having an unusual rant for me, but Canarys that cant fly, numerous problems in the dog world and other examples across the livestock world, are not what I am about. And yes, to a degree, I am a hypocrite, my White/Silver /Satin mice would not survive in the wild, some of my mice at 12 " inches long would never make it to the skirting board before the cat got them, So my defense lies in a matter of degree.


----------



## MoonfallTheFox

Instead of culling (because of the public) with dogs, I would think that altering unbreedable dogs before selling them would make for a good solution, assuming they didn't have major health issues.


----------



## candycorn

MoonfallTheFox said:


> Instead of culling (because of the public) with dogs, I would think that altering unbreedable dogs before selling them would make for a good solution, assuming they didn't have major health issues.


But the problem here is that many vets believe that altering before 6 months hurts the dogs growth, so you would have breeders keep up to 10+ puppies over 6 months. That would make them super hard to sell (like it or not, people belive they need a puppy so it bonds with them properly), hard to keep around (can you imagine 10 six month old great dane pups underfoot!), and REALLY expensive, because then breeders would have to give all shots, all medications, all vet visits, the alter surgery, and try and cover food and general upkeep. It's hard enough for breeders now. No good breeders I have ever heard of Make Money on a litter...just as known of us mice breeders make any money on our hobby. 
So I think besides the contract that most non-show quality pups have now, there is not much else you can ask of breeders.


----------



## Laigaie

The cost-benefit analysis on altering those puppies is heavily weighted to the side of altering them as soon as possible, prior to re-homing them. Having everything included when you buy a puppy makes you look a lot more respectable as a breeder. I do not find this a hard thing to ask of a breeder. Every show-line "cull" pup we've bought (four at current) was spayed/neutered, got shots, got everything prior to pickup. Sure, nobody makes much money doing this, but when I'm already spending nearly two grand on a dog, I expect the breeder to have absolutely everything to give me the best dog.


----------

